Do you REALLY want to affect GW? Stop buying their product. Just walk away. As far as I can see it there are only three reasons to stick with GW:
1) player base size
2) length the games have been around
3) there is no other scifi game like 40k
So let's work on making a new scifi game on the same scale (28mm large-scale skirmish) as 40k and take away one of those reasons. Hell we can even have playtesters.
Hmm this is an interesting idea, to have the entire community brainstorm about their ideal game.
For my part what I would want most is to need no more than one of anything for any particular list. If I really like it maybe I will get a second. One unit of 10 guys is enough, I'll be happier to move on to a different unit type than spam(or worse, be forced to spam) the same thing.
I also don't want some forced army construction device to limit my diversity.
I'm eager to see how this pans out. I hope it can be taken seriously.
You would be forced to take some kind of multiple unit to show that the army has grunts, at least if you wanted a somewhat realistic representation.
The largest obstacle would be likely be getting people to agree to the rules as well as rule disputes. The main problem with homebrew being if multiple people share the writing and authority gak hits the fan when there is a disagreement. I feel it would become very fractured very fast.
I like the idea of a game where you could have more stuff to do during your opponents turn, rather than just twiddling thumbs. I'm not sure what though.
I also think taking it in turns to move squads rather than whole armies, would do wonders to mitigate First Turn Advantage. And possibly keep things more interesting.
I've always wondered how it would be if you could move both armies before shooting took place, and both armies shot at the same time (or went in order of initiative).
Say "Hey guys, lets all get together and write a collaborative ruleset that will keep everybody happy and appeal to all different types of gamer despite having no miniatures or manufacturing capability and no concepts or concept art".
What you can do:
1: Come up with a concept for your setting (hint, it needs to be detailed, original and internally consistent - I recommend reading Karl Kocher's 'Master of Middle Earth' for an insight into the thought process involved).
2: Find a good artist or three who can render a 'vision' for your setting.
3: Decide on the scale of game (how many combatants per side does the game represent), the scale of the minis you will want to use (how many mm tall is an average person) and the size of gaming area you plan to use - note that these decisions in historicals often lead to 1 figure equalling 10s or 100s of troops in mass combat games.
4: Write your rules. Note this can be a 'collaborative' process where people are invited to submit ideas and test data but this must be co-ordinated by a strong editor who has the final say and ensure that the rules are representative of the vision for the game.
5: Unless you want to set up your own sculpting and casting facility, you will need to approach mini manufacturers with your ideas, see if any are willing to take on your game - be professional, ask for test sculpts/castings that if you like you can then use to further advertise your game, then go back to your supplier with a big order.
In short - do it right or don't bother. Being hazy and saying 'wouldn't it be great if...' will not a game make
Say "Hey guys, lets all get together and write a collaborative ruleset that will keep everybody happy and appeal to all different types of gamer despite having no miniatures or manufacturing capability and no concepts or concept art".
What you can do:
1: Come up with a concept for your setting (hint, it needs to be detailed, original and internally consistent - I recommend reading Karl Kocher's 'Master of Middle Earth' for an insight into the thought process involved).
2: Find a good artist or three who can render a 'vision' for your setting.
3: Decide on the scale of game (how many combatants per side does the game represent), the scale of the minis you will want to use (how many mm tall is an average person) and the size of gaming area you plan to use - note that these decisions in historicals often lead to 1 figure equalling 10s or 100s of troops in mass combat games.
4: Write your rules. Note this can be a 'collaborative' process where people are invited to submit ideas and test data but this must be co-ordinated by a strong editor who has the final say and ensure that the rules are representative of the vision for the game.
5: Unless you want to set up your own sculpting and casting facility, you will need to approach mini manufacturers with your ideas, see if any are willing to take on your game - be professional, ask for test sculpts/castings that if you like you can then use to further advertise your game, then go back to your supplier with a big order.
In short - do it right or don't bother. Being hazy and saying 'wouldn't it be great if...' will not a game make
Vladsimpaler wrote:I've been working on a Sci Fi 28mm game for a while, it's pretty shaky right now as it's in Alpha testing but I did post it up on Scribd.
