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.

Rigeld2, please see my question above.

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".

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

Much better, good idea

Here's what we have:

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.

And potentially:

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).

Like this?

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 anything other than a mecha from the same squadron as the acting mecha, then the mecha 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).

Mike1975 wrote:
Like this?

Just about. In this clause,

other than a mecha from the same squadron

mecha should be plural. So:

other than mecha from the same squadron

I added "Not" to what you had.

If the line is NOT blocked by anything other than mecha from the same squadron as the acting mecha, then the acting model has LOS to the target.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Damn little Quick reply box

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 anything other than mecha from the same squadron as the acting mecha, then the mecha 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).

 Manchu wrote:
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)?

For the same reason we don't tell people how to roll dice. It's a given at this point (ignoring the fact that it shouldn't ever happen with well written rules).

I really, really, really hate the term mecha. It'd be better a figure or model....

Mike1975 wrote:
I added "Not" to what you had.

Right -- great catch! I wonder if it overburdens the sentence stylistically? Compare these two:

If the line is not blocked by anything other than mecha from the same squadron as the acting mecha, then the mecha has LOS to the target.

The acting mecha has LOS to its target unless that line is blocked by anything other than mecha from the same squadron as the acting mecha.

#2 I think is written better and easier to follow.

Okay now I am actually starting to prefer the list version:

The acting mecha has LOS to its target if that line is not blocked by terrain, enemy mecha, or friendly mecha from the same squadron as the acting mecha.

That is the clearest version IMO but I don't know if that list is exhaustive.

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). The acting mecha has LOS to its target unless that line is blocked by anything other than mecha from the same squadron as the acting mecha. 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:
just to put emphasis on same

That's my problem with a list - by definition it's exhaustive.
If they want to add something to that list it's more "difficult" to understand than just "Does it block the line? Is it a same-squadron mecha? Blocks LoS."

so clarity or brevity?

Split the difference?

The acting mecha has LOS to its target if that line is not blocked by anything other than mecha from the same squadron as the acting mecha.

How is the "everything but squadron mates" not clear?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:
Split the difference?

The acting mecha has LOS to its target if that line is not blocked by anything other than mecha from the same squadron as the acting mecha.

Like

 Manchu wrote:

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.

I feel both the 25% and the "approx 1/4" are both equally bad. As the mecha are not statues, and are in fact soldiers who are piloting robots and who'd also very much like to stay alive to enjoy their pineapple salads, one can safely assume they will not be specifically trying to get hit. The easiest cover rule is thus:

if ANY part of the model is obscured in ANY amount by ANYTHING, the unit gets cover. Literally, only if the model is in the dead open.

Deadzone does this effectively. Most simulation rulesets do this same thing. Our anime robot mecha are not monopose slow statues sliding around ponderously, they are nimble and constantly moving and are taking advantage of any cover available.

While I'm not really concerned with the eventual mechanics (as I don't intend to ever play the game), I think dispensing with the "both players roll off" and replacing it with "the attacker (or defender) rolls and on a 4+ (or a specified odd/even result), the attacker has LOS".

Rolling off results in at least one additional dice roll every time, and one sixth of the time (iterating) requires two more. There's no need to slow the game down for extra dice rolls unless you suspect your opponent is using biased dice, at which point you've got bigger problems.

 judgedoug wrote:
I feel both the 25% and the "approx 1/4" are both equally bad.

They are certainly not equally bad. The issue with using the 25% term is tempting TFG to argue that only 24% of my mecha is obscured from his mecha's FOV. But I understand that kind of abuse is not what you are talking about (although it has been discussed ITT).

 judgedoug wrote:
if ANY part of the model is obscured in ANY amount by ANYTHING, the unit gets cover. Literally, only if the model is in the dead open

This also entails modelling for advantage concerns.

 judgedoug wrote:
Our anime robot mecha are not monopose slow statues sliding around ponderously, they are nimble and constantly moving and are taking advantage of any cover available.

True BUT the miniature stands for where that dynamic unit might currently be at a given moment in time; hence the cylinder rule discussed above. Problem is, Mike has confirmed with PB that the cylinder rule is a No Go. So we would just have to house rule it.

Morgan Vening wrote:
replacing it with "the attacker (or defender) rolls and on a 4+ (or a specified odd/even result), the attacker has LOS"

This is less of a dispute resolution mechanic and more of a "tough shot" mechanic incentivizing the attacker to always take the roll. In other words, this transforms disputes about LOS into tough shots.

 Manchu wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:
I feel both the 25% and the "approx 1/4" are both equally bad.

They are certainly not equally bad. The issue with using 25% rule is tempting TFG to argue that only 24% of my mecha is obscured from his mecha's FOV. But I understand kind of abuse is not what you are talking about (although it has been discussed ITT).

