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.

I found in our games, the 4 missle volley sounds great....until the Regult makes every Anti-Missle shooting test and wipes out every volley with 1 die....
Come to think of it, what I really resent are the Zent DICE!!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hey guys lets cool the heat a little.
These are OPINIONS. Arguing over opinions is like arguing over art, beauty, or Justin Beeber. Pointless.
we all have them, they are all valid, and any that contradict mine are criminally wrong!
Lets keep this to the actually rules we are using so we, together, can answer our rooky questions, and hopefully have a bit of shooty mecha fun!

 Swabby wrote:
Mike... The whole idea of an introductory scenario is to teach you the game.

What I got from this one is that regults produce CP (which they do not following their special rule which is exempted for this scenario) and that it doesn't actually lead the player into using modifiers, which are a massive part of the game.

Take from that what you will, but that is what it is. I didn't say a single word about knowing all the rules in all the games I have played, you did.

Exactly so...and this was one of many opening scenarios. You can't expect to teach all the rules from one scenario or the players to use every option that they are unfamiliar with. I think your out of line here.

Mike, I'm not the one putting words into other peoples mouths.

My observation of this game is that they learned about an exception to an actual rule more than they learned about actual rules (modifiers).

I don't care that they were forgotten, I really don't. I care that the scenario didn't lead them to remembering them.

If the argument is that the scenario is there to introduce people to the rules, it should introduce them to the rules.

I also never said I expected them to learn ALL The rules in one scenario. But I do expect an introductory scenario to actually introduce people to the rules in a fashion that is consistent with the actual rules that they will be playing with.

It isn't hard, and it isn't unreasonable to expect that.

There is absolutely nothing about the scenario that led us to forget the rules that we forgot. That is an awful argument.

I'm not saying it led you to forget the rules, I am saying the scenario did not present you with a situation where you would learn it to begin with.

That's also not true. With two squads of regults, there were plenty of opportunities to practice close formation, focus fire, accurate, rear fire, etc. We just forgot and overlooked them in our excitement to play.

Well. What a short time to be on a forum. I'm sorry Dakkadakka, but the level of negativity here just isn't what I'm looking for.
:(
I wonder how many people read these "arguments" as Guests and just never bother to sign up at all? Who knows.
I'm no PB fanboy, this is first product of thiers I've bought in 18 years, but I AM excited to finally have Robotech minis to play with. And I'm not gonna let over critical drum beating and barely concealed personal contempt ruin it for me. Could PB have done this better? Of course. Does picking it apart for every tiny, imagined, potential flaw and repeatedly waving it about like it proves the whole foundation is rotten going to help? Of course not.
So I will take my 8 year old childhood wish fulfillment and find greener, more pleasant pastures to enjoy them with like minded people.
I hope the rest of you find enjoyment with your mecha too! The world needs more Rick Hunters! ( but not Minmai's!! Please, none of them! )
MODS: I'm sure many of you are also excited for this, but its totally lost in the hostility and beligerance that I'm just too happy to put up with.
So long, dakkadakka, Happy gaming.

Major Headcase wrote:
Well. What a short time to be on a forum. I'm sorry Dakkadakka, but the level of negativity here just isn't what I'm looking for.
:(
I wonder how many people read these "arguments" as Guests and just never bother to sign up at all? Who knows.
I'm no PB fanboy, this is first product of thiers I've bought in 18 years, but I AM excited to finally have Robotech minis to play with. And I'm not gonna let over critical drum beating and barely concealed personal contempt ruin it for me. Could PB have done this better? Of course. Does picking it apart for every tiny, imagined, potential flaw and repeatedly waving it about like it proves the whole foundation is rotten going to help? Of course not.
So I will take my 8 year old childhood wish fulfillment and find greener, more pleasant pastures to enjoy them with like minded people.
I hope the rest of you find enjoyment with your mecha too! The world needs more Rick Hunters! ( but not Minmai's!! Please, none of them! )
MODS: I'm sure many of you are also excited for this, but its totally lost in the hostility and beligerance that I'm just too happy to put up with.
So long, dakkadakka, Happy gaming.

This says so many things and expresses how I often feel on many minis forums. The biggest impediment to play is often players.

Let's not get melodramatic about it. Honestly, that was a fairly tame discussion. Want to see negativity and hostility? Go look in Off Topic. That place gets ugly.

Frankly, not every place will be for everyone. Shame to see MH go, but if that was his breaking point, it was kind of a low bar to clear.

Manchu, the scenario could very easily have walked you through or at the very least mentioned using your pods to gain a crossfire advantage. If it is meant as an instructional scenario it should instruct.

It could have been a better, more concise teaching aid.

Wasn't being overdramatic, although the internet can make things come off that way. The fact remains though, overzealousness and being overly critical of a game, players, and how they play, kill more games and push more people either to or away from tournaments and/or casual play. People tend to forget the fun in their desire to show their mastery of the rules. Games that are won on technicalities are a downer.

