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.

Mike unless you have access to rules we do not have access to we cannot be sure that your cards have the final rules reflected on them. Point costs could have changed for units and upgrades and we would have no idea without the official cards.

Triple9 wrote:
Got my box yesterday and had a chance to go through it today. I have to say I'm quite happy. The quality of the components seems very nice. Haven't had a chance to more than glance at the rulebook, but it doesn't give me the urge to open a vein. I've been let down by enough kickstarters in the last couple years to be pleasantky surprised when one far exceeds my (albeit low) expectations.

True, the models could have been simpler and less fiddly, but I'll take fiddly hard plastic over un-assembled restic. Some careful packing and I was able to get the contents including the KS wave 1 all into the main box. Some better assembly instructions would have been nice, but I'll survive.

With my current painting timetable, probably won't get to this until the new year. Need to psych myself up and finish painting Deadzone Wave 2 first.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spoke too soon about not wanting to open a vein from the rulebook. Force cards. Seriously, whose idea was making this the only way to build. Novel idea...How about assigning points to individual elements and then presenting recommended forces, y'know, like pretty much every other game.

I finally got mine as well and I'd put myself in the "satisfied" camp but the potential for more than that has long passed (along with frankly alot of the interest in actually assembling all these models beyond a token dozen or so). Some things that may have been covered:

1) They don't look as bad in person as some of the preview pics would indicate. A good example would be the "backpack" on the valkyrie. IMO it looks like utter garbage as a one piece no undercuts detail put right onto the back piece in the zoomed in preview pics. In person, it doesn't look bad. It doesn't look good mind you but it doesn't look half as bad in person at that size in your hand. I obviously haven't assembled any yet so can't comment on the mould lines at the moment.

2) The fiddly bits are REALLY fiddly and all over the place. There are so many ridiculously tiny pieces that will need clipping, trimming, gluing, and careful storage that I suspect many models with antenna and small protusions will be modelled with battle damage within a few games regardless of the care you take in using and storing them. By tiny, I mean like automatic lead pencil lead breaks off a tip when you feed too much at once through the tip tiny.

3) The production value on the book is leagues better than anything palladium has done recently or frankly ever (judging from the Robotech RPG books I got last year). It's nice to see them firmly step into the new millennium finally. I haven't taken the cards out of the packs/shrinkwrap yet so can't comment on them.

4) I've only got a blitzkrieg pledge and there are alot of minis. This isn't obviously a shock but it is jarring to see that many sprues for the first time. They're about average quality for modern plastic kits so you definitely get a good deal from a strictly consumer POV for the money spent on base pledges in this KS (depending on how much value you put on frustration during the intervening year's worth of delays, obfuscation, lies, and attempted backtracking of course). That amount of minis though is a bit daunting when you realize you have to paint and assemble them. That is obviously a 1st world minis gamer problem though.

Waiting...

Canada,
Showdown,

End of November?

Darn those complicated customs "free trade" documents...

Funny you mention battle damage Warboss. I had a glaug chin gun break on the sprue, and the one that didn't break somehow broke after I primed it even though I hadn't touched it. Needless to say It is now a battle casualty.

Anyone have any recommendations for foam trays?

I am considering these two storage options:

a) very soft foam, such as KR foam. I am guessing pluck? Unless KR has Robotech trays coming out.

b) magnetizing the bases and storing the figures upright in pizza-box style storage.

Anyone have a solution they're using right now that works?

 Swabby wrote:
Mike unless you have access to rules we do not have access to we cannot be sure that your cards have the final rules reflected on them. Point costs could have changed for units and upgrades and we would have no idea without the official cards.

I have access to all of the final versions of the cards. The information is correct barring typos on my part.

Palladium gave you the final version of the cards?

 Swabby wrote:
Palladium gave you the final version of the cards?

I know what is on them. I helped make a lot of the final corrections with the stats that they made just before going to print.

 judgedoug wrote:
Anyone have any recommendations for foam trays?

I am considering these two storage options:

a) very soft foam, such as KR foam. I am guessing pluck? Unless KR has Robotech trays coming out.

b) magnetizing the bases and storing the figures upright in pizza-box style storage.

Anyone have a solution they're using right now that works?

