|
|
Post by Thorfinn on Jan 11, 2015 3:31:32 GMT
This question also pertains to FLYERS, HOVERERS, and models on flight stands in general as well.
How is everyone treating LOS to AIRCRAFT?
Are you using true LOS to the actual model? Some flight stands are tall, and others short. One might hide a model behind a building while another wouldn't. Is it fair to punish a player for assembling a great looking model on a high stand or reward a player who glues his plane directly on the base - or even one who models landing gear on it?
Are aircraft considered to be flying above all terrain and thus in everyone's clear view?
Extend the question to Valkyries in Guardian mode and Battloid mode. Some people will glue them directly to the base, and others will model them in the air. They are each legitimately posed, but does the pose afford the model an advantage or disadvantage?
|
|
|
|
Post by tundrish on Jan 11, 2015 4:54:10 GMT
There is another side you're not considering. Modeling yourself taller can be a boon as well, allowing you to see other models better than if you were glued to the base.
|
|
brian
New Member
Posts: 91 
|
Post by brian on Jan 11, 2015 5:00:36 GMT
Easier to see, easier to be seen. If you model a guy squatting down and hiding, he won't be able to see anything.
|
|
|
|
Post by ItsUncertainWho on Jan 11, 2015 13:49:32 GMT
Again, this is another TLoS issue. Modeling for advantage becomes an issue, as the others already pointed out, there can be drawbacks to such things.
One solution, if agreed upon before the game, would be to keep a normal version of each unit to the side and swap them out with the heavily moded unit when questions arise. This then presents its own set of issues, as you will spend more time swapping units back and forth than playing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hastati on Jan 11, 2015 16:07:28 GMT
The rules are pretty clear, you measure from one mecha's torso to another's. How you base your models will have an effect. If it bothers you, you could always measure from the centre of one base to another. For casual games I wouldn't be bothered too much and just take a common sense approach.
|
|
|
|
Post by Thorfinn on Jan 11, 2015 16:30:28 GMT
Modelling for advantage pops up in any game where players are allowed to build their playing pieces, whether from kits or from scratch, be it modelling something extra large to use as a shield for other models, or making it extra small so it can't be easily targeted.
There can be advantages or disadvantages to either, but at the end of the day, you have a tool who purposely modeled his figure to gain some advantage, where the figures are really supposed to be cool looking counters.
To use models in my own collection (I'll add pictures later if I can), I have 5 planes. I've used a mix of all 4 swooshy flight stands to mount them, and they look cool. Some of them will be hidden behind low buildings - and those are the ones on the plane stands, while the ones modeled on the battloid stands are higher, and would not be hidden behind the same building.
Likewise with my battloids, most are just standing, but a few are in action poses. One is jumping back on a modified guardian stand, and another is jumping forward and is mounted on the battloid stand. That guy is fully half again as tall as a battloid on the ground.
So how should we play this?
Do some of my planes get to fire over buildings just because they randomly ended up on a taller flight stand? Are the others safe from getting shot because they randomly ended up on shorter stands? Or should they all be assumed to be flying above building height, visible to all, and with a view to all because they are planes?
Should my squadron in battloid mode be safe behind that building except for the one dude who drew the short straw and got modeled in mid leap, and thus gets lasered by every pod within 5 blocks?
It's an issue exaggerated here because of the nature of anime, where pretty much EVERYBODY can fly.
|
|
|
|
Post by ItsUncertainWho on Jan 12, 2015 8:07:30 GMT
Modelling for advantage pops up in any game where players are allowed to build their playing pieces, whether from kits or from scratch, be it modelling something extra large to use as a shield for other models, or making it extra small so it can't be easily targeted. This only crops up in TLoS games. Magic Cylinder takes every question out of the equation, it's why Warmahordes works so efficiently. Every time I see a game that ignores the base, the one and only constant in any mature game, I have to roll my eyes. Now the issue of being able to see aircraft is a whole other issue. The idea that these jets are flying through the terrain/cities at the height of their flight stands is just another dumb design choice. Instead of simple: aircraft fly high, no cover. We get jets screaming through cities engaging in HtH while in flight...... If you want cover, add a restriction to LoS. A building, or other tall structure, will block LoS to and from aircraft if a unit is less than 1/2 the height away from a tall structure. Example: A unit less than 3" away from a 6" tall building cannot draw LoS to an aircraft at high altitude and the aircraft can't draw LoS to that same unit. |
|
kryptt
New Member
Flying faster than sound!
