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.

... am I the only one whose eyes started glazing over while reading that?

Well, it is 100% Palladium writing, so what did you expect?

Made my mouth water just reading about the detail in those rules.

Blast weapons rule this game with that rule.

So let me get this straight:

Group all missiles under one attack: each model under the blast get a chance to shoot down the 'one' attack.
If we split the missiles as separate attacks: each model under the blast gets a chance to shoot down 'each' attack.

Is it just me, or for the sake of gameplay I would do one big attack?
Why is my mind boggling trying to figure out which method is better for chances to hit?

I suppose, as individual attacks there would be a higher chance of sucking out command points dodging or rolling with impact.
<jazzhands!!!>

Imo the only way to go is missiles at seperate targets. I have to reread the ground targetting rule but I think it might be more of an advantage to target a point on the ground instead of the actual target as well.

Here my 2 cents

So to review this a bit more....

Option 1: basically you fire all at one spot, add the damage like one super missile. If you miss they all miss/deviate. If you hit they all hit. If a unit is hit it only pays one CP to attempt to dodge.

Bad: All or nothing to hit.....
Bad: The present rules make deviated shots basically a given to dodge since you need to roll at 1-3 to miss since you only need to hit a DF of 5.
Good: Die rolling iis minimized.

Option 2: basically split up the missiles 1/4 inch apart or more. Roll at attack die for each missile.

Very Very Bad: Defender needs to roll against every single missile with AM. If Defender has no AM or wishes to dodge, he must pay one command point PER UNIT and PER DODGE attempt in order to dodge the missile.
Bad: Misses are again too easy to dodge.

FIX: 1. Each salvo declares location of center of blast and marks it on the table.
2. For each missile roll to strike
3. Deviated shots are moved to new locations
4. Under each individual blast roll for Anti-Missile, remove if successful.
5. Working from one end/blast marker to the other, If a unit wishes to dodge and is covered by multiple blast it will only pay one command point and make one dodge roll attempt. If successful at dodging a few of the blasts the other blasts will hit normally. So if one missile hits with a 7, one with a 6 and one with a 5 and you roll a 6 total to dodge (adding in PIL), then only the blast with the result of a 7 strikes the target.
6. Once all the units under one blast marker have been taken care of (AM/Dodge/Roll)remove the marker from the table and move to the next blast marker.
7. Any missiles that missed and deviate count as if they have hit the ground with a DF of 5. So deviated blast missiles are not automatically dodged but AM and other functions are repeated as normal.
8. Units with cover between them and the center of the blast will get the cover bonus.
9. Blasts that roll a high enough DF to hit some targets under the blast radius but not all, such as A Glaug (DF 7) and a Glauf (DF 6) only strike the targets that they roll high enough to meet or exceed the DF for. The reason is that some units like the MAC II and the Glaug have higher DF to represent thicker and harder to penetrate armor. So a Monster will need to be struck with a high enough strike roll as to penetrate the armor. Example is a Monster surrounded by Defenders. The Blast may well strike the target zone but not have the ability to damage the Monster but still damage the Defender.

This reduces the total amount of command points a defender burns when attacked by blast missiles to a more reasonable level. This also increases the effectiveness of missiles that deviate from their target.

The attached picture is also an option for just straight out Anti-Missile

We're getting into GW levels of rules... I thought this was supposed to be a simple, quick rules set?

rigeld2 wrote:
We're getting into GW levels of rules... I thought this was supposed to be a simple, quick rules set?

As with anything it's a balance as to how realistic you feel the rules should be vs how playable. Hence the reason Starfleet Battles eventually came out with the Commander and so many other versions that kept the flavor but made great strides in simplifying things.

rigeld2 wrote:
We're getting into GW levels of rules... I thought this was supposed to be a simple, quick rules set?

You're new here, aren't you.

Go pick up the RIFTS book, and you'll see where things are headed.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
We're getting into GW levels of rules... I thought this was supposed to be a simple, quick rules set?

You're new here, aren't you.
Go pick up the RIFTS book, and you'll see where things are headed.

As long as we don't have to make a character...
I wish spreadsheets were around when Rifts first came out; you did not cry because your character died, it was because you had to make a new one.

The rules have struck me as pretty one dimensional, if only because of how ungodly strong missiles are. And how everything has a half dozen.

Every single game I've played is round 1: All forces advance, take cover where possible, and fire as many missiles as possible. Both sides lose half their models.

Round 2: Remaining half fire all their missiles again. Less missles than before, as you've dumped your low-ammo racks. Forces reduced to a third of starting

Round 3: Whatever's left fires their last missiles (Valks have 3 turns of missiles), Maybe somebody without missiles shoots a gun or something, but nobody cares.

Round 4: Like, 1/5th of what's left of either force shoots, clubs or kicks each other to death.

Meh.

It's like Palladium decided D&D was popular due to the complexity and tailoring, and then decided that constantly adding MOAR of everything to everything would "improve" it and make their world "better". Not so much.

I can't wait for the "final" force creation rules, because you just know they'll be more and more RIFTS-like with more and more options and specials to add.
____

 Killionaire wrote:
Every single game I've played is

Round 1: All forces advance, take cover where possible, and fire as many missiles as possible. Both sides lose half their models.

Round 2: Remaining half fire all their missiles again. Less missles than before, as you've dumped your low-ammo racks. Forces reduced to a third of starting

Round 3: Whatever's left fires their last missiles (Valks have 3 turns of missiles), Maybe somebody without missiles shoots a gun or something, but nobody cares.

Round 4: Like, 1/5th of what's left of either force shoots, clubs or kicks each other to death.

OK, how is that not like the anime?

If I wanted a game to be exactly like the anime, I'd sing a pop song and win instantly.

It's just so dull. We have a lot of gamers with good experience in modern minis games, spanning the range from complex to beer-and-pretzels, but well. RTT in how we've played it has less tactical depth than even 40k, and that's saying something.

Walking forward and spamming missiles (cover barely matters as a modifier), occasionally halving damage with a CP just doesn't make a fun game.

 Killionaire wrote:
If I wanted a game to be exactly like the anime, I'd sing a pop song and win instantly.

It's just so dull. We have a lot of gamers with good experience in modern minis games, spanning the range from complex to beer-and-pretzels, but well. RTT in how we've played it has less tactical depth than even 40k, and that's saying something.

Walking forward and spamming missiles (cover barely matters as a modifier), occasionally halving damage with a CP just doesn't make a fun game.

Making wargamers sing verses of a girly pop song for bonuses would be a great mechanic.

To be fair, 40k has more than 2 factions and far more units per faction.

I swear, if I ever get around to making my WW I simulation game, RRT will look totally dynamic... Good turn? A unit advances 3" on the board with only 20% losses. Bad turn? Unit takes 50% casualties due to exposure and disease. After turn 7, tally points to see which side lost less.

 Killionaire wrote:
If I wanted a game to be exactly like the anime, I'd sing a pop song and win instantly.

Given most gamers' vocal talents (gleaned from two post game drunken kareoke nights), you would win. My first instinct would be to



and then I'd walk away and concede.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Killionaire wrote:
The rules have struck me as pretty one dimensional, if only because of how ungodly strong missiles are. And how everything has a half dozen.

Every single game I've played is round 1: All forces advance, take cover where possible, and fire as many missiles as possible. Both sides lose half their models.

Round 2: Remaining half fire all their missiles again. Less missles than before, as you've dumped your low-ammo racks. Forces reduced to a third of starting

Round 3: Whatever's left fires their last missiles (Valks have 3 turns of missiles), Maybe somebody without missiles shoots a gun or something, but nobody cares.

Round 4: Like, 1/5th of what's left of either force shoots, clubs or kicks each other to death.

Meh.

Do you play with destructible cover? Does that help or not matter at all? The missiles did seem concerning to me but the fact that almost everyone had anti-missile systems seemed to dissipate that fear for me personally at least in theory (haven't played yet).

 warboss wrote:

 Killionaire wrote:
If I wanted a game to be exactly like the anime, I'd sing a pop song and win instantly.

Given most gamers' vocal talents (gleaned from two post game drunken kareoke nights), you would win. My first instinct would be to



and then I'd walk away and concede.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Killionaire wrote:
The rules have struck me as pretty one dimensional, if only because of how ungodly strong missiles are. And how everything has a half dozen.

Every single game I've played is round 1: All forces advance, take cover where possible, and fire as many missiles as possible. Both sides lose half their models.

Round 2: Remaining half fire all their missiles again. Less missles than before, as you've dumped your low-ammo racks. Forces reduced to a third of starting

Round 3: Whatever's left fires their last missiles (Valks have 3 turns of missiles), Maybe somebody without missiles shoots a gun or something, but nobody cares.

Round 4: Like, 1/5th of what's left of either force shoots, clubs or kicks each other to death.

Meh.

Do you play with destructible cover? Does that help or not matter at all? The missiles did seem concerning to me but the fact that almost everyone had anti-missile systems seemed to dissipate that fear for me personally at least in theory (haven't played yet).

No destructable cover. So that should actually be to the benefit of the defender, but it's not really.

Almost every unit in the whole game is destroyed if two standard sized missiles hit it. And everything fires between 4 to 8 missiles in a volley. The roll to hit is not hard, since it's just a base gunnery + dice trying to meet a defense value. Usually, it's a 3+ or 4+ to hit, which isn't hard.
To shoot down a missile, with an anti-missile system, you're rolling a 5+, and forgoing dodging.

This means that at any given time, if I decided to 'merely' have my Valkyrie fire 4 missiles, 2 each on 2 enemy Valkyries, 3+ to hit and them electing to use 5+ Anti-missile, it's trivial. Each has a 43 percent chance of being destroyed. Both have a ~20 percent chance of being destroyed.
And that's just one missile system. Stuff like the Tomahawk have more.

Meanwhile, it takes a bare minimum of 3 gunpod attacks to destroy the same target, in which the target has a dodge chance too. So between three attacks, I have probably around a 10 percent chance of killing a single target.

---

tldr; Anti-missile sucks since you're just banking on a roll of 5+ to 'not die', vs units that can fire multiple missiles. Also, since gun attacks can be dodged, those suck worse.

You don't roll AM vs each individual missile but against the entire volley. If you are hit by 1 or 12 missiles you still need a 5 or 6 to shoot them down. If you have missiles that you can use in an anti-missile role that becomes a 4+.

In the cartoon OTOH Rick and Max and other better pilots would have an even greater chance of shooting the missiles down. That is why I proposed the optional anti-missile rules shown in the attached picture in the post above.

Adding the PIL skill improves the pilots chance of avoiding missile fire. Most units have a PIL of 2, even Regults. MPA, FPA, Glaugs, Destroid Commanders, VF-1J and VF-1S, basically all the command level units have a higher chance of shooting down missiles.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
A big advantage of the GU-11 is that the Battloid has a GUN of +1 in Battloid over the other modes making the shots harder to dodge and they cannot be shot down like missiles.

I know that's how anti-missile works. It still sucks. Because if I scatter missiles across 4 targets, and expect it to kill on a hit, I've still killed 3 targets despite anti-missile.

+1 GUN for the gunpod is not a good advantage. That thing does 5 damage as my shot. A missile volley is better, since it can do up to 36. And it can do that for three turns in a row. Why would I go to battleloid, when I could stay in Guardian, with it's defense bonus, and spamming missiles instead of relying on a gun that does an eighth the damage?

Unfortunately, gunpod bullets that 'cannot be shot down' are not an advantage, since you can still dodge those.

Really, the game's rules are flawed quite deeply. The core mechanics can work, but the numbers for all probabilities are seriously off. No serious game design thought went into how they'd end up, and you get utter rubbish.

Look at hero units, and especially importing your custom character. So a guy with minor upgrades is 120+ points? WTF?

Really, Missiles needed a serious counter. Perhaps they need a command point to fire, or something, or suffer extra-hard against cover, or can be both shot down and dodged at the same time (instead of just one or the other). But they dominate all games I've played.

Anyway, game's DOA in both North and South California in three stores I've been at due to horrid rules.

 Killionaire wrote:
I know that's how anti-missile works. It still sucks. Because if I scatter missiles across 4 targets, and expect it to kill on a hit, I've still killed 3 targets despite anti-missile.

+1 GUN for the gunpod is not a good advantage. That thing does 5 damage as my shot. A missile volley is better, since it can do up to 36. And it can do that for three turns in a row. Why would I go to battleloid, when I could stay in Guardian, with it's defense bonus, and spamming missiles instead of relying on a gun that does an eighth the damage?

Unfortunately, gunpod bullets that 'cannot be shot down' are not an advantage, since you can still dodge those.

Really, the game's rules are flawed quite deeply. The core mechanics can work, but the numbers for all probabilities are seriously off. No serious game design thought went into how they'd end up, and you get utter rubbish.

Look at hero units, and especially importing your custom character. So a guy with minor upgrades is 120+ points? WTF?

Really, Missiles needed a serious counter. Perhaps they need a command point to fire, or something, or suffer extra-hard against cover, or can be both shot down and dodged at the same time (instead of just one or the other). But they dominate all games I've played.

Anyway, game's DOA in both North and South California in three stores I've been at due to horrid rules.

LOL, Horrid rules from people who have barely played? I'm worried.... The vast majority of all the games posted up on the facebook page have been the total opposite of what you say. Most people enjoy the fast play style and the tactical variability with command points and alternating activations.

So 1. Volley limits you to spreading out missiles to targets within LOS and also 2 inches from the primary target.
2. That means typically you are talking 3 targets at best.
3. There is a 1 in 3 to shoot down the missile using AM. That means likely only 2 get slammed.
4. Pods can Roll or share damage, this ensures that they can survive a hit by a medium missile.
5. Pods are only worth 1/4 what a VT is worth. If you are in missile range they can activate and get into range and fire back.

1. The GU-11 is VERY useful. At first I played as you do, spamming with Guardian mode.
2. Get the VT into Cover.
3. Not being able to get shot down is no biggie since you can still dodge is only half the story. To dodge you have to meet or exceed the attack roll. So a VF-1A has a GN of 3 in Battloid. That increased GN means that the shot is harder to dodge. The player only needs a 3+ to strike and not a 4+ as with missiles in the other modes. If he hits the Pod will have a harder chance of dodging. So easier to hit and harder to dodge than missiles.
4. Once I started using VT's that way it can make a big difference.

Again, changing AM and making it easier to shoot down missiles is something I'm all for. Adding the PIL of the defender to the roll makes it much more realistic in my mind and matches the cartoon better.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and AP's to build characters are NOT the same as in game points. I hate that system too and redid it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also you do realize there is a Northern California RRT Gamers Facebook page right?


https://www.facebook.com/groups/738968756178644/

 Mike1975 wrote:

LOL, Horrid rules from people who have barely played? I'm worried....

You just described most products from palladium for the past 2 decades. The megairony is so thick you can cut it with a vibroblade!

 warboss wrote:

 Mike1975 wrote:

LOL, Horrid rules from people who have barely played? I'm worried....

You just described most products from palladium for the past 2 decades. The megairony is so thick you can cut it with a vibroblade!

The RPG system is not that bad. Better than others I have played. The main problem is that they are way freaking screwed up. You have to look at 20 different pages and you have to have an experienced players to tell you how and what works together. If the rules were re-organized with examples they would be twice as playable. I've made quite a few characters and that is the biggest PITA. If they redid that the game's popularity could improve. Sadly they refuse to do so.

As someone that has extensively played Rifts (mixed with Nightbane, Robotech, System Failure, Heroes Unlimited, PFRPG and others), the baseline rules aren't great. As in, objectively, they are often unclear, contradictory, and are often at odds (mechanically) with the setting they are presented in.

Yes, there are absolutely worse games (and 'games', yes F.A.T.A.L., I'm looking at you) out there, but my group eventually had a document multiple pages long that was maintained to keep track of all the clarifications, tweaks and modifications we found necessary, not just to meet our general needs for the game, but to keep things clear.

And then there was the Initiative Tracker. That thing was a work of art, and yet not for the faint of heart.

The setting is plenty fun, and my group had a blast with it until we picked up 3E/4E D&D, but it wasn't without stumbling points.

Not to dispute that you might have found it plenty workable. On the PB Forums there are certainly others who think it's the best thing since sliced bread, but this is something that unlike RRT, I have played the gak out of and can speak from extensive experience on. Experiences may vary, but man, those were an interesting 6-7 years, and we really put that system through the wringer, from lower powered adventures to committing justifiable genocide. Twice.

What Forar said, If it was not for Robotech I would have never bought the first book. I do like the way the Fantasy RPG did magic vs D and D and spell memorization though. TMNT was also fun.

 Mike1975 wrote:


The RPG system is not that bad. Better than others I have played. The main problem is that they are way freaking screwed up.

[yoda voice] Conflict in you, I sense... [/yoda voice]

The RPG mechanically was the worst that I've personally played that is still in production and supported. YMMV. It was a slightly improved version of D&D 2e which I also disliked with a passion for it's bolt on we thought of this at the last second and threw it in feel. YMMV. Regardless, we played despite the inconsistencies, confusion, and conflicting rules because of two main reasons for a decade:

1) We didn't know any better. It was our high school group's first RPG and one of the few that supported all our interests at least in some mechanical way (albeit a dysfunctional way). None of us had played anything else and the GM's only experience was looking through his older brother's 1980's GURPS books occasionally.

2) We liked the setting and the art. Even though one guy was an ubertrekkie with a phaser as his main weapon, I wanted to start with a veritech pilot character, and another later character played was totally-not-buffy-the-vampire-slayer, there were still plenty of characters from within the IP.

The rules were what hindered our fun, not enhanced it... but it worked for a time until slowly most of us found rules we actually liked more and the monthly game turned into one played largely only for the GM's birthday.

 warboss wrote:

 Mike1975 wrote:


The RPG system is not that bad. Better than others I have played. The main problem is that they are way freaking screwed up.

[yoda voice] Conflict in you, I sense... [/yoda voice]

The RPG mechanically was the worst that I've personally played that is still in production and supported. YMMV. It was a slightly improved version of D&D 2e which I also disliked with a passion for it's bolt on we thought of this at the last second and threw it in feel. YMMV. Regardless, we played despite the inconsistencies, confusion, and conflicting rules because of two main reasons for a decade:

1) We didn't know any better. It was our high school group's first RPG and one of the few that supported all our interests at least in some mechanical way (albeit a dysfunctional way). None of us had played anything else and the GM's only experience was looking through his older brother's 1980's GURPS books occasionally.

2) We liked the setting and the art. Even though one guy was an ubertrekkie with a phaser as his main weapon, I wanted to start with a veritech pilot character, and another later character played was totally-not-buffy-the-vampire-slayer, there were still plenty of characters from within the IP.

The rules were what hindered our fun, not enhanced it... but it worked for a time until slowly most of us found rules we actually liked more and the monthly game turned into one played largely only for the GM's birthday.

LOL, actually there were a lot of things that we liked with the system, A lot we did not like either. GURPS was more realistic but to the point of insanity. A modifier to how far you could go in a day based on height? You could roll a failed crit and kill yourself when throwing a rock? D and D I never liked the straight AC system. You can't harm me because I have magical armor but my buddy that has magical bracelets and a cloak is harder to hurt? I guess as with everything beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

I have never understood how easily some people's suspension of disbelief is broken when literal magic is involved.

"So this Chain Shirt +5 is somehow equal in protection to Plate Mail +1?"

"Yes."

"How?"

"Magic. Next question."

Which, to tie it back around, is something that drives me crazy when people start arguing about realism in Robotech (and RRT). I get that you can have inconsistencies within a setting (or game) that can be jarring, but when we're talking about a fighter jet that can fly while transforming in this way without tearing itself apart and then crash through a city block without more than scratching the paint job, we're talking materials that might as well have "A Wizard Did It" written on the data sheets.

But somehow the caliber of a gun doing too much/not enough damage pulls them right out.

Not to mention introducing the notion that sometimes fluff and hard reality need to take a step aside for game balance.

 Forar wrote:
I have never understood how easily some people's suspension of disbelief is broken when literal magic is involved.
<snip> I get that you can have inconsistencies within a setting (or game) that can be jarring, but when we're talking about a fighter jet that can fly while transforming in this way without tearing itself apart and then crash through a city block without more than scratching the paint job, we're talking materials that might as well have "A Wizard Did It" written on the data sheets.

Funny, this was a rather "visual" example of how Palladium introduced the concept of MegaDamage:
Fire a machine gun at a tank and chip the paintjob but really do nothing.
There is SDC (cardboardium) and then there is MD (adamentium).
I think the getting bent out of shape is based on expectation set by the setting portrayed in the books.
According to what I observed in Japanese Anime; a sword is WAY better than a gun in a fight.
I just think of MIB and "Noisy Cricket" and it puts it all in perspective.

 warboss wrote:

 Mike1975 wrote:

LOL, Horrid rules from people who have barely played? I'm worried....

You just described most products from palladium for the past 2 decades.

The megairony is so thick you can cut it with a vibroblade!

IMO, everybody who's ever played RIFTS should have been very well aware of Palladium's ability to write clear, concise, balanced rulesets. Or not.

Vibroblade, like the knife you bring to a gunfight in Heavy Gear? I understand those guys at Dream Pod 9 also do a stellar job of ruleswriting and balance. Also very professional management, no delays.


No sarcasm. Really.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mike1975 wrote:
The RPG system is not that bad.

Better than others I have played.

The main problem is that they are way freaking screwed up. You have to look at 20 different pages and you have to have an experienced players to tell you how and what works together. If the rules were re-organized with examples they would be twice as playable. I've made quite a few characters and that is the biggest PITA. If they redid that the game's popularity could improve. Sadly they refuse to do so.

If your best defense consists of saying "it's not that bad", by definition, it *is* is at least that bad. Probably worse. No lie.

When you say it's better than others, but cannot immediately list examples, again, you're not helping make the case for RIFTS not being terrible. Also, you sharing that dog gak tastes better than pig gak really isn't the kind of endorsement that makes me want to get out my spoon.

And yes, they are hugely screwed up. Making RIFTS characters is so painful. Don't do this seriously. The best way to make a RIFTS character is to start drinking. Once you've got a decent buzz on, flip through until you find something that looks good, and pick it. The rest can be arbitrary. The details? feth it. If you don't really care, it works out a lot better.

Might want to go back and read some posts there DD. I did speak briefly about Gurps and D and D. Thought there was no sense in going into minutia since this is kinda off topic.