The only thing is that it is a D12 system and as such requires D12's, but I'm sure I could whip up a D6 incarnation.
MechaEmperor7000 wrote:I've always wondered how it would be if you could move both armies before shooting took place, and both armies shot at the same time (or went in order of initiative).
You mean like Lord of the Rings? It works out pretty well.
Instead of writing a new system from scratch, why not just retro-clone the original Rogue Trader? I'm sure that there are alot of people on dakka who know both both its strengths and weaknesses as well as how to fix said weaknesses.
I would like to see a system where the races and rule sets are independent.
Make units 'generic' statlines and codexes combinations of statlines.
I feel the worst thing about 40k is the 3+ armorsave has to exist in so many codexes because of the 'fluff'. Why not make 'heavy trooper' 'medium trooper' 'light trooper' and let the player decide how he wants to model it?
I can fill this unit in with some terminators, some mega nobz, some tyranids, some space rats, some whatever model line I want, as long as the model represents the unit type.
Then less focus can be made on models and more made on balance of rules. If someone was going to make a fan-based rule system, i would try to limit the models and make it about a really well-designed rule system designed around competitive play.
Also, I would love to see a space mordhiem skirmish system which played as a smaller skirmish game.
well here is the problem, we can go back to previous editions of codices to ones where we think its fair. I got a buddy who played 3rd edition 40k all the way through 4th and jumped up to 5th with the rest of us.
I am strongly opposed to making a new game. I saw a sneak-peak of one that was being made--alien suns--and boy oh boy, i dropped out of the helping community pretty quick because I had issues with it up to my neck. Making a new game is very hard and bound to have teething problems
jbunny wrote:Keep in mind that your idea needs to be original. You can't just take Space Marines, and re-name them something else and it be ok.
I'm assuming this was adressed to me? In any case, I was suggesting that RT rules can be a basis for crunch, not fluff.
jbunny wrote:Also the rules need to be different enough from GW that you can't say you just copied (and fixed) their rules.
In short you need to come up with a whole new system for the game.
Retro-clones such as Labyrinth Lord, Mutant Future, Dark Dungeons, Swords & Wizardry, OSRIC, and Mazes & Minotaurs show that you do not need to write a new system to create a game. The only issue with retro-cloning RT is that unique terminology like WS & BS would have to be changed.
We can all write tons of fluff, and have one person edit it all together. Artists can be found on dakka and would probly be willing Skirmish to medium battle is fine for scale as is 28mm Rules again can be worked together and then edited and playtested We can 'borrow' minis from other ranges to play for the time being.
nkelsch wrote: Make units 'generic' statlines and codexes combinations of statlines.
I feel the worst thing about 40k is the 3+ armorsave has to exist in so many codexes because of the 'fluff'. Why not make 'heavy trooper' 'medium trooper' 'light trooper' and let the player decide how he wants to model it? Too true ...
Then less focus can be made on models and more made on balance of rules. If someone was going to make a fan-based rule system, i would try to limit the models and make it about a really well-designed rule system designed around competitive play. Like'd Also, I would love to see a space mordhiem skirmish system which played as a smaller skirmish game. Possible, maybe as a seperate supplement
This is a brilliant idea, having 'generic' profiles, then filling them with whatever model you liked, but this leads to the problem of weapons profiles too The LoTR move-move, shoot-shoot, fight-fight system works very well, but this voids the idea of having actions in your opponents turn I like how in other systems, infantry have a better role such as fortifying/digging-in, laying minefields etc This system would also have to deal with the same problems as 40k tho, such as Tank>Infantry etc I would quite happily write up some stuff if it meant getting a better ruleset
jbunny wrote:Keep in mind that your idea needs to be original. You can't just take Space Marines, and re-name them something else and it be ok.
I'm assuming this was adressed to me? In any case, I was suggesting that RT rules can be a basis for crunch, not fluff.
jbunny wrote:Also the rules need to be different enough from GW that you can't say you just copied (and fixed) their rules.
In short you need to come up with a whole new system for the game.