Rifle cases. Works for all my Battletech miniatures.
Plastic cheap kind.

 Mike1975 wrote:

 Swabby wrote:
Palladium gave you the final version of the cards?

I know what is on them. I helped make a lot of the final corrections with the stats that they made just before going to print.

Is there any possibility whatsoever that those cards were further edited before going to a printing press?

People are going to make modeling decisions based off the values on the cards and wayne stated there had been changes from all the information we have previously seen. Are you 100% sure?

 Jihadin wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:
Anyone have any recommendations for foam trays?

I am considering these two storage options:

a) very soft foam, such as KR foam. I am guessing pluck? Unless KR has Robotech trays coming out.

b) magnetizing the bases and storing the figures upright in pizza-box style storage.

Anyone have a solution they're using right now that works?

Rifle cases. Works for all my Battletech miniatures.
Plastic cheap kind.

I actually use the GW 36-hole foam trays for my Battletech mechs as they fit perfectly. Unfortunately the newer 40-hole foam trays from GW are slightly too small for Battletech mechs.

Also, Robotech mecha with their bases are on average larger than their Battletech counterparts and I'm also afraid of the cannons and such breaking from the pressures of a swing case closing on them.

So pluck foam is probably what I'll have to do... or magnetize. I'm just hoping someone with assembled Robotech figs can weight in?

 Swabby wrote:

 Mike1975 wrote:

 Swabby wrote:
Palladium gave you the final version of the cards?

I know what is on them. I helped make a lot of the final corrections with the stats that they made just before going to print.

Is there any possibility whatsoever that those cards were further edited before going to a printing press?

People are going to make modeling decisions based off the values on the cards and wayne stated there had been changes from all the information we have previously seen. Are you 100% sure?

Highly unlikely since I found more errors after they thought the cards had been completely vetted. As far as I know my 2 cents were the last input before printing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Besides, what kind of modeling decisions would change? I'm not following your thinking. If the stats have even one number off by one or the cost off by 5 points would that change anything?

Man... this is why they should have opened the rules to backer scrutiny forever ago.

 Mike1975 wrote:
Besides, what kind of modeling decisions would change? I'm not following your thinking. If the stats have even one number off by one or the cost off by 5 points would that change anything?

A list that a person wants to use right away goes from (say) 180 points to 185 points.
"But its only 5 points!" Who cares? The purpose of a points limit is that it's a limit.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Mike1975 wrote:
Besides, what kind of modeling decisions would change? I'm not following your thinking. If the stats have even one number off by one or the cost off by 5 points would that change anything?

A list that a person wants to use right away goes from (say) 180 points to 185 points.
"But its only 5 points!" Who cares? The purpose of a points limit is that it's a limit.

True but that has nothing to how you would model any individual figure. So the question remains.

You've got four different types of battle pods with different things stuck on them. How much modeling difference is there supposed to be between the Veritechs?

"If I put this upgrade on that model, I go over the points I agreed to use." or "I can't use these models in that combination in the points we agreed to use" or "I built my battle pods in the wrong assortment." That's what difference it makes to any individual model.

If you model your armies to have the equipment they actually have it means all the difference.

 Swabby wrote:
If you model your armies to have the equipment they actually have it means all the difference.

Ok, I can see that. Most people I know do not go to that detail since if you put medium missiles on a VT and then want to use Heavy Missiles we just state what has what for clarity. To some this can be a big deal. I usually don't play with those types of people thank goodness. Stats and points are good like I said, barring any typos on my part. Feel free to ask if you use them and have any questions.

WYSIWYG isn't something detestible or anything. If anything it should be admired when a player goes to those lengths in detailing their army.

It is at the very least a courtesy to your opponent, as they don't even have to ask you what equipment your units have if they can just see it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Either way I would be careful when claiming that your rules are legitimately official when we do not know for sure what was actually (or is going to be printed).

 Swabby wrote:
WYSIWYG isn't something detestible or anything. If anything it should be admired when a player goes to those lengths in detailing their army.

It is at the very least a courtesy to your opponent, as they don't even have to ask you what equipment your units have if they can just see it.