I played in a tournament where I had clearly won but it was called a tie because someone hid in water and there were no rules for attacking into and out of water only from a target in the water to another one in the water or out of the water. It was a ploy for them to sour the victory.

Just have fun, nobody will think and remember every single option and nuance when they are playing, that's reality. Just like sometimes a Marine forgets to duck and pays for it.

He has a point, we have 2-3 pages of complaints that the introductory scenario is terrible.

Coming from people who haven't played it.

Meanwhile everyone else who has played it has enjoyed it.

So, again, moving on, unless someone wants to reiterate how they believe the very first scenario of a brand new rules system should include all advanced rules and full army lists? Because that's not what's in the rulebook, and we are discussing the rules, are we not?

Back to that...

Manchu, I don't think Close Formation would have applied (seriously how did we miss page 18-19), as it's mecha within 2". Your Regults were spread all over the place.
Or Crossfire, either, as at no point had your Regults surrounded my Valkyries, right? I recall the front was made right around the park area but there wasn't any surrounding going on.

Of course, straight up knowing these rules now, would obviously change the tactics used, haha.

We can play First Contact again if you'd like but the next scenario, Onward, is effectively First Contact again with a few more units and terrain.

But we can probably slam thru First Contact in like 15 minutes anyway now that we know the core dice mechanics.

I didn't keep the squads together because I forgot there was any benefit to doing so. One thing I really like about the game is that there is no unit coherency requirements. At the end, I had the heavily damaged valk on your left surrounded.

I don't know that there is any reason to play without terrain; kinda makes stuff like leap and aircraft meaningless.

 Swabby wrote:
It depends on how they are played. If a player uses crossfire and close formation it could still end badly for the 2 valks, even with no cp.

And the Love of the Dice Gods

 judgedoug wrote:
He has a point, we have 2-3 pages of complaints that the introductory scenario is terrible.

If that's your takeaway from this discussion, you have missed my point entirely.

Look, with a standard core card, a Zentraedi player generates 0 CP for a 12 Pod card, 4 for a 9 pod + Officer card, and 6 for a 6 Pod + Recon + Officer card. 0/12, 4/10 or 6/8, meaning they get only a handful of CP per figure.

It is strange to me that an introductory scenario would ignore this. Giving them (by those numbers) 2-3 would be entirely sensible and reflect (at least roughly) the kinds of "CP to Figure" ratios that a core box can build. Obviously this becomes more complicated when running FPA and MPA and even Artillery pods (do those even have LiC?) or Gnerls or whatever, but of the 3 types of Core Squads a Zentraedi player can build with the core game, it's weird to me that they'd just say "nah, give 'em a full 1 to 1, roll with it". For simplicity I would've probably just gone with each Zentraedi squad (2 squads of 3 Pods, correct?) generating 1 of its own, but that's pure theorycraft, because no, I don't have the book/game yet. But that doesn't make my point invalid; the above math shouldn't surprise anyone.

I'm not "hating" on the introduction. I simply find it strange that they'd ignore what seems like an otherwise important balancing factor. It's simple math, I don't see why it's such a controversial thing to discuss, especially as it has applications to the Skirmish level play, which may at least initially be a common choice while materials are limited and even those that have figures haven't had a chance to build many.

I mean, if I sit down with a friend to play a Skirmish, and he picks 2 VTs, and I pick 6 pods, he gets 2 CP and I get 0, do I just get obliterated?

 judgedoug wrote:
He has a point, we have 2-3 pages of complaints that the introductory scenario is terrible.

Coming from people who haven't played it.

Meanwhile everyone else who has played it has enjoyed it.

So, again, moving on, unless someone wants to reiterate how they believe the very first scenario of a brand new rules system should include all advanced rules and full army lists?

You don't know what has or has not been played. You and Manchu do not count as everyone. And no one said anything about including advanced rules and full army lists. The hyperbole that you guys have brought to the table during this whole conversation has certainly not helped any communication.

 Forar wrote:
I mean, if I sit down with a friend to play a Skirmish, and he picks 2 VTs, and I pick 6 pods, he gets 2 CP and I get 0, do I just get obliterated?

Again, the general rule is you get 1 CP/mecha. Life Is Cheap overrides this for regults -- you get 0CP/regult but you get other advantages. If you don't use Life Is Cheap, you will get 6 CP, one for each of your regults.

Outside of the first scenario is there anywhere else that you do not use life is cheap?