Retro-clones such as Labyrinth Lord, Mutant Future, Dark Dungeons, Swords & Wizardry, OSRIC, and Mazes & Minotaurs show that you do not need to write a new system to create a game. The only issue with retro-cloning RT is that unique terminology like WS & BS would have to be changed.
~~Yzz
First I was not addressing anyone with my comments, just general statement.
To your second comment, Were any of those games owned or designed by GW? GW has proven time and time again that they will bury a company in legal fees and paperwork if it comes even remotely close to Copy Right Infringment.
I've been working on some mini game rules too.. but it's more like a small skirmish gang fight game, 5-10 models per side. I started it out with a wild west theme but now i'm updating it to be more generic, with add-on rules for different settings like sci fi or fantasy or whatever.
It's a campagin based game like Mordheim or Necromunda, but could also be played as single games at a certain point level for pick up games and that sort of thing.
Planning to release the final rules as interactive PDFs instead of printed.. and planning to have movies embedded showing how to move and shoot and all that, so you can read how to play or just watch designing mostly for e-readers and smart phones, and just plain ole web too.
Vladsimpaler wrote:I've been working on a Sci Fi 28mm game for a while, it's pretty shaky right now as it's in Alpha testing but I did post it up on Scribd.
The only thing is that it is a D12 system and as such requires D12's, but I'm sure I could whip up a D6 incarnation.
It needs some drastic reworking (that will be in the next edition!) but that's it for right now. : )
I should not that the system is kind of 40k-ish. Has powered armor and the fluff is sort of grim-dark and has an old-school sci-fi feel.
Hey. that's pretty good.
Thanks man. I'm having an overhaul of the turn system but for the most part it's remaining the exact same. I found that it worked better with one unit being activated and taking all of its actions at once.
HI all.
I have written a basic outline for a rule set that can be used for 28mm.
It covers all the basic interaction in a simple way.
I started with the current game paly of 40k, and striped it back to get the game play and rules complexity on a similar level.
(Rather than complicated rules and simplistic gamepaly of 40k.)
I have used 'order counters' to denote units actions for the next turn.
This allows alternating action game turn.
Eg
Player A takes first action with units.
Player B takes first action with all units.
player A takes second action with all units
Player B takes second action with all units.
Or you could use alternating unit activation if you want.
Its just a 14 page rough draught.Please feel free to discuss it , and use any ideas that may work in the end system.
(This is for modern -near future war , played at the platoon to company level.)
(As far as aquisition goes, targets stay aquired unitll the target moves out of LOS, or the attacking unit becomes supressed or worse.)
I am happy to answer questions, and discuss rules ideas at lenght.(Over 20 years of wargaming and playing over 30 systems means I know quite a lot of game mechanics which may prove useful. )
What I would like to see is a group of independent figure manufacturers getting behind one set of rules. Each manufacturer would then make 1 or 2 armies for it, that way all armies would have a ready made force in support of the rules instead of only having a small amount at launch date. That way the system would be up and running very quickly.
I just remembered that in september that a rule set called 'Tomorrow's War' are being released which sound very flexible in army makeup.
jbunny wrote:To your second comment, Were any of those games owned or designed by GW? GW has proven time and time again that they will bury a company in legal fees and paperwork if it comes even remotely close to Copy Right Infringment.
Well, if Wizards of the Coast is unable to issue a legal challenge to the half-dozen publications I mentioned, despite the fact that they are near-identical to OD&D/AD&D there is pretty good chance GW can recognize that. As many retro-clone publishers point out, (at least in the US) rules aren't copyrighted only, the terminology used to describe them is.
If you use "BS" and "WS" (or other GW-specific terms, say "Tactical Dreadnought Armour" or "Rhino APC") in a retro-clone you will be sued and rightfully so.
But if you use "Melee Attack", "Ranged Attack", "Heavy Assault Armor", or "Scarab APC", you're in amuch safer area.
jbunny wrote:Keep in mind that your idea needs to be original. You can't just take Space Marines, and re-name them something else and it be ok.