Posts: 39
|
Post by kryptt on Jan 12, 2015 9:04:09 GMT
You can't engage jet craft in hth. The way I read the rules the jets are all up high and ignore cover. So even if there behind a building they can see you and you can see them. PB needs to put out an FAQ soon. The house rules here are ok, but we need something official.
|
|
brian
New Member
Posts: 91
|
Post by brian on Jan 12, 2015 14:07:31 GMT
You can't engage jet craft in hth. The way I read the rules the jets are all up high and ignore cover. So even if there behind a building they can see you and you can see them. Where do you get that? |
|
Min
New Member
Posts: 43
|
Post by Min on Jan 12, 2015 14:26:58 GMT
You can't engage jet craft in hth. Correct. But you may make HtH attacks to an aircraft. ---------------------- The LoS issue with aircraft can be solved with a simple token in the form of a common coin. One side denotes the aircraft flying at elevation and in LoS of every unit on the board, the other side denotes the aircraft flying at NoE(nape of the earth) level and covered by terrain features that block LoS. Edit; This method is in keeping with the fast engagement feel of the game. Model the figure the way you want, with the above method there is no advantage to it. I plan on doing the same with any figure that has the flight or aircraft ability. |
|
|
|
Post by Thorfinn on Jan 12, 2015 15:13:38 GMT
---------------------- ... The LoS issue with aircraft can be solved with a simple token in the form of a common coin. One side denotes the aircraft flying at elevation and in LoS of every unit on the board, the other side denotes the aircraft flying at NoE(nape of the earth) level and covered by terrain features that block LoS.
This is probably the simplest, cleanest way to handle it that doesn't add another layer of complication to the rules, and keeps the flavor of the show, where you have running battles through cities, jets zooming around buildings, transforming, crashing into buildings, launching missile salvos, and generally unleashing munitions in every conceivable direction.
I love the smell of chaos in the morning...
At the end of the day though, that's just a house rule. The actual rules would appear to be lacking in this area.
|
|
|
|
Post by mike1975 on Jan 12, 2015 15:23:47 GMT
or you can use a D6 and every pip is a multiple of 2-3 inches in height from the table. So if you have a 2 you are 4-6 inches from the table surface.  |
|
brian
New Member
Posts: 91
|
Post by brian on Jan 12, 2015 15:51:07 GMT
I don't think there's any confusion over how it works. There are all sorts of ways you *could* do it, but it's not how they chose to do it.
There's a difference between "this is unclear" and "I don't like it".
|
|
|
|
Post by ItsUncertainWho on Jan 12, 2015 16:12:07 GMT
The LoS issue with aircraft can be solved with a simple token in the form of a common coin. One side denotes the aircraft flying at elevation and in LoS of every unit on the board, the other side denotes the aircraft flying at NoE(nape of the earth) level and covered by terrain features that block LoS. Edit; This method is in keeping with the fast engagement feel of the game. Model the figure the way you want, with the above method there is no advantage to it. I plan on doing the same with any figure that has the flight or aircraft ability. The problem with this is you have little reason to fly at high altitude and less reason not to fly NoE since there is no penalty. This doesn't solve the problem as there is no way to accurately draw LoS to a model that doesn't exist at the correct height. It's a good solution for a different system.  The only solution I can see really working is: Any aircraft(unit with Flight) without Hover always flies at High altitude. They receive no cover from any model or terrain feature on the table. Aircraft at high altitude may draw LoS to any unit on the table. Ground units inside of structures or under overhangs may be considered Blocked from LoS, units in wooded areas may receive cover, both determined by players before the game starts. |
|
|
|
Post by Thorfinn on Jan 12, 2015 16:15:48 GMT
Battloids have flight.
