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.

While that picture is helpful, it is still a judgment call to say "the situation in this particular game is more like B than A." How does Infinity suggest resolving a dispute over such a call?

 Manchu wrote:
While that picture is helpful, it is still a judgment call to say "the situation in this particular game is more like B than A." How does Infinity suggest resolving a dispute over such a call?

That Infinity example is the exact problem I have with any "portion of a model" - whether it's "about a quarter" or "25%" or whatever - and immediately makes me never want to play Infinity, considering how dynamic their models are. It's the laziest of game design.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:

 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.

Well, I absolutely agree in that sense. Volume (Warmachine/Hordes) and Size (Starship Troopers) are effectively the same thing but require additional game-halting measurements. The goal is to simplify something to speed up gameplay whose net results over X amount of games would produce the same results (the TLOS-AnythingIsCover theory)

 Manchu wrote:

 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."

Six of one, half dozen of the other. 25% and "about a quarter" are - while slightly different - both being oddly specific in the sense of a rules abstraction. It is akin to playing a generic miniatures game such as 40k and then adding in a rule that there's a Tripping Chance for models that move a certain speed then they have to make additional rolls to see if they fall prone. Why? It's unnecessary at this level of scale and abstraction.

 Manchu wrote:

 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.

Absolutely, but we're still vaguely talking about sci fi tactical skirmish miniatures wargaming and we're not designing the Universal Miniatures Wargaming System (though both Starship Troopers and my homebrew ruleset take this into consideration without any modifiers)

And yes, giving a cover bonus is the same as having cover assumed as part of the game system (and adding a bonus for no cover); but when something is happening a majority of the time it should be part of the rules and not an exception. For example; if D&D all of a sudden decided to have a +2 modifier for fighting not underwater (and have no modifer for fighting underwater) - since it's not the norm, it makes more sense for the "not fighting underwater" to be part of the normal dice roll and having a separate penalty for fighting underwater.

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, the acting player rolls a D6 and on a roll of 4+ the target is within LOS.

That way the defender must call it and make the attacker roll. So if this is good, we can go back to Cover and I can catch up on what I missed from the last bunch of posts.

 judgedoug wrote:
The goal is to simplify something to speed up gameplay whose net results over X amount of games would produce the same results (the TLOS-AnythingIsCover theory)

I don't think speeding up gameplay is by itself necessarily a good thing. And I don't really get this notion about results averaging out over hundreds or thousands of games. That makes sense to me in terms of something like modified dice rolls but not in terms of whether models have cover.

 judgedoug wrote:
25% and "about a quarter" are - while slightly different - both being oddly specific in the sense of a rules abstraction.

Still no. "One quarter" is one of the most common abstractions in our culture, from time to money and everything in between.

 judgedoug wrote:
when something is happening a majority of the time it should be part of the rules and not an exception

Totally agreed. The hypothetical argument is that the assumed military training is accounted for by the bonus mechanic rather than the mechanic that determines whether the model qualifies for the bonus. The corresponding "exception" rule would be something like "Minmei does not receive a cover bonus even if she is obscured from the attacker's FOV by one quarter or more."

 judgedoug wrote:
That Infinity example is the exact problem I have with any "portion of a model" - whether it's "about a quarter" or "25%" or whatever - and immediately makes me never want to play Infinity, considering how dynamic their models are. It's the laziest of game design.

The dynamic of the model doesn't matter since Infinity uses a template model (cylinder, which was already discussed and determined won't be happening) to dispute anything with a dynamic model. The model itself for disputes doesn't matter at all.

"In game terms, all combatants occupy an unvarying volume on the table. This volume is cylinder-shaped, with its width determined by the base size and its height by the type of the trooper. Silhouette Templates are a game aid designed to help players determine the in-game volume and height of a trooper. If doubts about the volume of a trooper arise during a game, use the Silhouette Template to decide exactly what cylinder-shaped space it takes up on the game table."

