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.

 Mike1975 wrote:

It's easy to call obstinate something you don't agree with. Just as I could say you are being obstinate in thinking that a Guardian Mode veritech is correct only having Hover and not also including flight.

Note that Having Flight also negates the movement portion of the Hover trait and makes it so that it simply provides a -1 to strike for that unit.

Flight doesn't "negate" it, it simply repeats it. There is a difference in game design between the two (although not functionally in that particular case). Also, I don't think it is "correct" as that implies it is the best choice but rather a reasonable choice for guardians to have hover for the purposes of game balance and variety and hence the confusion. I'm actually agreeing with you so there is no reason to tilt this windmill. I'm glad they all have flight and I agree that flight (without aircraft/afterburner) better illustrates what a guardian is capable of. Is that clear finally?

Sure

Oh, if you think this flight thing is warped, wait until we get Armored Valks and someone pops the armor to put a Valk jet on the board with wing missiles...

 Stormonu wrote:
Oh, if you think this flight thing is warped, wait until we get Armored Valks and someone pops the armor to put a Valk jet on the board with wing missiles...

Can't use the LRM's though. You buy armored units and their upgrades but they come out of the armor and are basic Veritechs. You can't buy the missile upgrades for Arrmored VT's.

On the other hand you are correct and the rules do not technically state that you will not have the standard missile loadout, so you could argue, that once they come out they will have the medium-range missiles.

 Forar wrote:

 n815e wrote:
Three dimensional models are by their very nature three dimensional.

But feel free to actually prove me wrong, show me a miniatures game that doesn't consider three dimensions.

If you want to go down that rabbit hole, boardgame pieces aren't 2 dimensional either. Even thin paper bits exist in all three dimensions.

But surely we've all realized by now that definitively stating things as absolutes is a futile endeavor. Regarding actual height/elevation, you mean to tell me you don't think there's a single miniatures game out there that ignores unit height/elevation? Because I'd be surprised if there wasn't at least one.

Let's put it this way. What would a strictly two dimensional miniatures game be modeling? What situation exists or could exist outside of Flatland that functions on a flat plane? Even tactical boardgames model three dimensional combat. Perhaps corridor games such as Space Hulk may be two dimensional, I am not familiar enough with them to say.
The most basic naval wargame I've played has rules for running aground.

It is a pretty lazy or poorly considered aspect of what is otherwise a decent set of rules.

Also, not having my rulebooks on me, I can't remember if you can transform to battloid with missiles still attached and "get them back" returning to jet mode. I do remember, however in the episode "Viva Miriya" (attacking the robotech factory) a scene where Max and Miriya switch to battloid and still have their wing missiles (with wings splayed open on the back). Moments later, they switch back to jet and start firing those wing missiles. Just can't remember if the game allows you to do that or not.

 n815e wrote:

 Forar wrote:

 n815e wrote:
Three dimensional models are by their very nature three dimensional.

But feel free to actually prove me wrong, show me a miniatures game that doesn't consider three dimensions.

If you want to go down that rabbit hole, boardgame pieces aren't 2 dimensional either. Even thin paper bits exist in all three dimensions.

But surely we've all realized by now that definitively stating things as absolutes is a futile endeavor. Regarding actual height/elevation, you mean to tell me you don't think there's a single miniatures game out there that ignores unit height/elevation? Because I'd be surprised if there wasn't at least one.

Let's put it this way. What would a strictly two dimensional miniatures game be modeling? What situation exists or could exist outside of Flatland that functions on a flat plane? Even tactical boardgames model three dimensional combat. Perhaps corridor games such as Space Hulk may be two dimensional, I am not familiar enough with them to say.
The most basic naval wargame I've played has rules for running aground.

It is a pretty lazy or poorly considered aspect of what is otherwise a decent set of rules.

The obvious answer (to me) is the one that Merijeek gave; X-Wing, however I had assumed that would be argued to be a boardgame, not a minis game.

Space Hulk would be a good one, and down that path would also possibly be things like Shadows of Brimstone and Imperial assault, but those I'd definitely call more 'boardgames that happen to have minis' rather than a full blown 'minis game'.

Is 'running aground' really tracking 'elevation', or isn't it simply "do NOT go here, seriously"?

