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 already gave up on PB producing anymore RRT game pieces, they are in a downward spiral and refuse to do anything about it, as for me I will have my pieces for wave 2 and other generations.

So I had my first versus Robotech game this weekend and it confirmed a few things (that I didn't like) as well as brought up a few new ones that I figured I'd run by you guys. I definitely don't like (and never did) the all or nothing nature of things like dodges and anti-missile for multiple volley incoming rounds. Does anyone else feel that is too much randomness with no nuance? The second thing that came up is whether or not aircraft (flying and/or afterburning) get cover bonuses. They ignore terrain for movement but I didn't see anything about them not being able to utilize cover from things like a tree and such. Did I miss that somewhere in the rules?

On a more preference note, the small demo I played (just 110pts) had a zentraedi squadron and it seems like it is more efficient for them to specialize. I had a recon squadron plus an artillery support card but it seems like in bigger games it is better to go with regult spam all in one and have the other pods off in a separate arty squadron in order to better capitalize on the respawn mechanic.

 warboss wrote:
So I had my first versus Robotech game this weekend and it confirmed a few things (that I didn't like) as well as brought up a few new ones that I figured I'd run by you guys. I definitely don't like (and never did) the all or nothing nature of things like dodges and anti-missile for multiple volley incoming rounds. Does anyone else feel that is too much randomness with no nuance? The second thing that came up is whether or not aircraft (flying and/or afterburning) get cover bonuses. They ignore terrain for movement but I didn't see anything about them not being able to utilize cover from things like a tree and such. Did I miss that somewhere in the rules?

On a more preference note, the small demo I played (just 110pts) had a zentraedi squadron and it seems like it is more efficient for them to specialize. I had a recon squadron plus an artillery support card but it seems like in bigger games it is better to go with regult spam all in one and have the other pods off in a separate arty squadron in order to better capitalize on the respawn mechanic.

I don't know Warboss, I guess this is personal preference but I prefer the do or die to dodging over the taking 100 hits of Battletech. Now, remember, it's a single dodge per attack. So if you are shot at by 4 pods, you have to dodge 4 times. Since PIL skill has to do with dodge and GN with you hitting a higher GN can make a huge difference in having a hit high enough that the opponent needs a 6 to dodge. The PIL is also huge so that you can dodge if you are hit.

Now cover works for whatever unit you have. If you have a fighter behind a tree line he gets just as much cover as a Destroid or Pod hiding in the woods. You can fly Guardian mode veritechs low in some woods or behind a tree line to get cover. Remember, most terrain like trees is based on a template/area and not just an individual tree. When you have template terrain it does not matter as long as you are in or behind the template, you get cover.

Your last point is all about strategy. Arty Pods can be nasty but they come with limited ammo and no Anti-Missile. Scouts and Glaugs are you friends, always.

I've found resolving dodges, missile and anti-missile fire can bog things down. Especially when you choose to split up missile volleys to hit multiple targets. While it would be nice to add in a roll to determine how many missiles in a volley get shot down, that would slow things down even more. I wish they adopted something similar to Heavy Gear where you can choose your stance (normal, defensive or full defensive) for appropriate modifiers.

While it isn't clearly spelled out either way, I've played that anything using flight to ignore terrain for movement is flying over the terrain and not getting cover. If you're behind area terrain, you use TLOS and if you can't see the target because of intervening terrain, you can't shoot at it unless you've got a blast weapon to shoot the nearby ground assuming you either saw the target mask itself, someone with LOS is providing targeting data or you've got them on some sort of sensor.
Because of the way things are based, TLOS is somewhat problematic. PB should have given things height levels. Flyers are at a certain height level and targeting/cover/concealment should be calculated using the model's base and elevation level.

Given that units are only grouped into units for activation purposes, there isn't as much a benefit to specialize as you can leave your artillery support pods behind while your regular pods advance. In fact, splitting them up also means you don't fire them all in the same activation either though aside from focus fire and accurate, there doesn't seem to be a movement penalty for shooting.

 warboss wrote:
So I had my first versus Robotech game this weekend and it confirmed a few things (that I didn't like) as well as brought up a few new ones that I figured I'd run by you guys. I definitely don't like (and never did) the all or nothing nature of things like dodges and anti-missile for multiple volley incoming rounds. Does anyone else feel that is too much randomness with no nuance? The second thing that came up is whether or not aircraft (flying and/or afterburning) get cover bonuses. They ignore terrain for movement but I didn't see anything about them not being able to utilize cover from things like a tree and such. Did I miss that somewhere in the rules?