 Forar wrote:
I simply find it strange that they'd ignore

So that the players learn activation, movement, and combat. Instead of overwhelming a brand new player new to the rules with a giant pile of rules, and then exceptions to rules, and then special rules, and then rules that won't even apply.

edit: going to bow out of any more discussion on why good game design dictates that any intro scenarios should be as simple as possible for new players. There's a reason, say, Battletech begins at 3025 Tech Level 1 and not at Maximum Tech in 3087 or something, and why you learn Squad Leader one rule (and one scenario that uses that rule) at a time and you don't jump feet first into Advanced Squad Leader.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:
I didn't keep the squads together because I forgot there was any benefit to doing so. One thing I really like about the game is that there is no unit coherency requirements. At the end, I had the heavily damaged valk on your left surrounded.

I don't know that there is any reason to play without terrain; kinda makes stuff like leap and aircraft meaningless.

Looking at the next scenario, Onward, it looks like it's designed to emphasize boosting speed with CP's as well as maneuvering (with the addition of terrain), especially as it is specifically turn limited. Especially for the RDF player who will have his hands full halting swarms of Regults from exiting the table edge. Should be interesting - try to tie up the Valkyries with half the Regults while the other half escape, or try to have all Regults zoom across the table taking potshots at Valkyries?

 judgedoug wrote:
going to bow out of any more discussion on why good game design dictates that any intro scenarios should be as simple as possible for new players. There's a reason, say, Battletech begins at 3025 Tech Level 1 and not at Maximum Tech in 3087 or something, and why you learn Squad Leader one rule (and one scenario that uses that rule) at a time and you don't jump feet first into Advanced Squad Leader.

No one was even arguing this. It should be as simple as possible. Let me ask you this, if the special rules complicate the situation why were the valkyries special rules left intact for the scenario?

You are arguing that the special rule on the regult makes the scenario complicated while ignoring the special rules used on the valkyries (which are just as complex) as well as all the weapons. It just doesn't make sense.

Again, the real issue is First Contact pits one type of mecha against one type of mecha and suspends Life Is Cheap so that the Zent player also gets CPs and probably also so the players don't have to worry about the special LOS and attacking into melee restrictions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and neither side uses faction cards in the stater scenarios. Seems like Life Is Cheap was designed to work with the Zent faction ability reinforcements.

Manchu life is cheap also extends to the malcontent faction, which does not use the zentraedi faction ability. I totally understand your conclusion though, I thought the same thing upon reading both life is cheap and the faction cards.

 judgedoug wrote:
So that the players learn activation, movement, and combat. Instead of overwhelming a brand new player new to the rules with a giant pile of rules, and then exceptions to rules, and then special rules, and then rules that won't even apply.

"Instead of overwhelming a new player with...exceptions to rules."

That's funny. Because "obeying LiC" is less of a modification to the game than "ignoring it". You just said you don't think it's a good idea to bother with exceptions... in relation to an exception to a rule. How is "Battlepod Squads generate 1 CP each" any more a flagrant rules change than "oh, they just all generate CP because reasons".

edit: going to bow out of any more discussion on why good game design dictates that any intro scenarios should be as simple as possible for new players. There's a reason, say, Battletech begins at 3025 Tech Level 1 and not at Maximum Tech in 3087 or something, and why you learn Squad Leader one rule (and one scenario that uses that rule) at a time and you don't jump feet first into Advanced Squad Leader.

Are you talking to someone else here? Because you're arguing a point I'm not remotely making.

I think we've reached an impasse and will simply have to agree to disagree.

But I won't feel bad for pointing out something that I think is an inconsistency, even if it's not a universal. People poking at the rules to find issues and potentially get them brought up to Palladium is how the game improves. Remaining silent is not.

If it's not a big deal or the further scenarios sort it all out and it's long forgotten, great. But I think the "isn't this kind of a problem during a Skirmish?" point remains valid, and will have to wait and see how it plays out at larger points values once more people can give it a whirl. Presumably it's simply intended to force the Z players to balance their Swarm versus having CP through Leadership units, but that doesn't make it any less weird to just throw a (comparative) pile at one side on the smaller scale when there's a spectrum of gradiation possible.

What is the problem for skirmish?

We're talking about something that only applies to the four starter scenarios.

 Forar wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:
So that the players learn activation, movement, and combat. Instead of overwhelming a brand new player new to the rules with a giant pile of rules, and then exceptions to rules, and then special rules, and then rules that won't even apply.

"Instead of overwhelming a new player with...exceptions to rules."

That's funny. Because "obeying LiC" is less of a modification to the game than "ignoring it". You just said you don't think it's a good idea to bother with exceptions... in relation to an exception to a rule. How is "Battlepod Squads generate 1 CP each" any more a flagrant rules change than "oh, they just all generate CP because reasons".

Your assertion is entirely incorrect.

Rules as written, page 12. "Command Points. In each Command Phase, players get a number of Command Points to spend during that turn equal to the number of mecha they have on the battlefield at that time, plus the total Leadership abilities of mecha they have on the battlefield at that time."