I'm sure many, if not most miniature wargames include some measure of elevation, especially depending on how they do Line of Sight. But *all* of them? 'Cause I'm sure we can dig up some crappy ones from the 80s or 90s that forgot to include it somewhere if we try. :-P

Surely there must be some other games that utilize miniatures on a board but don't worry about those miniatures being at above or below grade? (Note I say nothing about them being *good* games, simply that it would shock me if it didn't exist).

 Stormonu wrote:
Oh, if you think this flight thing is warped, wait until we get Armored Valks and someone pops the armor to put a Valk jet on the board with wing missiles...

I think the more important issue is what will happen to the existing metas and game balance once they introduce spiderpig. I mean his rules are completely OP since it literally states that spiderpig does whatever a spiderpig does. The possibilities are endless! And we're almost as close to getting spiderpig with our pledges as the Armored Valkyrie judging by all the wave 2 updates we've gotten in the past 5 1/2 months.

I believe Valkyries can fly in battloid mode. From the way the rules are written in the rulebook and the cards, we have the general rules that apply to all modes, followed by mode specific rules under each mode. Flight is not under the fighter mode so it follows that it applies to all modes. While it's not in the Robotech continuity, we do see VF-0s in battloid flying in Macross Zero. We also see Guardians flying alongside the SDF-1 in several episodes.

Yeah, now that it's been pointed out they obviously fly.

It is a little funny that so many people missed it, and that it's even a discussion on Mike's page.

The number of people calling for even more penalties to the Battloid's ability to fly is kind of surprising.

To be fair the discussion was introduced to the FB page. Rick and I had some PM's and I wanted to see what others thought.

Just glad I brought it up and Mike was caring enough to take me up on my guardian comment.
Weird but it works.
Confirmed "Aircraft" rule is what prevents HtH engagement.

 warboss wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:
Oh, if you think this flight thing is warped, wait until we get Armored Valks and someone pops the armor to put a Valk jet on the board with wing missiles...

I think the more important issue is what will happen to the existing metas and game balance once they introduce spiderpig. I mean his rules are completely OP since it literally states that spiderpig does whatever a spiderpig does. The possibilities are endless! And we're almost as close to getting spiderpig with our pledges as the Armored Valkyrie judging by all the wave 2 updates we've gotten in the past 5 1/2 months.

Why wait for Wave 2? I already have these guys, and as you can see, they're properly sized for the New Scale Generation!




(The monster is the old matchbox guy from around 87. The armored valk I've had since about '89, part of a battletech kit. The super is a gashapon I recently picked up to check the scale against my "green" RRT valks)


EDIT: Stupid Flickr - why do I bother?

 Talizvar wrote:
Just glad I brought it up and Mike was caring enough to take me up on my guardian comment.
Weird but it works.
Confirmed "Aircraft" rule is what prevents HtH engagement.

Yup. That's pretty explicit.

Did they ever get around to FAQing that you need to be engaged to hit someone with a melee attack though? Cause the lack of that restriction meant it was still possible. There are several things "engaged" restricts (using close formation, shooting, being shot at or moving away). But actually hitting/being hit with a melee attack isn't directly a part of that rule. All hitting seems to require, is base contact.

And if they did, did they explain how that's going to work with the Glaug-Eldare, which IS an Aircraft, can't not be an Aircraft like Veritechs (yes, it can Jettison, but then it'd be a Glaug, which is a separate profile), but which also explicitly states it has several options for Hand-to-Hand Attacks.

While there's nothing contradictory in the above, if the rules or GEldare stats have not changed, it may lead to arguments about RAI vs RAW, and should be clarified.

 n815e wrote:
Let's put it this way. What would a strictly two dimensional miniatures game be modeling? What situation exists or could exist outside of Flatland that functions on a flat plane? Even tactical boardgames model three dimensional combat. Perhaps corridor games such as Space Hulk may be two dimensional, I am not familiar enough with them to say.

Yeah, like OGRE! Oh, wait...

 Albertorius wrote:

 n815e wrote:
Let's put it this way. What would a strictly two dimensional miniatures game be modeling? What situation exists or could exist outside of Flatland that functions on a flat plane? Even tactical boardgames model three dimensional combat. Perhaps corridor games such as Space Hulk may be two dimensional, I am not familiar enough with them to say.

Yeah, like OGRE! Oh, wait...

Ogre Miniatures is a 3-D thing. I own over a hundred armor units for Ogre Minis battles, in addiition to the requisite Ogres & infantry.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:

 n815e wrote:
Let's put it this way. What would a strictly two dimensional miniatures game be modeling? What situation exists or could exist outside of Flatland that functions on a flat plane? Even tactical boardgames model three dimensional combat. Perhaps corridor games such as Space Hulk may be two dimensional, I am not familiar enough with them to say.

Yeah, like OGRE! Oh, wait...

Ogre Miniatures is a 3-D thing. I own over a hundred armor units for Ogre Minis battles, in addiition to the requisite Ogres & infantry.

Ogre Miniatures is not OGRE, the tactical boardgame, which doesn't have elevation rules whatsoever.

Point still stands that Ogre the tactical wargame played on hexes has no elevation rules what so ever. I guess when the map scale is 1.5 km per hex, if you've got a difference of elevation important enough to note you can write your own mountain rules.

 Stormonu wrote:

 warboss wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:
Oh, if you think this flight thing is warped, wait until we get Armored Valks and someone pops the armor to put a Valk jet on the board with wing missiles...

I think the more important issue is what will happen to the existing metas and game balance once they introduce spiderpig. I mean his rules are completely OP since it literally states that spiderpig does whatever a spiderpig does. The possibilities are endless! And we're almost as close to getting spiderpig with our pledges as the Armored Valkyrie judging by all the wave 2 updates we've gotten in the past 5 1/2 months.

Why wait for Wave 2? I already have these guys, and as you can see, they're properly sized for the New Scale Generation!




(The monster is the old matchbox guy from around 87. The armored valk I've had since about '89, part of a battletech kit. The super is a gashapon I recently picked up to check the scale against my "green" RRT valks)


EDIT: Stupid Flickr - why do I bother?

You could just use 1/200 minis and use a range that is 50% longer. Pretty easy to do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Morgan Vening wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
Just glad I brought it up and Mike was caring enough to take me up on my guardian comment.
Weird but it works.
Confirmed "Aircraft" rule is what prevents HtH engagement.

Yup. That's pretty explicit.

Did they ever get around to FAQing that you need to be engaged to hit someone with a melee attack though? Cause the lack of that restriction meant it was still possible. There are several things "engaged" restricts (using close formation, shooting, being shot at or moving away). But actually hitting/being hit with a melee attack isn't directly a part of that rule. All hitting seems to require, is base contact.

And if they did, did they explain how that's going to work with the Glaug-Eldare, which IS an Aircraft, can't not be an Aircraft like Veritechs (yes, it can Jettison, but then it'd be a Glaug, which is a separate profile), but which also explicitly states it has several options for Hand-to-Hand Attacks.

While there's nothing contradictory in the above, if the rules or GEldare stats have not changed, it may lead to arguments about RAI vs RAW, and should be clarified.

If I remember correctly you can still hit an aircraft if it is close enough. You just can't cause it to be engaged so that it cannot move when it activates. In fact if you get the initiative the next turn, ideally, you could attack it twice in HTH. Although most of the time your better off shooting it.

Relevant to PB's efforts or lack thereof, I think:
http://icv2.com/articles/news/view/32334/court-orders-fines-payments-kickstarter-case

Thanks for the link. It's good to see at least one attorney general looking out for crowdfunding customers. Any Robotech backers from the great state of Washington? The kickstarter they took to court had backers out an average of $22.54 according to that link and I suspect the average Robotech backer has much more value still outstanding two years later from wave 2 portion of their pledge.

 Albertorius wrote:

 n815e wrote:
Let's put it this way. What would a strictly two dimensional miniatures game be modeling? What situation exists or could exist outside of Flatland that functions on a flat plane? Even tactical boardgames model three dimensional combat. Perhaps corridor games such as Space Hulk may be two dimensional, I am not familiar enough with them to say.

Yeah, like OGRE! Oh, wait...

Finding a tactical boardgame that has no third dimension doesn't change the fact that tactical boardgames model three dimensional combat.

Last I played Ogre (a long time ago), artillery was able to shoot over units and terrain. That's not a two-dimensional possibility.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The obvious answer (to me) is the one that Merijeek gave; X-Wing, however I had assumed that would be argued to be a boardgame, not a minis game.

Models in X-Wing block each others' line of sight?

Is 'running aground' really tracking 'elevation', or isn't it simply "do NOT go here, seriously"?

Running aground means that depth is a consideration. Depth and height are both expressions of vertical distance.

 n815e wrote:

Models in X-Wing block each others' line of sight?

I haven't played this year yet but iirc they don't. They don't even give a cover modifier. The only disallowed shots are against enemy models you are in base to base with and that only affects the models touching. Asteroids iirc give one extra defence die if intervening.

 n815e wrote:
Last I played Ogre (a long time ago), artillery was able to shoot over units and terrain. That's not a two-dimensional possibility

Everything can, you know. Line of sight is not something that exists in the regular OGRE game. There only exist "in range" and "out of range". Even when adding the GEV rules to the mix, neither terrain nor other units affect wether a unit can or can't shoot another one.

winterdyne wrote:
Relevant to PB's efforts or lack thereof, I think:
http://icv2.com/articles/news/view/32334/court-orders-fines-payments-kickstarter-case

funny thing is you notice how the cards were being delivered according to posters on the forums for the game on KickStarter, but the judgement remains in place.

 warboss wrote:

 n815e wrote:

Models in X-Wing block each others' line of sight?

I haven't played this year yet but iirc they don't. They don't even give a cover modifier. The only disallowed shots are against enemy models you are in base to base with and that only affects the models touching. Asteroids iirc give one extra defence die if intervening.

Thanks, warboss, I haven't played it yet so didn't know.

That means that the models are assumed to be on different planes relative to each other even though it is played on a flat surface.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asterios wrote:

winterdyne wrote:
Relevant to PB's efforts or lack thereof, I think:
http://icv2.com/articles/news/view/32334/court-orders-fines-payments-kickstarter-case

funny thing is you notice how the cards were being delivered according to posters on the forums for the game on KickStarter, but the judgement remains in place.

Yes, but those guys didn't bother to actually show up to court or send a representative. If they had and proved that they were sending stuff out, they may have avoided the judgement.

 n815e wrote:

 warboss wrote:

 n815e wrote:

Models in X-Wing block each others' line of sight?

I haven't played this year yet but iirc they don't. They don't even give a cover modifier. The only disallowed shots are against enemy models you are in base to base with and that only affects the models touching. Asteroids iirc give one extra defence die if intervening.

Thanks, warboss, I haven't played it yet so didn't know.

That means that the models are assumed to be on different planes relative to each other even though it is played on a flat surface.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asterios wrote:

winterdyne wrote:
Relevant to PB's efforts or lack thereof, I think:
http://icv2.com/articles/news/view/32334/court-orders-fines-payments-kickstarter-case

funny thing is you notice how the cards were being delivered according to posters on the forums for the game on KickStarter, but the judgement remains in place.

Yes, but those guys didn't bother to actually show up to court or send a representative. If they had and proved that they were sending stuff out, they may have avoided the judgement.

maybe, maybe not, but the fact a judge allowed the CPA violation does show yes even we kickstarter backers are protected under the laws of the CPA.

The thing to note is that their lack of communication is what really did them in.

As much as some creators might dislike 'omg we're still alive yay!', I'm beginning to think that some kind of mandatory "one update a month" standard might not be a bad thing.

With full recognition that finding a way to enforce that or penalize those who fail to follow through might have to involve more than just a few house rules for the site, especially with more such sites becoming common as the years go by.

Whatever the project, if multiple calendar months can go by without *anything* of note happening, surely something is wrong.

So, yeah, I can't see this relating directly back to campaigns like PB's, but with litigation proceeding against creators at all, I'd think that some people might be getting at least a little antsy.

Nobody wants to be blindsided into being the next precedent setting case.

But I'm not expecting rapid change either. The law is notoriously slow to evolve to technology and new or novel ways of using it.

 n815e wrote:
The thing to note is that their lack of communication is what really did them in.

you talking about the card game or PB? it goes for both me thinks, yeah PB posted a lot of updates recently, but updates relating to this kickstarter sadly only 1.