On a more preference note, the small demo I played (just 110pts) had a zentraedi squadron and it seems like it is more efficient for them to specialize. I had a recon squadron plus an artillery support card but it seems like in bigger games it is better to go with regult spam all in one and have the other pods off in a separate arty squadron in order to better capitalize on the respawn mechanic.

One thought to speed things up is to make it so that when you dodge roll total is equal to the attack roll total you cannot dodge but take half damage as if you had rolled and count the command point you spent to dodge as the command point you spent to Roll with Impact. Then eliminate the Roll with Impact in any other case.

cannonfodr wrote:
I've found resolving dodges, missile and anti-missile fire can bog things down. Especially when you choose to split up missile volleys to hit multiple targets. While it would be nice to add in a roll to determine how many missiles in a volley get shot down, that would slow things down even more. I wish they adopted something similar to Heavy Gear where you can choose your stance (normal, defensive or full defensive) for appropriate modifiers.

The solution I came up with is to roll 1 anti-missile die per missile. So if you're attacked by a volley of 4 missiles, you roll 4 dice to see just how many you shoot down. While by definition it does slow the game down a bit (you get damage applied more often but it is usually less often), it's adding a small amount of effort to an existing roll and calculation you have to do. YMMV.

Naw, the idea is that the missiles are coming in as a small group and if you blow one the explosion kills the rest. Doing it on a one to one basis makes missiles way too powerful and would take forever against things like FPA that fire 8 at a time.

 Mike1975 wrote:
Naw, the idea is that the missiles are coming in as a small group and if you blow one the explosion kills the rest. Doing it on a one to one basis makes missiles way too powerful and would take forever against things like FPA that fire 8 at a time.

It might be overpowered but that determination requires further testing and I admit that I haven't tried it with the FPA. Saying that it would "take forever" is more than a bit of an exaggeration. You roll 8 dice instead of one and find the 5's and 6's and subtract that many from the missiles that hit. That at most adds 10-15 seconds to an interaction if it is shooting all eight at one target. Also, if anything in macross, the missiles go crazy and fly every which way from different angles toward the target, not as a coherent group the entire way. Again, YMMV and I agree it adds something to the time of the interaction but, at least for me, it is counterbalanced by losing the all or nothing aspect.

In my small demo game, both the heavy arty pods fired their four missiles in one volley and did absolutely nothing against their respective targets because I rolled twice on the upper third of the die rolled.

 warboss wrote:

 Mike1975 wrote:
Naw, the idea is that the missiles are coming in as a small group and if you blow one the explosion kills the rest. Doing it on a one to one basis makes missiles way too powerful and would take forever against things like FPA that fire 8 at a time.

It might be overpowered but that determination requires further testing and I admit that I haven't tried it with the FPA. Saying that it would "take forever" is more than a bit of an exaggeration. You roll 8 dice instead of one and find the 5's and 6's and subtract that many from the missiles that hit. That at most adds 10-15 seconds to an interaction if it is shooting all eight at one target.

We tried playing it like you suggest: try to shoot down one missile at a time.
Makes it a real nail biter when you want to get the volley down to less than 4 missiles so you can dodge!
Then we would try to dodge whatever got through.
We made "roll with impact" needing a 2+ for each hit rather (still only spend one point for the opportunity) than by spending the point you automatically get it reduced to half.
Missiles are nasty enough, getting that dreaded 1 is scary.

We wanted to reflect the anime a bit: the desperate antimissile shooting, then the frantic dodging, then the getting blasted to the ground, rolling and trying not to get squashed by the other missiles that followed.

We felt also that "fast movers" should get a +1 like the Guardian due to being "hard to hit" and should not block line of sight. We felt normal line of sight rules apply (flying "nap of the earth").
You get plenty of opportunity fire on them since movement is quite restrictive with them. It was harder than I thought just to fly up onto the top of a building. Speaking of that: building hitpoints suck: 2-3X what they are at least should be applied.

Again, playing straight-up is fine, we just feel a little more drama is our preference.

Well, there goes Wave 2 minis: http://www.skynews.com.au/news/top-stories/2015/08/13/huge-explosion-in-northern-china.html

 fellowhoodlum wrote:


Well, there goes Wave 2 minis: http://www.skynews.com.au/news/top-stories/2015/08/13/huge-explosion-in-northern-china.html

PB wishes they could use this as an excuse, but sadly for PB the warehouse that blew up was storing explosives for the construction being done around it for other buildings.

cannonfodr wrote:


While it isn't clearly spelled out either way, I've played that anything using flight to ignore terrain for movement is flying over the terrain and not getting cover. If you're behind area terrain, you use TLOS and if you can't see the target because of intervening terrain, you can't shoot at it unless you've got a blast weapon to shoot the nearby ground assuming you either saw the target mask itself, someone with LOS is providing targeting data or you've got them on some sort of sensor.
Because of the way things are based, TLOS is somewhat problematic. PB should have given things height levels. Flyers are at a certain height level and targeting/cover/concealment should be calculated using the model's base and elevation level.