It's a courtesy with people who can and plan on buying enough to make very specific army. At least this is not 40k where army lists can change yearly. Modeling specific to what the unit has is not always possible with casual gamers but more of a concern with more die hard players. I do not see it as something to be admired unless it is when the same requirements are not pushed onto others, which is typically the case. I have seen that scenario way too often.

In some games it is a requirement for many formats.

A well built, well painted army that is equipped to fit its rules is something to be admired. I swear sometimes I think some of you guys are in a totally different hobby.

No, many of us play with more casual gamers who are more interested in having fun instead of people who consider themselves Die Hards.

Miniatures gaming has and always will have a few factions, the die hards that want specific armies made to reflect the actual units in toto, who are typically very concerned with the rules and are often very competitive. They also are typically but not always very strict on painted minis and # colors and more.

Then you have more casual gamers that are not as strict but who love to play and that is their primary consideration when buying in to a game. A game with them may often have a 180 point game per side where one player asks if they mind if he ups it to 185 and the other may agree and change something on their own forces instead of focusing in on 180 points.

Then you have the players that play rarely, love the game, and are in many ways the opposite of the die hards. They want to play because they like the universe and story. These are the first and foremost to be pushed away by some, but not all, of those in the Die Hard category. The ones that adamantly push the rare player to conform to their view of what a "real" player is.

Those are what I've seen as the 3 primary groups. There are shades and variations of each.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As a note, typically each group typically cannot understand how the others can enjoy the game in the way they play. The Rare and Die Hards are the most opposed and seem to conflict the most.

Mike, that is the most ill informed, stereotyping load of BS I have seen posted in this entire 244 page thread.

 Swabby wrote:
Mike, that is the most ill informed, stereotyping load of BS I have seen posted in this entire 244 page thread.

I dunno - remember that we have the PB updates in the thread as well. :-)

WYSIWYG is extremely important to everyone - or should be. It eliminates the chances of "accidental" cheating ("Oh, I though he had heavy missiles because that's what the mini has...") and is polite to your opponent ("What is that veritech again?")

Why limit to missiles? Why can't I just say "Oh, these two VFs are Supers but these other two that look exactly the same are normals." And have it be okay?

Nothing to do with "die hard" vs casual - it's simply polite.

That's... so very wrong.

These aren't mutually exclusive classes. But rather, 'stats' of how much something is important to you.

Stat1: 'Fluff Importance', ranging from 'none, it's an abstraction' to 'I must make sure every one of my guys is WSIWYG and has a name, backstory, follows 'historical' organization, etc.

Stat2: 'Modeling Importnace', ranging from 'I play with barely assembled models on bases and tokens, to 'Everything painted OK' to 'Everything as best painted as I can and modelled with conversions'

Stat3: 'Rules Importance', ranging from 'I dont understand or care I want to throw dice' to 'I want to play a well balanced game where the rules are clear and fair, while also having factional and gameplay diversity'.

---

There's people that fall in different places on the Rules, Fluff and Modeling stat-curve. But you can have a casual player who has beautifully painted, 'historically' accurate models, as well as a highly analytical competitive tourney player who loves trying to get the most out of beautifully painted, 'historically' accurate models.

 Swabby wrote:
WYSIWYG isn't something detestible or anything. If anything it should be admired when a player goes to those lengths in detailing their army.

It is at the very least a courtesy to your opponent, as they don't even have to ask you what equipment your units have if they can just see it.

+1

Nothing is as frustrating as asking "which medium missile models are heavy missiles again?" or "which models with flamers are actually plasma guns?" or "Is the baked bin can a landraider or a prdedator, I keep getting it mixed up with the pumpkin" or "oh crap I thought that was the one with the XXXXX, if i had known that i would have shot him instead"

WYSIWYG is a rule designed to enhance the enjoyment of games by removing complication.

Can you proxy models with friends to test them out before buying them? Sure, I do it myself.

Run proxy models game after game because you dont feel like changing them or run proxy models in a pickup game against a person you have never met before? Pretty poor form.

First, I'm not a hardcore WYSIWYG guy myself, but look at the forum we're on. It should be no surprise that such a thing is going to come up and range from a non-issue to flat out expected. The game and official tournament system may not require perfect modeling accuracy, but one shouldn't gak on people who are so inclined, as long as they're not being disrespectful to others about their inclinations.

