Share this project


Share this project

Robotech® RPG Tactics™ is a fast paced strategy battle game that expands on the popular Palladium role playing game.
Robotech® RPG Tactics™ is a fast paced strategy battle game that expands on the popular Palladium role playing game.
5,342 backers pledged $1,442,312 to help bring this project to life.

Amazon Error Update

Amazon's payment processing has been crashing and giving error codes for a good chunk of the day, sadly impacting today's numbers.

Well, we really wanted to post an update today, so we figured why wait? We have plenty of cool stuff to show you!

People are clamoring for more rules info, so we had our trusty rules scribe, David Freeman write up a rules overview for you.

Please note that these are NOT complete rules. It is an overview that only reflects where the rules are in their current stage of development. Things can and will change.

Nonetheless, feel free to post your thoughts in the comments section of the update. We probably can't answer all of your questions at this stage, but we'll definitely be reading.

Hopefully, in the meantime, Amazon will get everything sorted out so we can renew what had been a swift climb to the Nousjadeul-Ger Power Armor!

Robotech© RPG Tactics™ Rules Preview


Only backers can post comments. Log In
    1. Randall Case on May 5, 2013

      @ Oscar and Donald

      I'm actually referring to the folks further down who are freaking out about MDC and damage boxes. Constructive criticism is great but "freaking" is a bit annoying, especially since we haven't, officially, seen any of the mecha cards so we really have no real idea about what the final numbers will be or even what the final formula will be to determine it.

      And again, I said that it's "a bit early" to have a meaningful conversation on this. The rules tease didn't have the stats for even one mecha in it. So all we have, at best, is some formula that Kevin tossed out in an interview and VERY fleeting glances of a couple of cards in the demo.

      The only thing that we can meaningfully "criticize" right now is maybe the RPG's base MDC numbers that might be used as the base for the miniatures game.

    2. Randall Case on May 5, 2013

      This guy has a great thought on conventional vehicles in RPG Tactics:

      Here are some thoughts on infantry rules:

      Good stuff, but how would you do troops? Battletech simply gave them a damage line and as you picked off troops you weakened the unit. Too much bean counting to me. In my opinion, a unit of infantry is either effective or ineffective. Effective means that the unit is on the battlefield shooting, moving, and communicating and otherwise participating in the battle. Ineffective means that the unit isn't doing much that is useful at all and that can be because everyone is dead/wounded, that casualities are so bad that the survivors are focused on helping their friends rather than participating in a meaningful way in the war effort, or they are suppressed or intimidated so much that they are hunkering down or have fled from the battlefield. You really don't need to know more than that as a battlefield commander!So here's a thought:

      Infantry units are based on 1" squares with 2-4 figures per base. Squads of 1-4 (or more) bases are "squadrons" for game purposes. APCs in mechanized squads are considered part of the squad and activate with the rest of the squad.

      Infantry units cannot dodge or roll.

      Infantry units can fight mecha, and each other, in hand-to-hand (thus the Pilot score). Damage is always 1 Damage (representing grenades, short ranged LAW shots, etc).

      Infantry units move 2" per turn and ignore most terrain for movement purpose. Mechanized infantry carriers can move and then dismount their troopers (they are in base contact with the carrier), or troopers in base contact with the carrier can mount of and the carrier may move. Troops who dismount may NOT move the turn they dismounted but they may shoot.

      Infantry units are armed like mecha with several weapons: Small Arms (to use against other troops), LAWs (to use against vehicles- think RPG or western LAWS), heavy weapons (these would be specialized teams with ATGMs, recoiless rifles, HMGs, automatic grenade launchers, and heavy AAA mgs/guns).

      Infantry units are rated on a scale from Elite (special forces operators) to Green (barely trained or untrained fighters). Better troops have better attack scores and save scores and so on. Each troop type will have a base profile and you can attach weapons and skills to them.
      All units have one damage point (effective or ineffective) so any hit from any weapon will "kill" them. However they get a special save to ignore the hit (hey, infantry units are notoriously hard to kill compared to vehicles): Elite troops 2+, Veteran 3+, Regular 4+, Green 5+ (better troops know how to spread out and use cover) with units in cover getting a bonus of +1 to their save roll (or better with better cover). Units that pass are "suppressed" and cannot move or shoot during their next activation. Units which fail are "ineffective" and removed from the board.