Problem with the squadron idea is that in Tactics squadrons are not required to stay together. So you can split squadrons into single units or small squads. The advantage is flanking and getting to attack from multiple places during one's activation.


Dang quotes

Mike1975 wrote:
That way the defender must call it and make the attacker roll.

I don't think that is what the rule you wrote accomplishes. Let's take a look:

Mike1975 wrote:
If there is a dispute about whether the acting figure has LOS to the target, the acting player rolls a D6 and on a roll of 4+ the target is within LOS.

Just on its face, this rule allows the "acting player" (is this an established term?) to take a roll to get LOS when he otherwise might not have it. As I posted previously:

 Manchu wrote:
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.

 Dark Severance wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:
That Infinity example is the exact problem I have with any "portion of a model" - whether it's "about a quarter" or "25%" or whatever - and immediately makes me never want to play Infinity, considering how dynamic their models are. It's the laziest of game design.

The dynamic of the model doesn't matter since Infinity uses a template model (cylinder, which was already discussed and determined won't be happening) to dispute anything with a dynamic model. The model itself for disputes doesn't matter at all.

"In game terms, all combatants occupy an unvarying volume on the table. This volume is cylinder-shaped, with its width determined by the base size and its height by the type of the trooper. Silhouette Templates are a game aid designed to help players determine the in-game volume and height of a trooper. If doubts about the volume of a trooper arise during a game, use the Silhouette Template to decide exactly what cylinder-shaped space it takes up on the game table."

Problem is silhouette templates take time to take the mini away and check the height etc. In Robotech you have a lot of variation in unit heights and I doubt that big of a change will ever happen. Wording changes/clarifications are out best bet, rules changes are not.

 Dark Severance wrote:
The dynamic of the model doesn't matter since Infinity uses a template model (cylinder, which was already discussed and determined won't be happening) to dispute anything with a dynamic model. The model itself for disputes doesn't matter at all.

My question stands: how does Infinity suggest players resolve disputes over which cover diagram applies to a given situation in a game?

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, the player activating the squadron rolls a D6 and on a roll of 4+ the target is within LOS.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
like this?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
owner of the squadron? Trying to figure out best wording on that....

@Mike1975:

Upon reflection, I agree with Rigeld2 that there should be no mention of a dispute resolution mechanic at all, at least not right next to the LOS rule.

BUT since that is what we already have, I would argue the best mechanic/wording is:

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).

The rest of the LOS rule language we worked out earlier is:

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 if that line is not blocked by anything other than mecha from the same squadron as the acting mecha.

Although, after all this theoretical discussion about volumes, I am more convinced than ever that the published rule ("center of torso") is fine the way it is.

 Manchu wrote:
BUT since that is what we already have, I would argue the best mechanic/wording is:

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).

If we're changing the wording anyway, why not just remove it entirely?

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 if that line is not blocked by anything other than mecha from the same squadron as the acting mecha.

@rigeld2:

Given it is a FAQ, won't readers assume text not changed remains the same? So you would have to proactively write: disregard the part about disputes over LOS. Which would be dumb because it's already been explicitly pointed out in the published rulebook that this is an area where disputes could arise.

Ok, so we'll just take it out. That way people don't think they can say "no it isn't" at a tournament and have a 50/50 chance to taking advantage of the situation.

The official rules read like this


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Option A
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 if that line is not blocked by anything other than mecha from the same squadron as the acting mecha.


Option B
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 if that line is not 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, the player activating the squadron rolls a D6 and on a roll of 4+ the target is within LOS.

Mike1975 wrote:
If there is a dispute about whether the acting figure has LOS to the target, the acting player rolls a D6 and on a roll of 4+ the target is within LOS.

Mike1975 wrote:
If there is a dispute about whether the acting figure has LOS to the target, the player activating the squadron rolls a D6 and on a roll of 4+ the target is within LOS.