I mean, I'm not going to magnetize itty bitty little missiles or VT heads, but the Spartan arms and Artillery Pods? Yeah, I'll probably do those, assuming my meager modeling skills can keep up.

Secondly; anyone who supports this game should be nothing but respectful of (at least personally aimed) WYSIWYG inclinations.

Why? Because those are people who will potentially spend hundreds or even thousands of dollars extra over the years to have those perfect combinations, as well as the time and effort that can go into magnetizing and otherwise modding figures to be as accurate as they can.

And finally, I find it somewhat funny that the game isn't WYSIWYG in terms of mech gear, and yet a figure crouching or jumping IS a huge game mechanics deal, in terms of LOS to and from the figure.

The rules don't force anyone to go full out with perfect option representation, but let's keep in mind the audience and PB's business model. "Ohh, I should buy 3 more VT squads to model them with different missiles" is the kind of thing people weep tears of joy to hear (minor hyperbole present), as long as that person doesn't turn around and try to give me gak because I took "gravity bombs" on a figure that isn't, in fact, modelled with "gravity bombs".

 Killionaire wrote:
That's... so very wrong.

These aren't mutually exclusive classes. But rather, 'stats' of how much something is important to you.

Stat1: 'Fluff Importance', ranging from 'none, it's an abstraction' to 'I must make sure every one of my guys is WSIWYG and has a name, backstory, follows 'historical' organization, etc.

Stat2: 'Modeling Importnace', ranging from 'I play with barely assembled models on bases and tokens, to 'Everything painted OK' to 'Everything as best painted as I can and modelled with conversions'

Stat3: 'Rules Importance', ranging from 'I dont understand or care I want to throw dice' to 'I want to play a well balanced game where the rules are clear and fair, while also having factional and gameplay diversity'.

---

There's people that fall in different places on the Rules, Fluff and Modeling stat-curve. But you can have a casual player who has beautifully painted, 'historically' accurate models, as well as a highly analytical competitive tourney player who loves trying to get the most out of beautifully painted, 'historically' accurate models.

I can agree with this. But people who have a high importance of #2 and look down on ALL others are a detriment to the game. I can see how people here won't see it but I do, have, and likely always will.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Forar wrote:
First, I'm not a hardcore WYSIWYG guy myself, but look at the forum we're on. It should be no surprise that such a thing is going to come up and range from a non-issue to flat out expected. The game and official tournament system may not require perfect modeling accuracy, but one shouldn't gak on people who are so inclined, as long as they're not being disrespectful to others about their inclinations.

I mean, I'm not going to magnetize itty bitty little missiles or VT heads, but the Spartan arms and Artillery Pods? Yeah, I'll probably do those, assuming my meager modeling skills can keep up.

Secondly; anyone who supports this game should be nothing but respectful of (at least personally aimed) WYSIWYG inclinations.

Why? Because those are people who will potentially spend hundreds or even thousands of dollars extra over the years to have those perfect combinations, as well as the time and effort that can go into magnetizing and otherwise modding figures to be as accurate as they can.

And finally, I find it somewhat funny that the game isn't WYSIWYG in terms of mech gear, and yet a figure crouching or jumping IS a huge game mechanics deal, in terms of LOS to and from the figure.

The rules don't force anyone to go full out with perfect option representation, but let's keep in mind the audience and PB's business model. "Ohh, I should buy 3 more VT squads to model them with different missiles" is the kind of thing people weep tears of joy to hear (minor hyperbole present), as long as that person doesn't turn around and try to give me gak because I took "gravity bombs" on a figure that isn't, in fact, modelled with "gravity bombs".

Agreed, people who hold WYSIWYG in utmost importance, more often then not, look down on all who do not hold the same standards, and in the end push potential players away. That's life, that fact, that's real. Note: I said more often then not, so there are exceptions. People with the same attitude as some here are more detrimental to the game than poor minis or anything else in the world.

Mike I think you are missing some really big points here.

WYSIWYG is not some elitist thing. It is a huge part of the hobby.

 Swabby wrote:
Mike, that is the most ill informed, stereotyping load of BS I have seen posted in this entire 244 page thread.

Considering this is a PB thread and considering their fans, I'd say get used to it