I'm assuming this was adressed to me? In any case, I was suggesting that RT rules can be a basis for crunch, not fluff.
jbunny wrote:Also the rules need to be different enough from GW that you can't say you just copied (and fixed) their rules.
In short you need to come up with a whole new system for the game.
Retro-clones such as Labyrinth Lord, Mutant Future, Dark Dungeons, Swords & Wizardry, OSRIC, and Mazes & Minotaurs show that you do not need to write a new system to create a game. The only issue with retro-cloning RT is that unique terminology like WS & BS would have to be changed.
~~Yzz
First I was not addressing anyone with my comments, just general statement.
To your second comment, Were any of those games owned or designed by GW? GW has proven time and time again that they will bury a company in legal fees and paperwork if it comes even remotely close to Copy Right Infringment.
Which i find funny since GW got all their ideas by ripping off every other Sci-fi and Fantasy creation in existance.
jbunny wrote:Has Wizards ever sued a company because said company made a head that was too similar to Wizards?
GW will sue for anything.
Coping Wizards games, and copiing GW's games are two different conversations.
Wizards of the Coast and TSR (if anyone out there is old enough to remember them) sued plenty of people trying to cop the D&D system or even make a similar name. Chaosium once sued TSR for using a deity's faction to which they owned the copyright.
I'm in the early stages of coming up with the rules system I want to play (squad based sci fi with some heroic elements).
It's as fun as modelling or painting for me, since I love statistics and conceptual stuff. I say, go nuts, have fun, and see if it gets anywhere but never let the "job" get in the way of your enjoyment.
Have a Meta game. For example an online community campaign map or smartphone GPS 'turf'. In terms of minis have an 'anything goes' approach, a tank is a tank, a dude in power armour is in power armour etc, of course sticking to a common base size. In counterpoint introduce scale for example 'the Barghest apc is 3.4m high, 4.1m wide and 8.5m long' with the scaled down measurements next to it. Also have the base size on the datasheet for each type of unit. In general leave as liitle room for questions about size as possible.
To further the 'meta game' concept there should be a wider scope but faster playing, pre game to determine who goes first etc perhaps a naval battle or a convoy/tower defence game both of which could be smartphone apps.
Another thing i would recommend is three different level of game called something like 'altercation' (small (~5v5)) 'Escalation' (Points based skirmish (~10v10 + 1 Inf. fighting vehicle a side)) and 'Interdiction' (multiple squads with ded. transports, artillery pieces and naval/aeronautic/battle armature support)
As you can see i am giving you a 'Next gen' perspective but wargamers are grumpy and stubborn and like the heft of dice and the musty smell of a rulebook so go figure.
Woah!
Perkustin, that is an awesome idea but you are really getting ahead of the plan,
To continue the idea of generic units, I have written up an overview of five sections that should fit the specification with a sixth section so you can personalise and tailor your army to your liking.
Grunts
These are the most basic unit available to a player; they will hold the line, shoot and perform charges but will not do anything more advanced than that.
Specialists
These are more advanced troops available to a player; they are better than grunts and fill niches in the army but are not capable of holding the line or taking a charge on their own. They need grunts to support them, as much as they support the grunts. Examples of specialists are engineers, demolitions, scouts and special and heavy weapons squads.
Elites
These are the premier troops available to a tabletop general, they can perform actions that would not be attempted with grunts or specialists and have abilities and profiles that make them shine out more than other units. An example of a specialist unit is a paratrooper unit or a stormtrooper squad.
Command
The command section leads the army; they have access to orders to improve the army’s strengths and counter its weaknesses. The number of orders available to a command section is directly proportional to its rank and its rank is directly proportional to the size of the battle. A general is not going to lead a skirmish, and a lieutenant is not going to lead a full scale assault into a major enemy stronghold.
Support
The support element of an army is the most varied area of the army and has units that are much specialised such as artillery and crew, air support, tank squadrons and anti-air batteries.
Perks and Traits
An army can be personalised by buying army traits like siegers, grenadiers and rapid deployment or perks like improved armour, stimulant injectors, improved marksmanship and assault drills.