Vertical distance and flight are issues I have with the rules. On one page it states that vertical distance isn't considered at all, like a boardgame. On other pages, it clearly uses vertical distance to determine things.
If miniatures can fly over something, they should be higher than it. I haven't actually based my flying units yet because I'm not sure what height I want to put them at. The fighters being less than a inch above the ground is ridiculous to me. I also don't like that the rules seem to say that you can basically "fly" over very tall terrain that would actually take more movement than the unit has to fly over. The rules are weak in this regard and I hope the "advanced" rules address this. I'm going to end up house ruling this stuff and it's pretty basic stuff for a miniatures game.

should we talk about super pods able to leap over a tall building(s) in a single bound?

Yeah, that is the type of thing I mean.

It is silly.

Continuously bouncing about as if using a nuclear-powered ninja pogo stick, as found in every genre from Warcraft (fantasy) to Hawken (mecha), unfortunately seems to be exactly what most folks do want in their gaming no matter the type.

Those finding it silly appear to be in such a small minority as to be utterly inconsequential when someone amongst TPTB at [X] company broaches the subject while designing any game nowadays.

_
_

I don't have an issue with pods doing that as they do it in the show and they need to have some speed in game as well. It was a bit jarring to see it the first time and I think I would have preferred leap allowing them to ignore terrain/obstacles during their move but not before or after (as opposed to aircraft) but I see why they have it. Pods get slaughtered en masse and need to close to fire.

I don't however want to see it in stuff like Heavy Gear Assault but did in their recent gameplay demos. It reminded me of the early days of Medal of Honor Allied Assault watching the american team bunny hop leaning left and right mid hop to avoid shots.

my question is how can something ignore terrain while using it ?

Asterios wrote:
my question is how can something ignore terrain while using it ?

Yes, that is what I asked earlier in the case of flying aircraft... but that isn't the case either conceptually or mechanically with "leap". They ignore terrain for a part of their movement and then literally and figuratively come back down to earth at the end of the movement until their next activation. There is no cognitive disonance there that I can see since they're never simultaneously using it yet ignoring it.

I'd like to think I am not in a minority when it comes to something with a 5" leap able to effectively move many multiples of that because it is allowed to ignore the height of the terrain it is leaping over.

As it is, I think a 5" leap should allow you to leap 5". If I have a two foot tall building, a 5" leap that puts the model on the other side of that building is ridiculous.

Similarly, I don't care if the rules claim fighters are flying "nape of the earth", no fighter pilot is going to fly 20 feet off of the ground.

 warboss wrote:

Asterios wrote:
my question is how can something ignore terrain while using it ?

Yes, that is what I asked earlier in the case of flying aircraft... but that isn't the case either conceptually or mechanically with "leap". They ignore terrain for a part of their movement and then literally and figuratively come back down to earth at the end of the movement until their next activation. There is no cognitive disonance there that I can see since they're never simultaneously using it yet ignoring it.

ok warboss lets expound on these 2 areas then shall we?:

1: super leap able to bound over a 36" high building in a single leap, no other game does that, every other game has the leap height same height as their movement height.

2: use of Terrain while not being obstructed by terrain, so you have a fighter 1/2" away from a building (heck they couldn't even do that on the show) it can ignore the terrain, even fly thru it, yet if it comes under fire it can use the terrain to block LoS ? is this what your saying? cause that is what the rules are saying.

Asterios wrote:

 warboss wrote:

Asterios wrote:
my question is how can something ignore terrain while using it ?

Yes, that is what I asked earlier in the case of flying aircraft... but that isn't the case either conceptually or mechanically with "leap". They ignore terrain for a part of their movement and then literally and figuratively come back down to earth at the end of the movement until their next activation. There is no cognitive disonance there that I can see since they're never simultaneously using it yet ignoring it.

ok warboss lets expound on these 2 areas then shall we?:

1: super leap able to bound over a 36" high building in a single leap, no other game does that, every other game has the leap height same height as their movement height.

2: use of Terrain while not being obstructed by terrain, so you have a fighter 1/2" away from a building (heck they couldn't even do that on the show) it can ignore the terrain, even fly thru it, yet if it comes under fire it can use the terrain to block LoS ? is this what your saying? cause that is what the rules are saying.

I understand the point but how often do you seriously use 3 foot tall buildings? Really?

I did have this problem when I had some 9 inch tall structures I made from some foam from a Ceiling Fan. It was a Destroid Hangar. I basically said if a unit can leap 5 it can only get up or over buildings that are 5 inches tall. That was personal house rule.

If I had a VT that was flying around I basically said it can only shift height up to half the distance it moves. So if you have a fighter that moves 9 inches it can only go up or down up to 4.5 inches. Or the other option is that if you want to fly up and over a taller object you have to use movement on vertical movement.

This was a fast paced fix that I use personally. I did write up some elevation rules somewhere for a full blown height addition to the game where every level was considered 6 inches and that you used a die to show height. No die meant height is as shown with the mini. A 1 on a six sided die represents that the unit is 6 inches above the surface that they are on. 2 was 12 inches and so on so that you could use a 6 sided die, we all have more than enough of those, and use those for range. If a unit had a 1 on the die and was 11 inches away on the horiziontal I considered that a range of 17 inches for simplicity. Yes, I'm an engineer and know that the real angle would make the range something more like 14 inches but it works and was simple. So you added 6 inches for every pip shown on the dice for range. This allows units like the VT to stay up in the air and rain missiles down on pods. Which makes sense. It also means that units in the air likely have zero cover, which also makes sense. Then you have where you can simply fly above the carnage and avoid the melee. This means air support can turn the tide if used right.

Flight on the other hand is all considered nape of the Earth so fighters could magically fly up and over something and right back down and hide behind it. It was done to keep the game simple. RRT is unique in that is it the only game that has mecha that can transform and move in a variety of different ways. I prefer a bit more complicated approach. Some also wanted to use curves to determine turns instead of the 90 degree turns we have now. Again, some realism is sacrificed. This is a minis game, a simulation, after all. Advanced rules may well take care of this.

Instead of worrying over it figure out some rules that can be used in their place and may be presented as alternative rules for the game.

Asterios wrote:

 warboss wrote:

Asterios wrote:
my question is how can something ignore terrain while using it ?

Yes, that is what I asked earlier in the case of flying aircraft... but that isn't the case either conceptually or mechanically with "leap". They ignore terrain for a part of their movement and then literally and figuratively come back down to earth at the end of the movement until their next activation. There is no cognitive disonance there that I can see since they're never simultaneously using it yet ignoring it.

ok warboss lets expound on these 2 areas then shall we?:

1: super leap able to bound over a 36" high building in a single leap, no other game does that, every other game has the leap height same height as their movement height.

2: use of Terrain while not being obstructed by terrain, so you have a fighter 1/2" away from a building (heck they couldn't even do that on the show) it can ignore the terrain, even fly thru it, yet if it comes under fire it can use the terrain to block LoS ? is this what your saying? cause that is what the rules are saying.

#2: Yes, that is currently the case and I don't like it which is why I brought it up. Your jet fighter flies "above" a forest but as soon as you finish your movement you're inbetween the branches for shooting (your own and your opponent's)

#1: It's an extreme case and I don't like it but I still view it as less of a paradox than fighters using cover yet SIMULTANEOUSLY ignoring it in the same turn. With Leap, there is a defined beginning and end to the ignoring. I would however prefer if they limited the height of what it can ignore to the distance of the leap (so 5" up and forward max for pods) in an FAQ. As for no other game doing that, the MOST POPULAR game in our hobby does that (40k) and has for the 17 years I've been playing it. With jump packs (which allow you to jump like leap but NOT fly), you just ignore intervening cover with no limit.

I find the first example to be bothersome to the point of needing change but the second acceptable as a game mechanic compromise (although as I said I'd prefer if they included a hieght limit).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mike1975 wrote:

I understand the point but how often do you seriously use 3 foot tall buildings? Really?

They're out there but admittedly it's a fringe case for terrain and in all likelihood 28mm. LOL, at 6mm it would end up being the UNSPACY HQ that got destroyed in Macross II. I wouldn't use it in Robotech but this is from my store's 40k apoc game that I attended a few years back.

 Mike1975 wrote:

Flight on the other hand is all considered nape of the Earth so fighters could magically fly up and over something and right back down and hide behind it. It was done to keep the game simple. RRT is unique in that is it the only game that has mecha that can transform and move in a variety of different ways. I prefer a bit more complicated approach. Some also wanted to use curves to determine turns instead of the 90 degree turns we have now. Again, some realism is sacrificed. This is a minis game, a simulation, after all. Advanced rules may well take care of this.

Instead of worrying over it figure out some rules that can be used in their place and may be presented as alternative rules for the game.

I'd argue that using ANY aircraft on the tabletop automatically makes it "nape of the earth" flying instead of higher altitude but that shouldn't give them access to using "cover" like bushes and trees. That's not flying but landing! I think a quick and easy fix for aircraft would be that they can't claim cover bonuses from cover unless that cover could potentially (from any angle) completely block LOS to the model on the flight swoosh stand. That way an airplane flying low between tall buildings can claim some cover but not from a bush that it's flight stand is in.

LOL, Warboss, at that scale, the question is never if you are in range. Everything would be in range with tanks on that scale!

 Mike1975 wrote:
LOL, Warboss, at that scale, the question is never if you are in range. Everything would be in range with tanks on that scale!

Yup! During a 5th edition 40k tourney, I had a preset table that I was playing on and saw an opponent eying the huge building. I asked him if he wanted to have a gentlemen's agreement that we don't deploy higher than the 2nd floor (but can move during the game up further) like I had always done in friendly games since that effecticely makes anything up there invulnerable to assault and he vehemently disagreed. We then proceeded to roll for table sides and I got the one with the huge building and proceeded to place my two full squads of Tau Broadsides (think MACII destroids but without the blast weapon effect) up 5 stories up with LOS and 72" range to everything on the table with almost no cover that could be applied to them... just like he had planned to do to me. It didn't work out well for him after that...

LOL, yeah, my brothers and nephews play 40k actively. So I know what that is like. My brother painted his new broadside a few months ago and had sent me some pics.

On the topic of flyers and cover I would say "area terrain" is where you cannot claim it inside the cover.
Flying past/toward/up a tall structure like a bunch of trees or a building should be fine.
Moving over them you could figure that it is slower trying to "climb" higher but then diving down the other side they would get faster so it all works out in the wash!

I agree that bushes or a car garage (6mm scale!) starts getting "unrealistic" for cover, stands some 4-6" off the table would seem more appropriate for aircraft.
I like to think anything below the height of a Veritech is well into the ground clutter height that only a slow flying craft or with hover would attempt.

I understand it is ideal if the actual rules covered these things properly but I suspect I will not get to play any "exactly by the rules games" so I am not focusing on it as strongly.
I am a fan also of "realism" within the realm of the source material since we are trying to recreate those fun events so house rules become attractive if the rules do not simulate it well.

For height of movement, it is almost like they are trying to set the rules to a top-down view game.
I could plunk down 2D flat terrain with a "Blocks Line of Sight" label on it and be good to go (like playing MegaMek).

The issue of "super leap" I think I saw a few bits where the pods within Earth's atmosphere could fly in the show.
I would assume it is more efficient with their bounding methods, maybe saving fuel.
I always assumed those guys could "jump" as high as they needed.

What is neat with leap is you really have to think about it a bit when looking to jump on a building or onto another.
You only get to leap 5" and/or move 5" so unless buildings are within 5" of each other you would need 2 turns to get to the top of one or the other.

I find the difficulty of determining cover is less of a problem than how easily it can be blown away becoming a moot point.

Glad to see things come around to the rules because I am trying to get what fun I can out of what I have... wave 2 will sure extend the life of this game.

 Mike1975 wrote:
LOL, Warboss, at that scale, the question is never if you are in range. Everything would be in range with tanks on that scale!

Even at 6mm, were we to use realistic modern weapon ranges, most gaming tables would have the whole of it in range for all main guns in existence (for example, a 6mm M1 Abrams would have an effective range of about 29 feet). And that's for guns. Missiles would be able to do some laps first.

So yeah, I know you were joking, but it's not like 40k or 28mm games are the only ones that make concessions for gameability.

I've always considered range and movement on the tabletop to be more logarithmic scale than linear compared with reality. You really can't reliably do infantry versus jet fighter on a tabletop otherwise.

 warboss wrote:
I've always considered range and movement on the tabletop to be more logarithmic scale than linear compared with reality. You really can't reliably do infantry versus jet fighter on a tabletop otherwise.

OTOH, infantry vs. jetfighter is... weird, to say the least ^_^

But that is what lots of folks want to see on the tabletop though... mixed slices of different vehicles and weapons all used together on the tabletop. Since that is what customers want, a good game designer puts in acceptable abstractions without going hopefully too crazy. The side effect of having an infantryman with a 5kph average speed shooting down a 2,000kph speed fighter is that the infantryman moves 1/3 to 1/10 the range of a cruise missile in a given allotment of time where you can engage a single enemy/fire weapons once. That is the world we game in.