|
|
brian
New Member
Posts: 91
|
Post by brian on Jan 12, 2015 16:27:36 GMT
The only solution I can see really working is: Any aircraft(unit with Flight) without Hover always flies at High altitude. They receive no cover from any model or terrain feature on the table. Aircraft at high altitude may draw LoS to any unit on the table. Ground units inside of structures or under overhangs may be considered Blocked from LoS, units in wooded areas may receive cover, both determined by players before the game starts. It's a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. As I said, you may not like how the current rules function, but they're perfectly clear in this case. Aircraft aren't treated any differently than any other model as far as LOS goes. The new Palladium weekly update refers to a Robotech RPG Tactics Advanced Rule Book that is planned for later this year. Perhaps that book would have something more along the lines of what you guys are looking for. I have no problem with treating this as simply a miniatures game and not as a war simulator. I like that it is fast and easy and you can play it in under an hour. |
|
|
|
Post by ItsUncertainWho on Jan 12, 2015 16:30:59 GMT
Aircraft, whatever..... Easy and fast doesn't mean it has to be loose and dumb. Tight rules are good for everyone, not just tourney players. They unfortunately went fast and loose. For the record I never said anything about wanting anything more complicated. The rules as they sit need more complexity to make them tight. Being more complex doesn't mean complicated or adding look-up tables. Every time I see someone get fidgety about "complicated rules" I laugh to myself as most people don't actually know what a complicated miniature game or board game actually looks like. As for an advanced rulebook, who will give PB more money? |
|
Min
New Member
Posts: 43
|
Post by Min on Jan 12, 2015 19:16:09 GMT
The LoS issue with aircraft can be solved with a simple token in the form of a common coin. One side denotes the aircraft flying at elevation and in LoS of every unit on the board, the other side denotes the aircraft flying at NoE(nape of the earth) level and covered by terrain features that block LoS. The problem with this is you have little reason to fly at high altitude and less reason not to fly NoE since there is no penalty. Aircraft at high altitude may draw LoS to any unit on the table. Ground units inside of structures or under overhangs may be considered Blocked from LoS, units in wooded areas may receive cover, both determined by players before the game starts. So basically what I said? If any unit can draw LoS to aircraft at elevation the inverse also applies of course. Thought that was self-evident. |
|
Min
New Member
Posts: 43
|
Post by Min on Jan 12, 2015 19:19:36 GMT
The new Palladium weekly update refers to a Robotech RPG Tactics Advanced Rule Book that is planned for later this year. ...and it's going to be shipped with my Wave 2 items, yeah? How about the damned rules being given a proper errata and the rest of the pledge rewards being provided before going forth and creating more product to try and foist off on us? How about a rulebook in .pdf form, sans fluff? |
|
brian
New Member
Posts: 91
|
Post by brian on Jan 12, 2015 20:09:27 GMT
The new Palladium weekly update refers to a Robotech RPG Tactics Advanced Rule Book that is planned for later this year. ...and it's going to be shipped with my Wave 2 items, yeah? How about the damned rules being given a proper errata and the rest of the pledge rewards being provided before going forth and creating more product to try and foist off on us? How about a rulebook in .pdf form, sans fluff? You don't seem to want errata. You seem to want wholesale changes to the basic structure of the game. |
|
|
|
Post by Thorfinn on Jan 12, 2015 20:29:45 GMT
Which is all well and good, and not an issue in dispute. And the basic LoS mechanic is pretty basic and I don't think it's written unclearly except in regards to modeling. The crux of the question as originally stated basically boils down to flight stands. If we set aside using other models' stands (as I've done), or 3rd party flight stands (as many have done), and just stick to the flight stand that comes with each particular mech... The Battloid is probably the best example for this, as it can be mounted on foot directly to the base, or mounted on a rather tall flight stand, which adds about half the mech's height. Both options are for all intents and purposes completely legit and legal, using only pieces supplied with that specific kit. Do we count battloids on flight stands as being taller? Do we count all battloids as being on foot regardless of how they're mounted on the base? Or the inverse; do we count them all as being on flight stands? And if we go with how it's modeled, what happens when someone models that battloid prone (or kneeling) - and you know they will. What happens when someone models their plane on a 5" tall flight stand? And then stands that on top of a building. I don't want the game to be more complicated, or even "advanced". If I want a complicated ruleset, I'll play 40K. I posed the question because I haven't seen in the rules how models are treated when they're modeled in various poses - and these are models designed to be modeled in various poses. It could be something I'm missing. It could be something the designers understood and didn't explain fully, because they assumed that everyone would see it the same way. That happens. There are lots of ways that we can deal with it from a house rules point of view. Those are appreciated, and I'm interested in trying some out. But I'm also interested in learning what the actual rules say about it, or even what the designers intended. I don't believe the rules clearly say you should use them as modeled (even if modeled to an extreme); nor do they say you should treat all models as x height, or at x "altitude" regardless of flight stand, etc. Tournaments aside, (because it's not something I'm really interested in) but just going to the store for some random pick-up games with whoever happens to show up; I don't want to have to produce a checklist of nebulous rules that we have to go through and agree on before every game, or this house rule or that to cover this or that. |
|
|
|
Post by ItsUncertainWho on Jan 12, 2015 21:48:11 GMT
True Line of Sight based on Hull or Torso. Regardless of either model kneeling, being prone, jumping, flying, doing cartwheels, hurtling a building, standing on a wreck, mid back flip, or on a 5', 10', or 15' tall flight stand you draw LoS from center torso/hull to any part of the targets torso/hull.
40K isn't a complicated game. It would barely register in the midrange of complexity when compared to many historical mini games or even many complex boardgames.
TLoS is the more complicated way to do things, as it introduces infinite variables into the mix. Since there are no restrictions, anything is possible.
I have never under stood the aversion to tournament friendly rules. All tournament friendly means is a tight rule set that has as many loopholes plugged as possible. This makes even friendly pickup games better. When everything is clearly defined life is much easier. I rarely play in tournaments, but I much prefer a rule set designed for tournament use even when throwing down on the kitchen table with guys I have known for 20 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by ItsUncertainWho on Jan 12, 2015 21:51:46 GMT
So basically what I said? If any unit can draw LoS to aircraft at elevation the inverse also applies of course. Thought that was self-evident. Actually what I said a coupl of posts above yours.  |
|
|
|
Post by n815e on Jan 13, 2015 1:23:21 GMT
"Easy and fast doesn't mean it has to be loose and dumb. Tight rules are good for everyone, not just tourney players. They unfortunately went fast and loose."
I agree with this.
The rules need clarification in some places and I have never encountered a set of tight rules that cause problems.
|
|
|
|
Post by wumpus on Jan 14, 2015 16:05:47 GMT
I just use bases (assuming cylindrical shape for cover/LoS) for distances, ignoring model poses. As for flight and LoS. I have thought pretty hard about it, and I may have a 'high/low' variant mechanic. Eg at end of movement and afterburner, you can choose either high(LoS to a point say 18inches above the model location) and low normal LoS and cover etc applies. This means a model can fly choose high, shoot, Afterburn and choose low and be in cover. the set 18 inch 'ceiling' allows for simple LoS to be measured while allowing for tall buildings or structures to obstruct LoS. Any model with flight can make this choice for movement. Afterburner then has an added bonus(if the bonuses becomes too much maybe a CP to go from H to L or vice versa during afterbuner). I am going to use H/L two sided coin/tokens for this which will sit on the base, or given enough models use high swoosh stands or not for 'flight'
|
|
brian
New Member
Posts: 91
|
Post by brian on Jan 14, 2015 17:10:05 GMT
Part of the problem for allowing elevation changes is that it can affect how the Afterburner rule works. Currently you have to be careful when using Aircraft, especially if you choose to boost your speed. Afterburner lets you cover a lot of ground, but it carries the risk that you fly right past your target, putting you in a bad position, and/or fly right off the board, eliminating you from the game.
If you can change elevation by spending movement, you can virtually eliminate that risk. "Oh I'm gonna fly past my target? I'll just spend 12" of movement to go up a lot." It could lead to a very frustrating experience where your Aircraft is 3" away from its target on the table, but is at such a high elevation that he can't be shot. "I'm 42 inches up." Given that Aircraft can possess some of the longest range guns in the game, that could make them potentially a lot more powerful.
I figure if an Aircraft is "flying high" then they're not on the game board. They're on some other game board where the table is covered by blue felt and you've got a bunch of white cotton balls on the table as terrain. They might be able to get to your terrain board, but that'd be simulated by them entering from reserve halfway through your game. If they're on the "ground" level terrain board, they're assumed to be trying to take advantage of cover as much as possible.
By the way, I live in a city. Tall buildings absolutely can block line of sight to aircraft that are flying overhead. They just have to be between you and the airplane. Given that measurements and distances in Robotech don't have "real world" equivalents, and that turns aren't a set length of time, I'm okay with not having defined elevation levels for flight.
--
I'm all for house rules, and I think an "Advanced" version of the game that added all sorts of complexity could be fun. I mean, there are people out there who play Advanced Squad Leader. Those people aren't *me*, but they're out there, apparently.
|
|
|
|
Post by wumpus on Jan 14, 2015 19:11:18 GMT
yeah, buildings do block LoS to aircraft, even aircraft well above the battlefield. Well see how my 2 height solution works out as it will still allow this. Just need time to play more to try it out. Maintaining speed of play is important to me. I'd rather have abstraction and simplification than detailed slow complexity
|
|