Who rolls the die is not really that important compared to who gets to determine if the die is rolled. But what you get at that point is LOS as permitted by the defender, which is no better (and arguably much worse).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mike1975 wrote:
The official rules read like this

Oh okay -- definitely do not include the dispute resolution thing IN ANY FORMAT. I thought it was already in there.

Yeah, just to clarify, it was something we added along the way

So this is the published LOS rule split into its two sentences:

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.

I really do not have any issues with the first sentence. The second sentence definitely needs FAQ as it is incorrect according to other rules. It should be:

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.

Mike1975 wrote:
Problem is silhouette templates take time to take the mini away and check the height etc. In Robotech you have a lot of variation in unit heights and I doubt that big of a change will ever happen. Wording changes/clarifications are out best bet, rules changes are not.

It doesn't take any time at all. The template is a flat template, you don't actually physically remove your figure to put a template and replace it. You simply place the template behind the character to determine LoS, cover is determined differently. In the case of Robotech and units, just make it double sided to match each unit type.

 Manchu wrote:
My question stands: how does Infinity suggest players resolve disputes over which cover diagram applies to a given situation in a game?

They don't use the cover diagram, that is only used for examples to explain the differences. I haven't been to a tournament outside of the store, but honestly there has never been a dispute over cover. In cases where it was questions, you use the template to determine if LoS is valid. Then we determine if there is cover. If LoS is valid, cover is determined by if the base of the model is in contact with the scenery. It is easier to show than explain, in case the video doesn't start in the right place (8m 23s) is where it should start.

I dislike the center to center because of the picture I posted earlier. But meh. I'm done trying to fix their gak rule system more than likely.

I'm on your side, I don't like the straight center to center but the body to body seems too much. Center from attacker to any part of the defender or vice versa?

"center" is just bad. It's too up for argument, unless they publish default poses and centers.

 Manchu wrote:

 Dark Severance wrote:
The dynamic of the model doesn't matter since Infinity uses a template model (cylinder, which was already discussed and determined won't be happening) to dispute anything with a dynamic model. The model itself for disputes doesn't matter at all.

My question stands: how does Infinity suggest players resolve disputes over which cover diagram applies to a given situation in a game?

To be blunt, Infinity tends to be a matter of "When you're in the desert, all water is precious" as far as cover is concerned, but dispute resolution is the responsibility of the people involved.

Infinity really has two criteria for cover (unless you can't see the target at all):
1. The target has to be in base contact with it.
2. The cover has to non-trivial. (So a 1mm tall rock isn't going to give cover to a 28mm tall figure...) The arbitrary threshhold for 2nd edition is "at least a third of the targeted model".
plus a few specific exceptions where cover's just flat out granted (like prone models on rooftops...)

That first qualification tends to be strict enough to cause people to treat cover as a precious commodity, and bias terrain creation away from the ambiguous cases (none of the official partners are going to make a 1/3" tall barricade...). Or, at least gets people asking "Is that stair railing solid enough to grant cover to regular models?"

rigeld2 wrote:
"center" is just bad. It's too up for argument

The trouble is "torso" is not that much better than "center of torso" or, put it another way, "center of torso" is not that much worse. I think this torso business, especially when you consider the term "hull" for nonhumanoid models, is trying to get at "center-of-volume."

Did anyone here really have the impression PB was ever committed to publishing rules geared to tournament play? That is not meant to be a rhetorical question.

 solkan wrote:
The arbitrary threshhold for 2nd edition is "at least a third of the targeted model".

So it is basically the same situation as RoboTech. (Minus base contact, of course, which I dunno how I feel about for mecha.)

 solkan wrote:
dispute resolution is the responsibility of the people involved

Again, same situation as RoboTech.

Are there a lot of complaints about Infinity being too loose for tournament play?

 Manchu wrote:
Did anyone here really have the impression PB was ever committed to publishing rules geared to tournament play?