      Example Units:

      Western Rifle Squad- two veteran fire teams. ATK 2, DEF 6, Pilot 1. Weapons: Small Arms R12" 1 Damage (vs Infantry), LAWs R6" 1 Damage

      Western ATGM Squad- two veteran ATGM teams (Javalins). ATK 2, DEF 5, Pilot 1. Weapons: Small Arms R6" 1 Damage (vs Infantry), Javalin ATGM R12" 1 Damage

      Western Special Forces Squad- 2 elite fire teams. ATK 3, DEF 7, Pilot 2. Weapons: Small Arms R12" 1 Damage (vs. Infantry), LAWs R6" 1 Damage

      Insurgent Squad- 3 green insurgent warrior teams. ATK 1, DEF 6, Pilot 1. Weapons: Small Arms R8" 1 Damage (vs. Infantry), RPG-7 R6" 1 Damage.

      Western Reserve/National Guard Squad- 2-4 green fire teams. ATK1, DEF 5, Pilot 1. Weapons: Small Arms R8" 1 Damage (vs. Infantry), LAWs R6" 1 Damage

    3. Donald McCalmon on May 2, 2013

      @ Andy: Great comment on the d6 natural 1 & 6 rolls. I had forgotten to mention in my previous posts that, in general, I'm not a fan of d6 combat resolution, I'd much prefer a 2d6 mechanic, since it provides a bell curve instead of a linear result. I didn't even think about 1/3 of all outcomes being predetermined, great catch.

      As for the roll with the damage, I seem to recall the series having Mechs move more like people than machines, rolling to the left or right then firing from a kneeling position. Whether that translates into a good game mechanic I can't say until I try it.

      I like the idea of bidding for initiative with Command points, or maybe still rolling, but adding a secret # of points to modify the roll.


    4. Missing avatar

      Andy Wright on May 2, 2013

      I am VERY happy to see you taking comments about proposed rules. I hope you take them to heart. Brief resume for me: worked in game industry at retail level for several years, have been competitive and casual gamer, tournament organizer, certified rules judge, have assisted in published game designs and have many friends in the game design industry (big and small companies). I'm no expert, but not a noob either!

      First impressions: great effort so far(!) but needs a few tweaks.

      Question: Is this and RPG or a tabletop game? The rules seem to be an effort to be both at the same time. While the sentiment is good, this should be a table top game first, with optional layers of rules to integrate the RPG elements. It will not succeed among the mini-gaming crowd if it plays like an RPG and vice-versa.

      Example: Natural 1 and Natural 6 rule. Do you want 1/3 of all outcomes to be predetermined? This is not (and should not be) a d20 based game. Natural 1/Natural 20 is a holdover from RPG's but only comes into play on 10% of die rolls. Does Roy/Rick/Max etc really have a 17% chance of missing every time? It hurts both the hardcore mini gamers and the RPG adaptor to keep this rule in by de-emphasisng skills, odds, or special characters and abilities for a random 1 in 3 chance pre-determination.

      Personal beef: Roll with impact rule for ranged attacks. Am I the only person who has a problem with this? Do we have evidence in real world physics or in animated Robotech physics that you can move a machine in such a way to minimize damage from bullets, lasers and particle beams? Many other people have commented on margin-of-dice-roll damage bonuses or penalties and that could be a much better way of re-inacting the animation and comparative pilot skills that would satisfy both RPG and mini crowds without causing more die rolls...

      There are already many comments on hand-to-hand combat but I want to agree with them. There will need to be mech a based bonuses and restrictions to make this work right (especially moving forward with Invid swarming attacks etc).

      Mecha Attributes:

      Piloting (PIL) – Is an indication of how well the mecha handles, its overall performance, how capable it is in hand to hand combat, and HOW WELL THE MECHA DODGES (emphasis added).