There is need for rules to be as unambiguous as possible for pick up and play and tournament games. Not everyone is lucky enough to have a large gaming group of friendly gamers.

 Manchu wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:
if ANY part of the model is obscured in ANY amount by ANYTHING, the unit gets cover. Literally, only if the model is in the dead open

This also entails modelling for advantage concerns.

Modeling for advantage for the "anything is cover" rule - AKA Jumping Jacks - also now makes it easier to draw LOS on said model. Specifically, the "anything is cover" works when paired with "anything is LOS" as well. (TLOS)

 Manchu wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:
Our anime robot mecha are not monopose slow statues sliding around ponderously, they are nimble and constantly moving and are taking advantage of any cover available.

True BUT the miniature stands for where that dynamic unit might currently be at a given moment in time; hence the cylinder rule discussed above. Problem is, Mike has confirmed with PB that the cylinder rule is a No Go. So we would just have to house rule it.

Unfortunately it is not a dynamic system such as Starship Troopers. It's an I-go-you-go system, so it's already heavily abstracted. Why try to make realistic cover rules involving percentages and awkward line of sight rules? By it's very nature, the rules are already abstracted so there's no need to add pointless rules to slow the game down. "About 1/4 cover + LOS from center to torso" will slow the game down far more than "any cover at all + TLOS" with the net result being nearly identical when averaged over thousands of games.

 judgedoug wrote:
There is need for rules to be as unambiguous as possible for pick up and play and tournament games.

Every game depends upon the good will of the participants. Even so, I think "approximately 1/4" is actually less ambiguous than 25% unless the intent of the rule is really that a model only 24% obscured is not in cover.

 judgedoug wrote:
Modeling for advantage for the "anything is cover" rule - AKA Jumping Jacks - also now makes it easier to draw LOS on said model.

Again, it's important to keep the models at issue in mind. I am not concerned about Veritechs doing jumping jacks but I don't like the idea of a Veritech getting cover because the tip of its rifle is obscured.

 judgedoug wrote:
Why try to make realistic cover rules involving percentages and awkward line of sight rules?

Both of those rules are abstract rather than realistic. I think the point of both abstractions is to emphasize the 3D character of the game pieces.

 Manchu wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:
There is need for rules to be as unambiguous as possible for pick up and play and tournament games.

Every game depends upon the good will of the participants. Even so, I think "approximately 1/4" is actually less ambiguous than 25% unless the intent of the rule is really that a model only 24% obscured is not in cover.

"approx 1/4" is approximately 1% better than "25%" They are both a bit ridiculous. And of course every game depends upon the good will of the participants - but why depend _so heavily_ on the good will of the participants? Why not take the extra little bit of effort to make a rule that doesn't depend at all on anybody's good will?

 Manchu wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:
Modeling for advantage for the "anything is cover" rule - AKA Jumping Jacks - also now makes it easier to draw LOS on said model.

Again, it's important to keep the models at issue in mind. I am not concerned about Veritechs doing jumping jacks but I don't like the idea of a Veritech getting cover because the tip of its rifle is obscured.

You see, in my mind, there is no difference, because we are using abstracted toys to represent a vicious firefight. And what's to say that my shot didn't hit the area right where the tip of the GU-11 was, and just saved your GU-11 from exploding and cooking off all those 55mm rounds? By the same token - and with TLOS in play - I can fire at the tip of your gunpod even if it is the only thing visible, and you would get cover. If you model for advantage (tip of gunpod sticking out to get cover), it becomes a disadvantage as well (tip of gunpod sticking out is now targetable).

 Manchu wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:
Why try to make realistic cover rules involving percentages and awkward line of sight rules?

Both of those rules are abstract rather than realistic. I think the point of both abstractions is to emphasize the 3D character of the game pieces.

Absolutely both are abstract. That's my point. One is much, much faster and does not require the good will of the player; the other is awkward, slow, and cannot be relied upon in any competitive situation.

I can guarantee you that TLOS + Anything Is Cover plays faster than "center point LOS and approx 1/4 cover" and that the end results over dozens/hundreds of games will be the same.

The best way to account for the physical location of a dynamic object is to demarcate a volume in which it could be at a given moment in time. There is a positive correlation between (a) how much of the surface area of that volume facing the attacker is obscured from the attacker's FOV and (b) the likelihood that the dynamic object has cover against the attacker. For gaming purposes, we choose some threshold above which "likely" becomes "certain." That is, if X amount is obscured then the target has cover.

What is the effect of making that threshold X minimal? I think it is obviously easier, at least generally, to determine if any part of the target is obscured from the attacker's FOV than to determine if approximately 1/4 (for example) of the target is obscured from the attacker's FOV. Therefore, the "any portion" rule will probably generate less disputes. More importantly, however, considering a dispute will occur regardless in the absence of good will, there is a negative correlation between (a) threshold amount and (b) ease of obtaining cover bonuses. That is, minimal threshold implies maximum probability of cover.