That is the rule on how many Command Points you get in your pool when the Command Phase rolls around. That is the core rule for collecting Command Points.

Special Abilities, page 24. "Many mecha and weapon systems have special abilities that represent capabilities outside the norm. These special abilities often provide exceptions to the rules as presented above." Life is Cheap is a Special Ability, and as written, is an exception to the rules.

I'm not sure where the disconnect is. The Introductory Scenarios are specifically designed to teach you the core rules. In the core rules, the player gets 1CP per Mecha. Life Is Cheap, which is a Special Ability - which is, again, an EXCEPTION to the rules - is not used, because they obviously want the players to a) use and understand the viability and usefulness of command points and b) don't want to burden new players with (particularly complicated) exceptions to the rules. In fact, the Introductory Scenarios specifically say this: "the Introductory Scenarios... which are intended to give an overview of how to play the game and use the game pieces"... "The Introductory Scenarios are meant to be played in order. They build up as they go, allowing players to gradually ease their way into a larger game."

Again, Life is Cheap is an exception to the rules.

Quoting myself above, "Instead of overwhelming a new player with ... exceptions to rules." Which is what Life is Cheap is.

Let me reiterate: the rules say you get 1CP per mecha you have. An exception to the rule, a special ability, Life is Cheap, which is not part of the core rules, and is in fact labeled a Special Ability in it's own section, which specifically defines it as an exception to the rules, changes that.

Is that clear enough?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:
What is the problem for skirmish?

We're talking about something that only applies to the four starter scenarios.

Maybe there's a misunderstanding that the four introductory scenarios are the only scenarios? There's actually six full scenarios and three different deployment zone setups above and beyond the four Introductory Scenarios.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:
Again, the real issue is First Contact pits one type of mecha against one type of mecha and suspends Life Is Cheap so that the Zent player also gets CPs and probably also so the players don't have to worry about the special LOS and attacking into melee restrictions.

It also suspends terrain so players don't have to worry about that.

I notice that scenario 2, "Onward", also uses victory conditions that are not present in any other scenario. Again, forcing players to learn something that won't apply in a standard game?

 judgedoug wrote:
Looking at the next scenario, Onward, it looks like it's designed to emphasize boosting speed with CP's as well as maneuvering (with the addition of terrain), especially as it is specifically turn limited. Especially for the RDF player who will have his hands full halting swarms of Regults from exiting the table edge. Should be interesting - try to tie up the Valkyries with half the Regults while the other half escape, or try to have all Regults zoom across the table taking potshots at Valkyries?

It's certainly about boosting speed with CPs for the Zent player. For the UEDF player, it is probably about Rapid Fire. The 1J will net you two extra CP per turn. It also has buffed GN.

 Manchu wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:
Looking at the next scenario, Onward, it looks like it's designed to emphasize boosting speed with CP's as well as maneuvering (with the addition of terrain), especially as it is specifically turn limited. Especially for the RDF player who will have his hands full halting swarms of Regults from exiting the table edge. Should be interesting - try to tie up the Valkyries with half the Regults while the other half escape, or try to have all Regults zoom across the table taking potshots at Valkyries?

It's certainly about boosting speed with CPs for the Zent player. For the UEDF player, it is probably about Rapid Fire. The 1J will net you two extra CP per turn. It also has buffed GN.

I'm very much looking forward to that - how will the Zent forces split up to get five off the table, versus, will the Valkyries go after them individually or go hunting in packs but risk missing stragglers?

Judgedoug the exception to the rules is not life is cheap, it is the removal of life is cheap from the mecha that have that rule.

 Manchu wrote:
What is the problem for skirmish?

We're talking about something that only applies to the four starter scenarios.

Starter Scenario: 2 VTs vs 6 Pods. 2 CP vs 6 CP.

Example Small Skirmish: 2 VTs vs 6 Pods. 2 CP vs 0 CP.

Example Slightly Larger Skirmish: 4VTs vs 6 Pods and an Officer (note; this is 80 points versus 55 points; ideally the Z player gets a character or two and/or upgrades, but according to Mike, that's not how Skirmishes are played). 4 CP vs 4 CP.

I'm... I'm not sure how much clearer I can make this. It's strange that they chose to flip how the CP numbers seem to be allotted. Unless the Z player intentionally loads down with Officer's and Recon pods, they're likely going to have fewer CP to use than the RDF side in a normal game, at least with Wave One figures, so it's strange to introduce the game flagrantly ignoring it. Giving 1 per 2 pods, or 1 per pod 'mini squad' of 3 would make more sense. Simply giving them a giant pile of them is strangely out of place.

What does this

 Forar wrote:
Simply giving them a giant pile of them is strangely out of place.

have to do with this

 Forar wrote:
But I think the "isn't this kind of a problem during a Skirmish?" point remains valid

?

Also - Life Is Cheap never applies in skirmish games.