      Defense (DF) – Is a measure of how resistant to damage or DIFFICULT TO HIT A MECHA IS (emphasis added).

      Are these two attributes the same thing? If not, please explain how they would be used differently in the game. Otherwise, we have gained another layer of simplicity and lost nothing.

      Nit-Pick for the post: Initiative. If you a have a system that values "command points" and "leadership" why not use those to determine initiative and use die rolls as a tie breaker instead of the other way around? You could even "bid" for initiative with your command and leadership points (do I need to shoot first vs. the need to dodge with a special character etc). If you create a game resource you should use it!

      Sorry for ranting for so long. Again, love that this is happening and I hope it is a reward for everyone who wants to play (not just buy a bunch of models!).

    5. Donald McCalmon on May 2, 2013

      @ Oscar: I can't recall the last time I've been referenced as "eloquently", thank you sir :)
      @ Randall: 'Constructive' criticism is exactly what any new design needs, and what I feel has been relayed. As an engineer, I not only value this type of critique, but find it invaluable to a solid final design of a product. Regardless of the product you are designing, the cost of change vs. time during the design process is not linear, meaning the further along you go in the design, the cost to change it gets exponentially larger. It's better to open yourself up early for solid and constructive criticism, to save costs and delays later in the process. I am glad Ninja Division is sharing this information now during the Kickstarter. I think it shows they are open to receive feedback, and willing to listen to their backers (and future income providers).

      I also understand that although they may listen to what we have to say, ultimately it's their decision what (if any) suggestions to incorporate. It's impossible to please everyone, but you want to please the majority of your market and the best way to do that is be open and listen to what they have to say. As long as they are willing to listen, I'll keep critiquing their design as best I can.


    6. Oscar Simmons on May 2, 2013

      @Randall. We comment on the rule and stat information provided. We should not assume those will change unless we speak up. So I comment for change from the overstated MDC of UEDF mecha. Skirmish or mass battle is of less of concern for me (I enjoy both), though the initial rules seem more of a blend, as Donald's comments eloquently cite.
      I've said before, rules alone don't make a game successful, but they can make it unsuccessful. Best that we respectfully provide insight as experienced gamers, so that Ninja Division can make the best design decisions for the game they are making. That will make Robotech Tactics a better game for all of us.

    7. Randall Case on May 1, 2013

      I think it's a bit early to be critizing the damage values on the mecha. We really don't know what the final values are and only have a vague sense of what they are for just a couple of mecha. Also we don't really know what the damage values are for the weapons either. But from what little we've seen I don't think it's as bad as some of you are saying.

      But I'll grant, we probably come from different "schools". I see a lot of GW thinking out there with wounds and stuff. I come from the 80's lot where this was considered normal:

      And you had one of these PER MECH!

      This game has a card for each squad and a short damage track per mecha. Honestly, that's not that bad at all. In fact, that's what Battletech did with its mass combat system: Battleforce. Here's an example sheet for it:

      I've played this game several times and have commanded a battalion with over 40 mecha in it and it didn't overwhelm me. So what Ninja Division has in mind isn't bad at all. I'll hold my judgement until I can see some unit cards and can try out the game on the board. But if it's anything like Battleforce then it will work just fine.

      But I agree on one thing. The RPG badly overstates the MDC on UEDF mecha. The show shows them to be a bit more durable then the Zentraedi, but not a whole lot so. It's certainly not by a factor of 6 or more like you see in the RPG. But then again, it would be a terrible RPG if your player character, which you spent an hour or so generating, was killed after the first hit in his first firefight with the Zentraedi... like all the tan Valkyries and the Destriods seemed to!

    8. Pineapple Steak on May 1, 2013

      @Peter I don't know if you can limit the armies to 20 per side because the Zentraedi would shatter than with just two Attrition Squads and that's BEFORE any addons to the unit.

      Speaking of which, do you think you can buy the same Support option multiple times? For example, a Gnerl unit only has the Support option of +3 Gnerl. Can you get that twice and have a unit of 12 Gnerls?