This in turn makes tactical movement (that is, the choice about how to move safely) more forgiving. Indeed, using minimal threshold, the emphasis of terrain's effect on movement is a matter of LOS. Absent some other uncertainty (like random activation a la Bolt Action), LOS-focused movement amounts to a boring miniatures game IMO. At least hypothetically, setting the threshold to 25% strikes me as making obtaining cover a more significant tactical choice without being burdensome. I don't think the 25% threshold itself really slows things down, considering PB will apparently not consider using the volume approach and most of the models are vaguely humanoid (such that the rules can give the example of "one leg").

 judgedoug wrote:
["approx 1/4" is approximately 1% better than "25%" They are both a bit ridiculous. And of course every game depends upon the good will of the participants - but why depend _so heavily_ on the good will of the participants? Why not take the extra little bit of effort to make a rule that doesn't depend at all on anybody's good will?

Ultimately that is what everyone is trying to do with as little modification to the rules, make them less dependent on anybody's good will. Some think it is fine with a slight word change, while others think that it needs a lot more.

The biggest issue with using 1/4 or 25% is that it isn't defined clearly. It says 25% (a leg or more), so does that mean a arm with a rifle is not 25%, is that 24%? Is a full arm considered 25% or does it have to include part of the chest, where is the cutoff to part of the chest it has to include.

In games in a store most of this won't matter. They could simply just do the dice rule to resolve disputes, although I still hate that rule. It should be something that doesn't change just based on a die roll. In a tournament environment however it has to be clear or you need to have a judge staff that will always make the same call.

The cover rules should of really had partial cover and full cover, then that helps alleviate the issues between LoS, in cover and out in the open because there is a medium between them.

Distinguishing between full and partial cover still leaves you the question of how much of the model needs to be obscured (and whether the model is obscured) for partial cover, i.e., basically the same predicament.

The dice roll is helpful because both players can be confident in its impartiality. It's not that something changes based on the dice roll; it's just that a dispute is resolved.

 Manchu wrote:
The best way to account for the physical location of a dynamic object is to demarcate a volume in which it could be at a given moment in time. There is a positive correlation between (a) how much of the surface area of that volume facing the attacker is obscured from the attacker's FOV and (b) the likelihood that the dynamic object has cover against the attacker. For gaming purposes, we choose some threshold above which "likely" becomes "certain." That is, if X amount is obscured then the target has cover.

What is the effect of making that threshold X minimal? I think it is obviously easier, at least generally, to determine if any part of the target is obscured from the attacker's FOV than to determine if approximately 1/4 (for example) of the target is obscured from the attacker's FOV. Therefore, the "any portion" rule will probably generate less disputes. More importantly, however, considering a dispute will occur regardless in the absence of good will, there is a negative correlation between (a) threshold amount and (b) ease of obtaining cover bonuses. That is, minimal threshold implies maximum probability of cover.

This in turn makes tactical movement (that is, the choice about how to move safely) more forgiving. Indeed, using minimal threshold, the emphasis of terrain's effect on movement is a matter of LOS. Absent some other uncertainty (like random activation a la Bolt Action), LOS-focused movement amounts to a boring miniatures game IMO. At least hypothetically, setting the threshold to 25% strikes me as making obtaining cover a more significant tactical choice without being burdensome. I don't think the 25% threshold itself really slows things down, considering PB will apparently not consider using the volume approach and most of the models are vaguely humanoid (such that the rules can give the example of "one leg").

Volume is a good idea but still involves too much calculation (and volume was used in Starship Troopers, in terms of the Size stat, to give a 3D sphere of influence for determining engagement range, etc - and it's still the best ruleset ever written despite what I just said )

Much of our difference in opinion is due to a difference in what miniatures games are. You're approaching it from each turn being a "snapshot" of the battle, and a mecha's pose will be constant at every snapshot. I prefer to think of it much more abstractly: a battloid standing next to a building will be actively taking cover; one should not be measuring to see if his leg is roughly 25% covered; to me, the mecha has at least some cover so the battloid will be actively taking advantage of it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Warmachine uses a combination of this? In that volume is the only thing that matters, and as long as model is within 2" of terrain element, it can take the cover bonus?