I was under the impression they wanted it to succeed. And that they said:

"Tournament play support is planned. Ninja Division will help Palladium to develop and launch the program."
http://www.palladiumbooks.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=651:prepare-for-invasion

Well, it does not seem too far off from Infinity given the above, at least in terms of cover. The again, as JudgeDoug mentioned:

 judgedoug wrote:
That Infinity example is the exact problem I have with any "portion of a model" - whether it's "about a quarter" or "25%" or whatever - and immediately makes me never want to play Infinity, considering how dynamic their models are. It's the laziest of game design.

They have plans for tournament play, just not finalized rules for them yet. Having a solid FAQ on what is wrong is a first step in that process.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:
"center" is just bad. It's too up for argument, unless they publish default poses and centers.

I did suggest that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So.....center of attacker to any part of target? Gives you a cone and eliminates many of the flower or lamppost problems...

Mike1975 wrote:
They have plans for tournament play, just not finalized rules for them yet. Having a solid FAQ on what is wrong is a first step in that process.

Well, so far we have at least one thing that is wrong and actually NEEDS an FAQ, the part about friendly models in the same squad not blocking LOS.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mike1975 wrote:
So.....center of attacker to any part of target? Gives you a cone and eliminates many of the flower or lamppost problems...

Yeah good point, "center to any" does make sense from a purely FAQ perspective.

 Manchu wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:
The goal is to simplify something to speed up gameplay whose net results over X amount of games would produce the same results (the TLOS-AnythingIsCover theory)

I don't think speeding up gameplay is by itself necessarily a good thing. And I don't really get this notion about results averaging out over hundreds or thousands of games. That makes sense to me in terms of something like modified dice rolls but not in terms of whether models have cover.

We're way off the specific Robotech topic (other than my desire to just replace the LOS/cover system completely), but the main thrust of my argument is that if you are presented with multiple ways to design rules and, among the available options that all lead to the same end results (in this case, a LOS and cover system), to use the simplest, quickest, most argument-free system no matter how abstract it is (being we are playing an abstract game) so that you have a simpler, quicker, and argument-free game.

 Manchu wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:
25% and "about a quarter" are - while slightly different - both being oddly specific in the sense of a rules abstraction.

Still no. "One quarter" is one of the most common abstractions in our culture, from time to money and everything in between.

Yet you will have complaints over what construes "one quarter" when presented with situations such as tree branches, angled poles, mesh or grid work, etc. If we had an app on our phones that you could take a pic of the model from the direction of LOS and the program recognizes the silhouette of the model and calculates the percentage that is visible... but that is slow and cumbersome, so we must use our eyes and judgment... but how does one apply "one quarter" when the target is covered by some diagonal poles (like a // ) or industrial construction gridwork (like a # )? A battloid standing behind a door in a Zentraedi ship that has some bullet holes riddled in it and a vision slit at the top? Even in casual games when it comes down to killing a model on an objective or a game winning shot, it can be pretty annoying. Think about a Cyclops flying along - and it's long leg vane things are covered, is that about a quarter? Certainly more than a quarter of the rectangle outlining it's silhouette but certainly not more than a quarter of the area of only the silhouette, etc.

 Manchu wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:
when something is happening a majority of the time it should be part of the rules and not an exception

Totally agreed. The hypothetical argument is that the assumed military training is accounted for by the bonus mechanic rather than the mechanic that determines whether the model qualifies for the bonus. The corresponding "exception" rule would be something like "Minmei does not receive a cover bonus even if she is obscured from the attacker's FOV by one quarter or more."

The idea here being is that the system should be written in such a way that it is incorporated into the rules (in this instance, cover is always assumed) and a bonus to-hit given for not having the cover, as opposed to assuming no cover and a bonus to-not-be-hit added in. Short version: If a bonus is going to occur >50% of the time, it should be standard and not an exception.

But we're pretty much way off Robotech and I'd like to discuss this more outside of the thread as a lot of the concepts were used in SST and adapted for my ruleset.