    9. Oscar Simmons on May 1, 2013

      @Donald. Well thought out and written comments.

      @Pineapple. I wrote the same in regards to differentiation of close combat attacks and damage.

      @Peter. The Zentraedi don't seem to be a problem for mass battles as they seem only able to take one shot. The UEDF will be more time consuming to track with their high damage derived from, what is seen as, a poorly scaled RPG MDC (see comments from previous posters).
      One option, if shifting from skirmish to mass battle, would be to count each damage track line of 5 as one hit. Then Regults would be 1 hit, Valkyries 3 hits, Tomahawks 5 hits (at current proposed levels).

    10. Robert Oakes on May 1, 2013

      @ Matt & Lord Khyron, I agree with the special rules for the Backstabber.
      Possibly adding a permament command point for every sacrificed Gulag by the Lord himself.
      Keep them other clones in line, respect through fear "Anyone one who disagrees, remember I thaw out ten more just like you!"

    11. Missing avatar

      Michael Gellar
      on May 1, 2013

      @Greg - as long as their is an easy way to identify your models, I don't think keeping track of wounds will be a big deal.

    12. Greg Q on May 1, 2013

      @Donald: Great ideas! I too am worried how this system will play out in mass battles and I will most likely be really playing skirmishes with my son. Reducing wounds and being to make quick turn decisions would really help.

    13. Peter T. Pidrak (Felindar) on May 1, 2013

      If you work it correctly. You could allow your champion miniatures or character miniatures to keep the special rules while everyone else is restricted. So while Rick is shooting with multiple attacks at single miniatures in different squad's your Squad of asteroid just has to pound that other squad of pods.

    14. Peter T. Pidrak (Felindar) on May 1, 2013

      One of the ideas that was mentioned before that does seem the best is possibly to have one set of rules for skirmish limit 20 miniatures per side. The other a set of rules for mass gameplay. In the skirmish rules each mini has to pick his target you track the damage on Each miniature separately. You activate two units at a time.

      In the mass battles squads shoot it other squads you roll you take your hits the squad chooses to dodge you apply your damage to the squad until you run out of complete miniatures then you only have to remember that one miniature has partial wounds done to it.

    15. Peter T. Pidrak (Felindar) on May 1, 2013

      1 yes having a group of identical models be able to roll their dice against a squad without having to split them all up beforehand will speed up gameplay.

      2 Yes please let's try to limit the number of roles involved. Spending command points to make it harder for you to be hit is a good idea. Having to roll to hit roll to dodge and so on seems to add lofts of extra dice rolling which will make the game take a lot longer.

      Three. Some form of mass battle rules where are you drop battle pods down to one wounded but everybody's damage drops correspondingly might be a good idea.

      Please consider some form of wound tracker on the base. Because I for one will I will at least be having dice on all of these bases to track all of this damage on all of these different miniatures instead of using the slots on the card, except for one of a kind minis.

    16. Drew on May 1, 2013

      @Pineapple Not every unit has access to every melee attack. Check out the sample unit cards from the demo video; the Regult can't punch, but the Valkyrie can when it is in Battloid mode.

    17. Pineapple Steak on May 1, 2013

      Initially, upon FINALLY reading the rules (*glares at work filters*), I thought it made sense that the melee section would be longer than ranged since the ranged weapons are individualized per unit. They could keep the attack options that all units share separate.
      But upon second thought, unless some units have special melee attacks, it means a Monster will do as much damage with a punch as a Defender. Or for that matter, a Monster can do a Jump Kick.
      Hopefully, they streamline the melee a tad before final release. Maybe with individual special attacks and fewer generic melee options.

    18. Missing avatar

      Jeff Hoffman on May 1, 2013

      Lots of games have a mechanic that reads "each model attacks separately against a single declared target" but in practice groups of identical models attacking opposed groups of identical models can easily be resolved in a single group attack. Just have a rule in place for damaging models in that situation (like you have to completely destroy a damaged model before allocating damage to a 2nd model in the target group). At the moment it doesn't appear to matter how damaged any given model might be -- they are as effective with one MDC remaining as they are when they are fresh off the factory line.