Rules theory time:

aside: While this does not apply to Robotech as there are no units, I also believe in the "cloud" of a unit; for example, in say a squad based, platoon-to-company level miniatures game, the models in a squad are more of a representation of where the squad is located, the rough area where it is on the battlefield - more on how this concept works in a little bit... *

Now, back to cover, I also implicitly believe any ruleset involving guns and tactical maneouvering should include at it's core rules the fact that cover is all over the place, especially cover that we do not model but would be present, and the rules should in fact be giving bonuses to-hit if a model is demonstrably not within cover. This is actually how effectively Deadzone works, which delighted me greatly. *Tying back to my previous "unit cloud" example: as being a representation of where a squad is on the tabletop, if any models have cover, the unit counts as cover, as the soldiers themselves are not standing bolt upright waiting for incoming bullets. This ties into my belief that rules should assume models always benefit from cover and only give bonuses when caught flat-footed out in the open (if the whole unit cloud is out in the open, for example).
But again, this relies on the fundamental belief that our toy soldiers and the accompanying rules are abstractions and therefore the rules should represent that abstraction; in my mind it makes no sense to play a game that at it's core is an abstraction and then to apply oddly specific rules (such as 25% = cover).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
After a lot of my word vomit, let me put it this way -

Assumption : units/soldiers are at least vaguely trained in the tactical use of cover

The easiest way to deal with cover for a tactical modern/future combat game is to implicity include it within the mechanic for shooting, and only provide a bonus if a target is absolutely not within cover.

 judgedoug wrote:
You're approaching it from each turn being a "snapshot" of the battle, and a mecha's pose will be constant at every snapshot.

Perhaps but to a far more limited extent than you seem to think. I am assuming each turn represents an amount of time greater than one "photographic" instant. So it's not a snapshot but it is, so to speak, a very short clip. That is exactly why I advocate the volume approach; in acknowledgement of the dynamism of the simulated objects during the turn. That is to say, the volume represents where any portion of the object could be during that period of time. The mistake, I think, is to assume that every portion of the object has a uniform probability of being in every portion of the volume. The volume itself has a center, at which some portion of the object is mostly likely to be even while the object is moving.

 judgedoug wrote:
it makes no sense to play a game that at it's core is an abstraction and then to apply oddly specific rules (such as 25% = cover)

As I tried to explain earlier, 25% is not "oddly specific" in the slightest and only gives that impression when rendered numerically (and therefore evoking in some minds the 1% difference issue) as opposed to saying "about a quarter," which is clearly what is meant given the example of "one leg."

 judgedoug wrote:
Assumption : units/soldiers are at least vaguely trained in the tactical use of cover

One could argue that assumption is subsumed into the bonus cover gives rather than how easy it is to obtain the bonus. Either way, it only comes up when you have units in the game that explicitly aren't trained in the tactical use of cover, thereby defeating the assumption anyway.

 Manchu wrote:
Distinguishing between full and partial cover still leaves you the question of how much of the model needs to be obscured (and whether the model is obscured) for partial cover, i.e., basically the same predicament.

Partial cover is better than no cover. The difference is cover or no cover, which is why it makes it slightly more important. When the difference is full cover, partial cover, no cover then it makes it easier and less likely to be a sticky point. I get no cover because 24% of my mech is obscured... Yes I will definitely argue against that. Partial cover I may still argue against it but I am less likely because at least I'm getting some cover when the obvious intent is to gain cover.

 Manchu wrote:
The dice roll is helpful because both players can be confident in its impartiality. It's not that something changes based on the dice roll; it's just that a dispute is resolved.

That isn't impartiality, it is just relying on random luck. One game the same situation you are in cover, another game you aren't in cover dependent on the dice. For friendly casual games, sure it makes sense but for a tournament it is a horrible rule.

 Dark Severance wrote:
I get no cover because 24% of my mech is obscured... Yes I will definitely argue against that.

Me too, and I have been ITT for pages; of course, it's because I don't think that is what the rules intend and I think the proper intent can be phrased more clearly as "at least approximately a quarter." The question of relative location of objects in a miniature game, as opposed to a board game, does not yield precise answers.

 Dark Severance wrote:
That isn't impartiality, it is just relying on random luck.

You've made a distinction without a difference. But I get what you mean here:

 Dark Severance wrote:
One game the same situation you are in cover, another game you aren't in cover dependent on the dice. For friendly casual games, sure it makes sense but for a tournament it is a horrible rule.

The trouble is you are assuming there is some objective truth to the relative location of the miniatures and the terrain. As JudgeDoug and I have been discussing, this is simply false because the models at best represent where the models could be in a given moment. It is therefore impossible to say that two games necessarily represent the exact same situation.

 judgedoug wrote:
In that volume is the only thing that matters, and as long as model is within 2" of terrain element, it can take the cover bonus?

2" is fairly long distance of terrain. Infinity requires the model to be in base contact with the scenery to gain cover modifiers, which works out well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:
Me too, and I have been ITT for pages; of course, it's because I don't think that is what the rules intend and I think the proper intent can be phrased more clearly as "at least approximately a quarter."

The % wouldn't actually be so bad if they properly had images to give proper examples. Leaving it up to the players to decide the % is horrible. For example Infinity has this type of example: