Robotech Kickstarter Funded at $1.44 Million!

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Sining**

So...I finally got my RRT minis.

**Cypher-xv**

Awesome, enjoy.

**Conrad Turner**

Sining wrote:
So...I finally got my RRT minis.

Lucky git!

I'm thinking of having a T-shirt printed.

"I Backed Palladium Books Robotech RRT Kickstarter.
.
.
.
.
.
And all I got was this lousy decal sheet*

*1 year later than promised, no models to stick them on, but what the hey, it's all fantastically mouth-watering, and really easy to put the minimal part count, incredibly detailed models together in moments, and EVERYONE's playing these days.

What do you mean, you haven't heard of it? Sheesh, apothetic bloody planet, I don't know."

**Talizvar**

I am practically swimming in the darn product and have lost steam (still like how they look, just so much more work than they need to be).

What few games I have got in, people keep trying to "house rule" the heck out of it... first play a couple times, THEN change from an informed viewpoint.
Though making the rules "Aircraft" don't block line of sight, Roll 50% for "roll with impact" to pass, Roll for each missile (not just volley) with anti-missile systems seems to have made it more fun.

I seem to be confusing people because I am one of few that actually has a full UEDF force to play with rather than just pods.
All I can say is adding missile pods to a scout group is nasty in the extreme to face and my UEDF definitely needs to keep their distance from those pod swarms.

At least a few models have been shifted to Battletech for some giggles and look very nice for my "5th Lyran Guard".
I have to take-on "Word of Blake" and "Kurita" forces during the "Jihad" time of Battletech: I have some 60-odd models while the other guys have some 700 each... going to see more stomping mech action in a 30 year old game than a "new" one.

Sounding like the kid in "Better off dead" who says "I want my two dollars."... I want my Wave 2!!!

**warboss**

Talizvar wrote:
I am practically swimming in the darn product and have lost steam (still like how they look, just so much more work than they need to be).

What few games I have got in, people keep trying to "house rule" the heck out of it... first play a couple times, THEN change from an informed viewpoint.
Though making the rules "Aircraft" don't block line of sight, Roll 50% for "roll with impact" to pass, Roll for each missile (not just volley) with anti-missile systems seems to have made it more fun.

I seem to be confusing people because I am one of few that actually has a full UEDF force to play with rather than just pods.
All I can say is adding missile pods to a scout group is nasty in the extreme to face and my UEDF definitely needs to keep their distance from those pod swarms.

After the first real (and to my knowledge only one so far) tourney's faction turnout, are you really surprised that you're one of the few with a full UEDF force? As for the house rule part, are the folks there active on robotech tactics internet sites? Most gamers I know aren't and rarely follow forums such as this daily or even weekly. I'd be curious to find out if the impetus to house rule certain things is spontaneous for them or just following the "angry minority" internet crowd.

**Talizvar**

warboss wrote:
After the first real (and to my knowledge only one so far) tourney's faction turnout, are you really surprised that you're one of the few with a full UEDF force?

Hehe... It does take a certain amount of masochism to put together 3 squads of Veritechs (36 models for "12" playable ones)

As for the house rule part, are the folks there active on robotech tactics internet sites? Most gamers I know aren't and rarely follow forums such as this daily or even weekly. I'd be curious to find out if the impetus to house rule certain things is spontaneous for them or just following the "angry minority" internet crowd.

Actually these were rather experienced gamers with a large experience base of multiple games (a couple more years than me), they were not really following the forums = spontaneous want for change.
I am the only one that does follow the forums and suggested nothing; my rule is you play 3 games "straight-up" and then you can mess around.

It IS funny, after a few games it becomes rather obvious where some rules you leave alone and others just beg for a change.
I would be tempted to compare notes with anyone that got-in more than 3(!!) games.
The rules are serviceable, do a decent enough job, just need a little tweaking for more fun and the oddly inappropriate word "realism" within the canon of the Robotech TV show.

There are a few "cheat sheets" out there but I think I will refine my own with the intent of having a contained game system like a board game where you can take it from no knowledge to up and running in some 15 minutes. I think this is the only way I will get games in besides my indulgent friends.

**warboss**

I do agree that you should play some games before changing the rules significantly although I would add that some things are just so bad that you can spot the troublesome ones to test with just a single reading let alone a game if you're an experienced gamer who doesn't have your own blood, sweat, and tears or a financial stake invested in the game. I've got a few for robotech that I've described ad naseum for now officially years here but I've to meet your quota to discuss them with you although I'm close.. only 3 games to go!

It is interesting to note that the average joes in your neck of the woods came up with some stuff on their own. What do they want to change? Does it jive with the stuff brought up here years ago by myself and others prior to actual gameplay and the release of the rules?

**Mike1975**

warboss wrote:
I do agree that you should play some games before changing the rules significantly although I would add that some things are just so bad that you can spot the troublesome ones to test with just a single reading let alone a game if you're an experienced gamer who doesn't have your own blood, sweat, and tears or a financial stake invested in the game. I've got a few for robotech that I've described ad naseum for now officially years here but I've to meet your quota to discuss them with you although I'm close.. only 3 games to go!

It is interesting to note that the average joes in your neck of the woods came up with some stuff on their own. What do they want to change? Does it jive with the stuff brought up here years ago by myself and others prior to actual gameplay and the release of the rules?

On this I agree, I have people bitching about rules that have NEVER played and then enjoy it when they do. I've also made suggestions on a few changes but then have played them out, in more than a few ways first. I think a Blast fix should be coming soon. Feel free to post what else you feel should change and I can see if I can get the group to playtest any suggestions. We are working with PB to get any changes tested, approved and accepted as cannon.

The change to the VF from 8 LRM's to 6 is one example.

**warboss**

Mike1975 wrote:
On this I agree, I have people bitching about rules that have NEVER played and then enjoy it when they do.

I would add though that it is reasonable to bitch about CERTAIN ridiculous rules and still enjoy the overall game despite them. They're not mutually exclusive. Thanks for the offer but I don't have any new things to bitch about beyond the ones I spotted years ago. If I ever get a game going and notice more, I'll be sure to whine here.

**Talizvar**

warboss wrote:
It is interesting to note that the average joes in your neck of the woods came up with some stuff on their own. What do they want to change? Does it jive with the stuff brought up here years ago by myself and others prior to actual gameplay and the release of the rules?

Valid question.
Requires a thoughtful answer.
I did make some notes (not on-hand at the moment), will review, check with the history you mentioned and see where that goes.
Any links to your viewpoints would be much appreciated because I have either forgotten or missed them.

**warboss**

Easily abusable "center" LOS, buildings are too fragile, inability to make vermillion squadron ever, VF-1J missing as upgrade card for the (now pointless) skimish rules, zentraedi rockettes kicking chorus line, blast missiles are too powerful, anti-missile being all or nothing (instead of shooting down a variable amount of missiles depending on your roll), close combat and aircraft shennanigans (although I think someone here mentioned a ruling on that for the open house) come to mind. I know there are more (and admittedly the above is a mix of potential issues, mistakes, and preferences) but I can't recall them at the moment.

**Talizvar**

warboss wrote:
Easily abusable "center" LOS

Cylinder like the oft quoted Battletech OR center body mass = I lean toward the Battletech means, the bases make it easy (bit clunky I know)

, buildings are too fragile

Agreed, I found the 4X MDC kicked around seemed about right, after throwing some templates around they lasted long enough.

, inability to make vermillion squadron ever

That will not do, if you cannot recreate the various things going on in the source material: what is the point?

, VF-1J missing as upgrade card for the (now pointless) skimish rules

Again pointless if you cannot re-play source material

, zentraedi rockettes kicking chorus line

Having been on the receiving end of that... it is indescribably nasty. I have been tempted to say it is not possible for more than 4 models to engage in hand to hand with one enemy.

, blast missiles are too powerful,

For each target to be able to try to shoot down that missile, I am not agreeing with being too powerful (only got to feel the wrong end of blast once...)

anti-missile being all or nothing (instead of shooting down a variable amount of missiles depending on your roll)

Yeah, we actually made it where you roll for each individual missile to shoot it down rather than one roll for the whole volley

, close combat and aircraft shennanigans (although I think someone here mentioned a ruling on that for the open house) come to mind.

Some were pushing for flying units to be able to hit others. My first instinct is to make it harder, some to hit penalty. I would not want to disallow it since we have seen it on the screen, just not ideal.

I know there are more (and admittedly the above is a mix of potential issues, mistakes, and preferences) but I can't recall them at the moment.

I think "fast movers" should also receive the same defensive bonus as gerwalks: they are harder to hit for other reasons BUT get a +1 to hit "Aircraft".
I think anything with "aircraft" rules should not block line of sight.
I think "roll with impact" is too powerful, roll a 4+ for each hit (still looking at a possible piloting skill check) from that weapon system's single attack (each missile in volley: see above) to halve the damage (still only one command point). Rather than the "auto succeed" it added more fun/drama... we liked it.
Thinking instead of "inescapable" for a 4 missile volley, +1 to hit for each missile in that volley of 4 (to give incentive to expend the 4 on one target).

There is a few nagging bits about stealing initiative that is irritating but a little more love / detail to the missile ballet I think is in order.
I need to see a bit more hand to hand and the recovery pod to get into some of the details of units available.

Well, getting there, still hate the mitt-full of cards, I know Mike has made his improved version but I would like to scan and mix and match to keep to the original format.
Also it is HIGHLY unfair to expect a 40+ person to read that fine print for all the optional weapons on the unit cards without some serious reading glasses.
I know, good practice for the tiny detail painting... I will bring my jeweler's visor, my wife loves it when I wear that.

**warboss**

Are those the ones you personally came up with or the group decided to change that you didn't agree with? Are the things you agreed with already suggested by the group or completely different? I know it's esoteric but I'm curious if my own pet peeves extend beyond the vocal minority (at least according to the gencon feth all of you poll 2014). Or is the later list the ones your group came up (that you don't agree with changing till 3 games in)?

I can't say with any certainty (again, zero actual games here) but I suspect the fast movers defense bonus is being able to move fast enough to simply be out of range of most of their own targets by the end of their double movement meaning that they can't be hit at all by lots of stuff they themselves could initially hit. I'd be hesitant to give them the +1 as I think that is supposed to be for sheer maneuverability that gerwalks have (similar to harriers "viffing"). Think US WW2 pacific tactics versus Japenses zeroes... strafing, don't get in dogfights. That does kind of match what happens in the show... when the veritechs need to make super tight turns, they just change modes usually (but not always.. anime after all). I agree though at least in theory with the roll and anti-missile feeling better as a one dice per missile roll. I'd probably keep the inescapable though with the caveat that you will some of the time reduce the number inbound to below 4 and then be able to possibly dodge/roll... very anime-ish.

As for the jeweler's visor, maybe the wife keeps hoping someday you'll start working on a big diamond for her nstead of toy soldiers for yourself!

**megatrons2nd**

Unless I am misinterpreting the 4 missile inescapable thing, it is hits, not missiles fired. So in order for a missile volley to be inescapable, you need to "hit" with a volley of 4+ missiles, not just shoot 4 at a guy.

**Talizvar**

warboss wrote:
Are those the ones you personally came up with or the group decided to change that you didn't agree with? Are the things you agreed with already suggested by the group or completely different? I know it's esoteric but I'm curious if my own pet peeves extend beyond the vocal minority (at least according to the gencon feth all of you poll 2014). Or is the later list the ones your group came up (that you don't agree with changing till 3 games in)?

Group observations: individual missile rolls rather than rolling for the volley, 4 "hits" become inescapable (decides then we dodge or anti-missile), roll for "roll with impact", +1 defense for aircraft, LOS we went by the base like a cylinder, after a couple swarm melees 4 per model became max, Aircraft does not block line of sight.

I can't say with any certainty (again, zero actual games here) but I suspect the fast movers defense bonus is being able to move fast enough to simply be out of range of most of their own targets by the end of their double movement meaning that they can't be hit at all by lots of stuff they themselves could initially hit. I'd be hesitant to give them the +1 as I think that is supposed to be for sheer maneuverability that gerwalks have (similar to harriers "viffing"). Think US WW2 pacific tactics versus Japenses zeroes... strafing, don't get in dogfights. That does kind of match what happens in the show... when the veritechs need to make super tight turns, they just change modes usually (but not always.. anime after all).

We found that as a jet fighter, initial turn, linear move, then with turbo at the end, lining things up well was tricky and with only one weapon's fire you almost always pick missiles.
You would almost always want to use gerwalk for defense and weapons options when at a mid-range and battloid for a 24" to 12" stand-off distance.
It just adds that little bit more survivability, add the not blocking line of sight AND especially not getting snagged by the pod "kickline" is a motivator.

I agree though at least in theory with the roll and anti-missile feeling better as a one dice per missile roll. I'd probably keep the inescapable though with the caveat that you will some of the time reduce the number inbound to below 4 and then be able to possibly dodge/roll... very anime-ish.

We did find it was more fun and anime-ish as you frantically try to reduce the incoming missiles... it does cause you to sweat a little... good fun.

As for the jeweler's visor, maybe the wife keeps hoping someday you'll start working on a big diamond for her nstead of toy soldiers for yourself!

I was being a bit sarcastic on this topic... she HATES the thing when she sees it on me she looks pained and sees this:

**warboss**

That pic... it's like you hacked my webcam and stole my dakka posting face, you thief!

If I wasn't a newly minted stoic super dimensional captain, I'd steal it back and make it my avatar pic!

So are you in agreement with the changes or just miffed that they came too early? You seem from the last few posts to be supportive of them (and I agree with most, same caveat as above) but your initial post on the subject made it seem (and maybe I'm reading too much into it) that you didn't and you were upset that they were trying to institute them before giving the game a fair 3 try shake.

If I ever end up actually playing this, I'll likely be doing demo only games just like I did a few years back with Heavy Gear which means that I'll be doing what USED TO BE the skirmish rules. I'll leave it to mike and others to comment with any certainty but the rolling for each missile and then for each anti-missile laser shot (which are changes I like) might slow down the game alot when fielding dozens of minis per side. At the <12 that I'm hoping/planning/wishing to someday do, it won't be an issue.

**Talizvar**

I am in agreement with many issues and some of the proposed fixes outlined.

Just a pet peeve of mine where people are not giving the game a chance playing the rules as written first. Yep, was getting upset.

Sometimes a "strange" rule is proven to be good because of given units or situations to prevent broken elements of the game.

When rules are changed on the fly, I can no longer comment on the actual game rules since many may not have been followed and game balance may have been thrown off.

So when your opponent is chomping at the bit to change things, I have to keep saying "play by the rules, make notes of what you want to change and it will happen but not now."

If I do not get in at least 3 games of the straight-up game I fall into Mike's difficulties of offering "unofficial" experiences and rules into the mix which can make the purists light up the torches and fetch the pitchforks.

<edit> I felt it did not slow the game down much for the individual missile rolls: you just throw more dice at once which within reason is a good thing.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

megatrons2nd wrote:
Unless I am misinterpreting the 4 missile inescapable thing, it is hits, not missiles fired. So in order for a missile volley to be inescapable, you need to "hit" with a volley of 4+ missiles, not just shoot 4 at a guy.

In the rules as written (as best I understand) it needs to be a volley of 4 or more to be inescapable.
You roll once for the entire volley to hit so it is an all or nothing approach.
This is most likely for the models with the Volley "X" rule to commit a few more missiles than one here or there.

For the alternate rules changes I am looking at for my group we would do it as follows:

Spoiler:

**Conrad Turner**

Isn't base on 2D6 a 7 though?

Min =2
Max=12

Average=7
(Also obtainable as the opposite sides of a D6 should always add up to 7 [6+1, 5+2, 4+3])

**Morgan Vening**

Conrad Turner wrote:
Isn't base on 2D6 a 7 though?

Min =2
Max=12

Average=7
(Also obtainable as the opposite sides of a D6 should always add up to 7 [6+1, 5+2, 4+3])

Actually, there's no way of getting a 50/50 on a linear 2d6. 7+ is ~42%, 8+ is ~58%. So, Talizvar was giving a slight penalty to the base pods, but allowed more elite pilots to balance that out a little, whereas normally it's all vanilla 50%. Not sure what the theoretical max is, or how easy it is to get +1 PIL (No books yet).

Though it seems like it's a moot point, as Talizvar seemed to thing 2d6 was cumbersome.

**Balance**

They kept the "No one can dodge more than 4 missiles!" rule? That's one that has been mocked for the RPG for decades...

**warboss**

Balance wrote:
They kept the "No one can dodge more than 4 missiles!" rule? That's one that has been mocked for the RPG for decades...

Yup, both in the "new" rpg and the minis game.

**Albertorius**

Balance wrote:
They kept the "No one can dodge more than 4 missiles!" rule? That's one that has been mocked for the RPG for decades...

And quite justly so, I might add... particularly given the source material.

**warboss**

I call shenanigans. That mech at 0:24 clearly is able to outmaneuver exactly four missiles!

**Talizvar**

Thanks guys, I don't mind your questioning the thought process on my interpretation of the actual rules or the "logic" of possible house rules.

I really want to find a way to include the piloting skill into the "roll with impact" since I figure it is a piloting skill based save at least by description.
Though, following that same reasoning, the anti-missile fire should be helped by gunnery... <sigh> sometimes it may be best to let it go.
My main push for this is not just a little more missile excitement but also to make the heroes in the game a bit more ... heroic.

We did not like the "sure thing" aspect of roll with impact hence the roll... so the 4+ or maybe a 3+ instead?
The 4+ really made it a hard choice sometimes to expend that command point (is it worth it? Odds may be low to survive anyway...).
The two dice method gives enough wiggle room to include pilot and gunnery skills but matching them in sets would just get irritating.
I need a few sets of those clear dice with a die inside them:

Now don't get into the topic if they have some kind of bias to them... (Or the meme: "Yo Dawg: We put dice in your dice so you can roll dice while rolling dice!!)

I find if you are faced with a tough choice in a game, that rule tends to be a win.

The 4 missile no-dodge I happen to like to some degree since you are less tempted to split the missiles across multiple targets and have to spam the one target, especially if they have a good piloting skill.

Anyone who got some game time in: what rules are a "for sure" keep and what MUST be changed I would love to hear if not stated recently... I think there is a different thread for this...

On-topic: the game is fun.
I am used to 40k so this is a piece of cake for clarity of rules.
Too bad about the freaking gazillion UEDF parts, but that is all water under the bridge. I got over that days ago...

It is now that time folks: What... is... happening... with... WAVE 2!!!!!

**warboss**

What if the roll requires a 4+ and only spends the cp if you succeed. That way you're not hemorrhaging cp for nothing but neither is it a sure thing. That seems to be a nice middle ground. Also, I can't recall; does choosing to roll preclude you from dodging or something else defensive?

**Talizvar**

warboss wrote:
What if the roll requires a 4+ and only spends the cp if you succeed.

We were using one CP to be able to roll for all missiles in the volley with the house rule.
So if I get one success out of 4 and it is not enough to save me, do I still have to spend it?
If I sucked and all rolls failed it may sooth things a bit...

(I kind of like it for some reason...)

Also, I can't recall; does choosing to roll preclude you from dodging or something else defensive?

Yes, I think (you are now making me doubt myself), you can anti-missile fire OR dodge but you cannot do both.
Roll with impact can still happen either way unless it has the "Overwhelming" (I think) rule.
Sucks not having the book immediately handy but good test of what I know... need to differentiate quoting from memory vs having reference material in front of me.

**Stormonu**

Instead of rolling 2d6, couldn't you still use 1d6 + 1/2 piloting skill? Up the base number you need to succeed so adding in a Pod's piloting skill would match what you need in the standard rules?

**warboss**

Another weekly update from Palladium hit my inbox and it is just bursting at the virtual seams with new info on RRPGT after all these weeks of waiting. I don't want to bombard you all with it in one go so I've spoilered it below to prevent massive page down tapping. The following is the massive update on 5,000 folks missing stuff.

Spoiler:

In comparison, his missing doodles from before most of us were born or out of diapers got this much coverage in the update.

Spoiler:

I'm just glad that he values the missing $700,000 USD worth of Robotech items that we're waiting for now going on two years so much compared to the sketch he did of the Star Trek TOS cast 30 years ago so that the later got a higher word count than the former.

**JohnHwangDD**

It just gets better and better.

How is it that Kevin has zero security for valuable stuff? Did he learn nothing from Crisis of Treachery?

**Joyboozer**

Did his mum finally take the pictures off the fridge?