      You just use different colored dice for any attacks from different weapons/against different targets.

      I think we're seeing a good base of rules here, but as they took great pains to make clear in bold red letters, it's a very early stage in the development.

      I'd like to see some sample force cards to go along with those example armies for a better idea of what you get in each squadron.

    19. Donald McCalmon on May 1, 2013

      Now that I posted that monster, I wanted to follow up with some specific suggestions to the rules preview. I decided to keep these in their own post, since they stand along from my previous diatribe.

      I feel these 2 suggestions could help speed game play, and also capture the thematic feel of the Robotech genre.

      Suggestion 1: Make Dodging a part of Step 3 (Roll to Strike) instead of its own step
      When an attacker declares his targets and assigns weapon systems, the defender must decide at that point whether to Dodge or not, spending a Command Point to do so. This declaration would count for all weapon attacks assigned to the defender. Dodging would increase the target’s Defense (DF) by a certain value (fixed like +1, variable like ½ Piloting (PIL), etc)

      This would accomplish the following
      1. Speed up play, since Dodging is not a separate die roll/resolution step, but instead a modifier to the Roll to Strike
      2. Make the Dodge feel more thematic, as the defender must choose to Dodge when all the attacks are coming in, not after seeing what hits and what doesn’t
      3. Make the attacker less upset about an attack missing. Nothing is worse than rolling all your attacks, just to have them wiped away a moment later. It’s better to know the odds when rolling, and somehow feels better when you miss.

      Suggestion 2: Allow Combined Attacks
      When a squad is declaring attacks, allow 2-3 to combine fire against a target. One model is the primary attacker, with 1-2 other supporting. Each model above the first participating adds to the gunnery of the primary attacker. Damage could either be combined as well, but not a 1-1 on the supporter. Maybe each supporter adds half his main weapon damage . Or you just deal the weapon damage from the primary attacker, the only benefit is the bonus to hit (thematically the supporters are suppressing the target). Whether combined fire requires spending a Command Point I leave up for debate.

      When you combine the 2 suggestions, it speeds up combat by reducing the number of combat steps and reducing the number of individual attackers (effectively taking out a whole combat action). It also ‘feels’ better.


    20. Donald McCalmon on May 1, 2013

      First off, thanks for the rules preview. They are basically the same as what was presented in the demo video, but it helps to see them in text. Second, I’ll apologize now for this long post, but I wanted to make the effort to comment on some issues that are worrying me about the direction of the game.

      I’m not a game designer, but I am an experienced miniature player, with many game systems under my belt. These range in both genre and mechanics. When I look at the rules, and more importantly the model count of a typical game, I’m worried that the system is trying to be both a skirmish style game and a mass-battle style game. In all my years of playing miniature games, this is a recipe for trouble.

      Let me start off by giving an example of a game I play a lot, and I feel would provide a good example of what I am talking about, GWs Lord of the Rings. For those that have not played the system, it’s a skirmish game based around the heroes who are supported by regular troopers. The game is best played with 15-20 models per side, with about 3-5 of those being heroes. At this level the game works very well. Turn sequence is alternating movement, alternating shooting, and simultaneous close combat resolution. Regular models have 1 wound, while heroes are multi-wound, typically 2-3 wounds. Movement and shooting are really nothing special. I move all my models, either closer to the action or into contact with an enemy, then my opponent can move any of his models that are not already engaged. For shooting, unengaged models with a ranged weapon can fire, first player 1 then player 2.

      Close combat is simultaneous, meaning it doesn’t matter who initiated combat, both sides total their attack dice and roll, the winner being whoever rolled the higher number. So if I have 5 attack dice and you have 2, it only matters if ANY of my dice are higher than ANY of your dice. The winner then rerolls all his attack dice, comparing weapon STR to defender DEF. Every die roll equal to or above target number deals a wound, and with 1 wound per model, most things die.
      As you can see, combat is really a 2 step process, roll to hit, roll for damage. And since it is combined combat, you typically have a 2-1 reduction in how many combats you resolve, meaning if we each have 10 models, at most there will be 10 combats, not 20.

      There are some nuances I am leaving out, like Hero’s Might and Fate, but this serves to prolong the game vs. prolong each game round (a subtle difference). Even with this speedy play, the game gets surprisingly bogged down when you try larger battles. You think at first that you can easily double your model count, but the reality is the mechanics do not translate to a mass battles style system. Even with virtually no wounds to track (majority of your force in a mass battle), and combined close combat, the game is really unplayable much beyond the 25-30 models per side.

      Now when I look at Robotech, I’m concerned for a number of reasons.
      1. Each model has multiple wounds
      2. There are a high number of models per squad
      3. Combat is a 6-step process, and is repeated for every model

      Looking at the preview rules, the example 300pt game has 42 models (14 UEDF vs 28 Zentraedi). That’s a lot of damage to track and a lot of combat to resolve. Watching the demo video, which had smaller units, there is the potential for a low model loss during combat due to dodging. This relates to a high number of models that will be left each round to resolve combat. Add to this any rules beyond the basics we are previewed, and I’m worried combat will become the Achilles heel of the system. This is purely based on my experience with other miniature games, specifically the LotR example, but not limited to it. If that system, which has streamlined wounds, damage, and combat, gets bogged down with a high model count, then what happens here, when we have more wounds to track, more weapon damage, and more combat resolution steps, including dodging as a separate combat resolution step, and each surviving model resolving its own combat every turn.

      I guess what I see is a system that is trying accomplish two different play styles (the feel of skirmish but the numbers of massed combat), and I fear instead of doing either well, it will do both poorly. I have not found a game system yet that can accomplish this. Sure, we all want to relive both the small encounters from the series, and also the large battles

      The point of this whole post is to suggest one of the following.
      1. Focus on a skirmish style game (my personal preference)
      a. Reduce the model count per squad
      b. Have named characters or special units as the only model count add-ons to a squad
      c. Have model-specific upgrades instead of additional units for a squad, things like different missiles, bigger guns, boosters, higher grade monomyers for better dodging, etc
      2. Focus on a massed-battles style game
      a. Reduce the wounds per model
      b. Streamline combat to account for the higher model count
      c. Have upgrades apply to a whole unit, not specific models
      3. Do both, but with altered rules
      a. The main focus is a skirmish style game
      b. Have an alternate set of rules for massed battles

      It’s already shown this Kickstarter will succeed, but that’s not the goal you are targeting. I believe you want the GAME to succeed, and to do that it will take more than cool models and nostalgia for some classic anime. It will take a game people enjoy playing, and keep coming back to buy new units and game expansions. I’m just worried the long-term goals will be hampered by a system that is trying to capture 2 opposing philosophies in one package.

      In closing, I hope this helps in some way. My examples aren’t meant to be target specific, but to show a general feeling that I’m (and I think others) having about where the game is headed, long term.


    21. Brian Widman on May 1, 2013

      Awesome! Thanks for the update ND.

    22. Oscar Simmons on May 1, 2013

      @Anthony. Thank goodness I'm not the only one who felt that way about the original numbers. As a teenager I wondered how a Valkyrie, at half the weight of a Regult, could have five times the structural damage capacity?

    23. RobotechX on May 1, 2013

      Zentradi forces! Lord Khyron does not roll!
      Ep. Seasons Greetings when he shows up to steal the Protoculture Matrix. Lord Khyron stands with rifle in hand and shots down the VT. and with a smile! and this while a volley of bullets hist around him. Now bring on Khyron Attack Pledge!

    24. Missing avatar

      James Scott on April 30, 2013

      I dont see any more dice rolling then a few of the wargames I already place, the one I play the most I field well over 200+ miniatures. So Im unconcerned with the play length. Wargames always run long, unless you strip them down so far that they no longer have any tactical complexity. So far this one looks to be on par with many other wargames, and this is very early in its development... so its all good too me.

    25. Battle Damage on April 30, 2013

      Anthony: I too was not a fan of the mechanics of the RPG, but throwing the books away might be bit of a bold call at this stage of the development. I'm also hoping for some sort of "grouping" of rolls to strike and dodge as per Flames of War, but we'll have to see how it plays first.

    26. Anthony Colosetti on April 30, 2013

      As long as the damage numbers remain the same the game is going to be lengthy and near unplayable on a large scale. The numbers from the RPG have been broken since the beginning and translating them into the wargame is just not going to work in the long run. At this point it looks like this game is only going to be a source of miniatures for me and the rulebooks will end up in the wastebasket.

    27. Missing avatar

      Matt Trussell on April 30, 2013

      @Tom- there's no point value for the Mac2 Monsters yet. Basic Destroids are 20 points, so we can probably safely assume they'll cost at least 40 each? A basic Destroid Core card is 80, so you're looking at 120 for one. If you can't take more than one monster per Core Card, it would be 360 points, so likely 400pt+ games to field Daedalus Attack

    28. Matthew Manganaro on April 30, 2013

      "Interesting, I discussed whether that was an option on the main comments thread and the general consensus was that it didn't appear in Robotech."
      @ Nari
      @ Randall Case
      And anyone else who is interested.

      Robotech Protoculture Edition Episode 27 : Force of Arms 11:05-07

      There is a three second shot immediately after the commercial showing 2 Veritechs with non-standard sensor packages. One has a large red radome mounted AWACS style and the other has a smaller green radome in a vertical mount on the right side and an intake manifold on the left. Since neither ever appears again it is debatable as to whether the red one is supposed to be the VEFR-1 or if both are just artists’ easter eggs, like the infamous Orguss Valkyrie.

      This message brought to you by another pedantic grognard.

    29. Missing avatar

      Tom Goddard on April 30, 2013

      Sorry If this has been asked before, but How many points would one have to play to field the 3 monsters from the DAEDALUS ATTACK add on? Is that currently something that the force-org could support or is that really just supposed to be more of a "lets recreate this battle-pack"?

      Either way is cool, I will probably pick it up regardless, but just curious...

    30. Missing avatar

      Matt Trussell on April 30, 2013

      @Michael- that's true. But you can only use, at max, 2 defensive dice per attack, so you should still have some left. But if forces are built really lopsided, you might only have one or two elite units, and you would fire with one first, protect them, fire with the second, protect it, and then if you've used up all your dice, your other figures would just be sitting there. If it makes sense for you to do so, for example, if your grunts are very unlikely to hit the opponent's ace, but your ace has a good shot, you'll have to do that in order to stay in the game

      Again, I completely understand that this is all based on content, that it could be no problem at all depending on the units and forces we get.

    31. Missing avatar

      Michael Gellar
      on April 30, 2013

      @ Matt - since RGP tactics are IGOUGO, you'll also need to ration command points since in anticipation of what your opponent will move and attack next.

    32. Missing avatar

      Matt Trussell on April 30, 2013

      @Khyron- I was actually serious. I'd love to see special rules for characters like that

    33. Thulsa Doom on April 30, 2013

      Silence! Or I'll blast you like I did the CEO of Amazon for bumbling the Protoculture pledges!

      I will not be mocked!

    34. Battle Damage on April 30, 2013

      @ Matt Trussell: Possibly, but since it appears you can only attack once with each weapon system, there will be a limit to how many command dice an elite squad can vacuum up from the rest of the mooks. Assuming the force construction rules apply a level of sensibility/restraint to how many elite units/squads can be taken, I think we'll be okay.

    35. Missing avatar

      Michael Gellar
      on April 30, 2013

      All Micronians are weak in the face of Lord Khyron.

    36. Missing avatar

      Matt Trussell on April 30, 2013

      Special Rule: The Backstabber
      If you fail a dodge roll with Khyron, you may destroy one of your battlepods within 3" to reroll the dodge

    37. Missing avatar

      Matt Trussell on April 30, 2013

      You know, if they changed the rules so that you could only dodge using points from your own group, I still think Khyron specifically should be able to use up the points of any Zentraedi on the board, heheh

    38. Wraithcopy
      on April 30, 2013

      *oops I meant Lord Khyron. please don't 'one shot me'

    39. Wraithcopy
      on April 30, 2013

      Well depending on how LOS and shooting through enemy/friendly units is handled a screen of grunts being able to dodge or roll with the impact will make them meaningful. Although the regults will be dropping like flies apparently so i'm not sure how meaningful that will be lol. And open discussion on a very small sample of the rules is a good thing but nothing to worry to much about just yet unless you play against Lord Khron ;-)

    40. Missing avatar

      Michael Gellar
      on April 30, 2013

      @Matt - only time will tell since we are working with rule basics.

    41. Missing avatar

      Matt Trussell on April 30, 2013

      Now, believe me, I completely understand the appeal of having your main character burn through a horde of enemies. In fact, I will mostly likely be playing with a single Veritech representing my RPG character and then some back up. But a lot of people who might be interested in the game as a mecha-based wargame (which the market is in short supply of), are less likely to enjoy the game if it's just "I take all these useless figures to give my main character more dice to roll". A lot of wargamers enjoy an approach that involves utilizing the strengths of all their forces.

      I'm just hoping that it doesn't turn out the rules only encourage one of the two types of gameplay.

      It's really starting to feel like this is sounding like a bigger issue than I meant it to be. If so, I apologize again. I just wanted to bring up a potential quirk that could lead to a dominant strategy that might reduce overall fun for pick up matches

    42. Thulsa Doom on April 30, 2013

      Here are a few changes that you NDs will make... if value your lives.

      Khyron always rolls a 6
      Khyron always 'one shots' whatever he hits
      Khyron always shoots down incoming missiles
      Khyron has and always will have better hair than that overgrown playboy John Cadice.

      Cower in fear Micronians!

    43. Missing avatar

      Michael Gellar
      on April 30, 2013

      @Matt - Read the rules again, I think Type TT40 is right. 1 command point is used to try to dodge. If that fails, you can opt to spend another command point and 1/2 the damage. This makes it seem fair.

    44. Missing avatar

      Matt Trussell on April 30, 2013

      My worry is that, since you're never likely to dodge with a pod in the first place, if it turns out that you're better off using all your dice simply to attack with your high damage elites and keep them alive, the grunt figures end up becoming less than meaningful in the game, and basically just exist to give more command points.

    45. Missing avatar

      Matt Trussell on April 30, 2013

      @Type TT40- Yes, but it only costs the point to reduce damage if you fail to dodge. It's a powerful combination for units with high dodge, as it essentially gives you a further safety net even if you fail a good dodge attempt roll.

    46. Wraithcopy
      on April 30, 2013

      yeah it's going to cost 2 CP to dodge and roll with the impact

    47. Missing avatar

      Michael Gellar
      on April 30, 2013

      @ Battle Damage - here is what is in the pdf -

      Roll with Impact

      If the target fails or decides not to dodge then it may Roll with the
      Impact. The target’s controller spends 1 Command Point and the mega Damage of the
      strike is halved, rounded down mi
      nimum of 1.

    48. Battle Damage on April 30, 2013

      @ Matt: In reference to doge+roll with impact, I interpreted that rule as saying that you had to pay 1CP to attempt to dodge and another CP to roll with the impact if you flubbed the dodge. Which has the potential to soak a lot of dice if you want to keep those regaults alive.

    49. Missing avatar

      Matt Trussell on April 30, 2013

      @Michael- oh, I agree. Pretty much all games work better played among friends who game the same. It's just nice to have it balanced for "tournament" play, because that means I can play against someone new without needing to really feel out what each of us expects. And I'm really hoping to get a lot of people into this game.

    50. Missing avatar

      Michael Gellar
      on April 30, 2013

      @Matt - looking at it more closely, I think I agree with you. Being able to dodge and then choose to roll with damage is a bad idea. The ability to check for the dodge and then still get half-damage at the cost of one point does seems really powerful.

      My feeling is that this game will work better as a fluff/scenario game vs competitive.