I love this thread - there is a lot of very valuable and constructive thinking going on. I'm not taking sides for or against GW but I promote all of this kind of thinking outside the game-box, so to speak.
Decades ago my friends and I would make up all the rules for ourselves, making our own mini-based skirmish games.
What is being written about here is exactly how a lot of games got their start. I think there is infinite opportunity to invent new platforms and rules.
The legal problems can be beat by making the rules free and available to anyone, and if it is made flexible enough it can incorporate a wide range of models and help out the minis industry as well.
jbunny wrote:Has Wizards ever sued a company because said company made a head that was too similar to Wizards?
GW will sue for anything.
Coping Wizards games, and copiing GW's games are two different conversations.
Wizards of the Coast and TSR (if anyone out there is old enough to remember them) sued plenty of people trying to cop the D&D system or even make a similar name. Chaosium once sued TSR for using a deity's faction to which they owned the copyright.
Don't demonize GW without knowing all the facts.
I am not demonizing GW. I actually support GW. But they do have a track record of sueing people who copy their stuff.
And I do agree GW ripped off Starship Troopers for thier bugs and Space Marines.
jbunny wrote:Keep in mind that your idea needs to be original. You can't just take Space Marines, and re-name them something else and it be ok.
Also the rules need to be different enough from GW that you can't say you just copied (and fixed) their rules.
In short you need to come up with a whole new system for the game.
Actually I'm not sure that is strictly true. While there are many things that can be protected through copyrights, patents and trademarks, I believe game mechanics is not one of them. Anyone can create and sell a game that plays exactly the same as 40k and be on reasonably safe legal ground. So long as they don't infringe on any of GWs copywrites (images, text, names, sculpts), Patents (Dice, Blast and Flamer Templates etc..), Or trademarks (Warhammer, Space Marines etc...).
You could just use a wheel of fortune type thing, or spin the bottle instead of a scatter dice. Or drop 2D6 and draw a line that begins from the centre of the lower number and points towards the centre of the higher number (a double equals a hit) there are hundreds of ways you might make something similar... probably lots of better ways too.
jbunny wrote:Has Wizards ever sued a company because said company made a head that was too similar to Wizards?
GW will sue for anything.
Coping Wizards games, and copiing GW's games are two different conversations.
Wizards of the Coast and TSR (if anyone out there is old enough to remember them) sued plenty of people trying to cop the D&D system or even make a similar name. Chaosium once sued TSR for using a deity's faction to which they owned the copyright.
Don't demonize GW without knowing all the facts.
I am not demonizing GW. I actually support GW. But they do have a track record of sueing people who copy their stuff.
And I do agree GW ripped off Starship Troopers for thier bugs and Space Marines.
We're talking about the book right? Because the bugs in the book were nothing like the ones in the movies.
The Space Marine part you're likely right on though.
Kanluwen wrote:The Space Marine part you're likely right on though.
I think the Mobile Infantry (who specuialize in long-distance jumps and toss nukes like they're going out of style) would find the Space Marine "Chainsword to the face" style of fighting... quaint.
If anything, 40k has as much if not more Dune influence in setting as it's a setting that's reverted to melee so heavily. Dune has more 'reasons' for this, though, as long range combat is generally pointless (or suicidal in the case of a laser weapon*).
* I've always wondered why no one in Dune made combos of shield generators (presumably relatively cheap) and Lasguns (illegal, but we're building explosives here, so who cares?) as explosive devices so they don't have to use those 'Family Atomics.'
Copyright does not protect the idea for a game, its name or title, or the method or methods for playing it. Nor does copyright protect any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in developing, merchandising, or playing a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles. Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author’s expression in literary, artistic, or musical form.
At least according to the U.S. federal govt anyway. So you can actually copy all the rules you like and throw the rest away. This is proabably why sue-happy GW doesn't care so much about the rules of the game, it isn't protectable in court.
jbunny wrote:Has Wizards ever sued a company because said company made a head that was too similar to Wizards?
GW will sue for anything.
Coping Wizards games, and copiing GW's games are two different conversations.
Wizards of the Coast and TSR (if anyone out there is old enough to remember them) sued plenty of people trying to cop the D&D system or even make a similar name. Chaosium once sued TSR for using a deity's faction to which they owned the copyright.
Don't demonize GW without knowing all the facts.
I am not demonizing GW. I actually support GW. But they do have a track record of sueing people who copy their stuff.
And I do agree GW ripped off Starship Troopers for thier bugs and Space Marines.
We're talking about the book right? Because the bugs in the book were nothing like the ones in the movies.
The Space Marine part you're likely right on though.
Actually the bugs are similar, they were just not really mentioned that much. The Skinnies were mentioned more than the bugs.
Kanluwen wrote:The Space Marine part you're likely right on though.
I think the Mobile Infantry (who specuialize in long-distance jumps and toss nukes like they're going out of style) would find the Space Marine "Chainsword to the face" style of fighting... quaint.
If anything, 40k has as much if not more Dune influence in setting as it's a setting that's reverted to melee so heavily. Dune has more 'reasons' for this, though, as long range combat is generally pointless (or suicidal in the case of a laser weapon*).
* I've always wondered why no one in Dune made combos of shield generators (presumably relatively cheap) and Lasguns (illegal, but we're building explosives here, so who cares?) as explosive devices so they don't have to use those 'Family Atomics.'
I think it was likely because you'd get looked at the same way if you did it.
Jbunny wrote:Actually the bugs are similar, they were just not really mentioned that much. The Skinnies were mentioned more than the bugs.
If you say so.
I didn't really find the bugs in their descriptions(using actual manufactured guns rather than symbiotic weapons/evolutions as weapons) to be similar to the Tyranid concept at all.
I didn't really find the bugs in their descriptions(using actual manufactured guns rather than symbiotic weapons/evolutions as weapons) to be similar to the Tyranid concept at all.
It never specifies how they made their weapons, it does say that they look like spiders and are crap in close combat.
I didn't really find the bugs in their descriptions(using actual manufactured guns rather than symbiotic weapons/evolutions as weapons) to be similar to the Tyranid concept at all.
It never specifies how they made their weapons, it does say that they look like spiders and are crap in close combat.
That's pretty different from centaur-ish with lots of close combat specialists...
The best repudiation of GW's business model would be to keep playing your favorite edition - with the models you have and/or with another company's models.
The basic message should be: "Go ahead, release the next edition. Put out another 12 Space Marine codices, and Necrons, and all the rest. Turn the whole line into your crappy new resin stuff; and catch up all the units that there are rules for and no models. Heck - make a whole bunch of new ones... But, I'm done. I have a basement full of your stuff, and there's better and cheaper out there. There's E-bay, and Craig's list, and $3000 3-D printers/scanners (https://www.nextengine.com/). I don't care what you do from this point on. I have all the rules, and codices going back to the dawn of the game. You can pound sand. I need nothing from you."
You could do Posleen War or at least in the universe of it, I'm sure John Ringo would love someone to pick up his IP and run with it as long as they checked back with him first. He doesn't even mind people writing fan-fiction for it, as he published a book of the best fan fiction a while back iirc.
That said, I'm currently working on a Table Top Tactics/Rpg game for the Mass Effect universe. The combat encounters are skirmish level and represented on a grid, with an rpg setup for the non-combat stuff.
I'm also currently working on a 40k sized game for near to mid future tech range. I'll post them once I get all my notes together, they're kind of all over the house.
Being a UK law student this is a 101 in UK Intellectual Property law, and there are lots and LOTS of case law and other things that complicate the matter. (Tbh i cant remember most of it but this still serves my purpose.) And being in the UK, a lot of stuff is relatively standardised between the US and Europe as a means of "protecting people better".
I wouldnt say copyright is the biggest worry, copyright protects expressions of ideas, NOT the ideas themselves.
3. Literary, dramatic and musical works. 3A. Databases
4. Artistic works. 5A. Sound recordings.
5B. Films.
5. Sound recordings and films.
6. Broadcasts.
6A. Safeguards in case of certain satellite broadcasts.
7. Cable programmes.
8. Published editions.
So basically out of those you need to be concerned with Literary works, and artistic works.
Literary being pretty much anything that you could identify word wise with the original game, for example "scatter dice", "Whirlwind Tank" etc..., as well as any published works like unique names of characters, unique weapon names, but need to be careful that even common place words with enough attachment to a unique idea could also be protected.
Artistic works could include all forms of the models, buildings etc, but this could also apply to the design of blast templates and such, which could give REAL difficulties when you're trying to find a way to make a new way of determining the radius of a set size explosion... Also could cover things like the designs of dice, including the special scatter dice etc.
Patents don't count here for the most part because the process of making them rests with the moulders, and they probably hold the patents for their moulding process, so custom designs shouldn't be a problem.
Design protection also could be problematic because one could argue that many different things including everything down the specific designs on individual dice, ruler designs and other things can be protected.
(I haven't mentioned trademarks because I think we all know using the GW trademark symbol is a rather bad idea for starters.)
Long story short, the actual methods of playing a game cannot be protected (roll a dice, move or shoot a model etc), but the designs, models and unique features of it are. best bet is to design everything from new and stay the hell away from GW designs, names and the like. (Unique names being a bit easier to deal with.)
Ideas for things such as the idea of "scatter dice" are fine to copy, but you cannot call them scatter dice or use dice that look like them. If you designed your own new dice faces and called them "danger close rolls", you'd probably be a lot safer. Or you could design a new method for assigning where shots land instead of using the GW method. (For example a circle of a predetermined size with a grid inside it, when you want to see how shots spread, then you roll several D6 and add the total up and count along the grid that number, for however many shots in a row. Or simply a "twister" style spinner which you spin simply to give the direction the shot moves and roll a dice for distance.)
Things like movement orders, line of fire shooting and the like are generally acceptable to copy because its commonplace stuff that exists in lots of different games. I would suggest that if you want to take other ideas for inspiration, look to other games, such as WW2 armies, fantasy, RPGs and as many different sources. If there are ideas that are common to all or most of them its a safe bet if you copy it with a different name and maybe a different method (definately with different designs) you should be ok.
Just to stay with a template idea, if you were to use big circular templates with a hole in the middle called "blast templates", GW would probably take a whack. If, however, you were to come up with a circular template, different size to GW, maybe put a carry handle on it instead of a hole, make it non see-through instead of clear and call it an "explosive damage radius portrait", you are far more likely to be left alone.
Finally, all of these protections have a lifespan, some a LOT more than others. (Copyright in the UK is 70 years plus life of author. Design protection at most 15 years.) Seeing as GW has been trading for 30 years there WILL be things that were protected and are now not.
Disclaimer: I am NOT qualified to give legal advice so all this advice i'm giving now is purely in a personal capacity as a law student and does not purport to be professional legal advice and as such I recommend that if you want accurate legal advice on your situation then you need to seek independent legal advice from a qualified legal practicioner.
If anybody finds me wrong on any points please say, and if anyone can contribute to this please do. I do hope that this is useful info for people
TQ.
(PS this is not me GW bashing, I support them fully and this is simply letting people know how not to attract the attention of solicitors letters also I hope to god I havent just gotten everything i've posted wrong haha)
Are a dedicated line of miniatures really necessary? There is probably a higher turnover in printed rules, supplements and counters/play-aids. Also it would lower the start up (both for company and hobbyists) costs considerably, and noobies can just buy a load of space marines off ebay and get playing while still enjoying a hobby aspect.
The long term game plan of course would be a full miniature line but for a start up i would recommend putting that side of things on the back burner.
Rules stuff... I was just reading a couple of other rulesets (to give GW some credit the 40k rulebook is written alot clearer (haha who'd 'ave funk it?) and smoother than most) and there are always too many stats. I like the idea of them all overlapping, maybe having 4 basic ones and overlapping them to get how good you are at HtH or how well you shoot etc.
Another thing, i think HtH is something of a necessity, it is simply very dramatic and evocative. I know in the realm of thermioptic camo and man portable sub-light mass drivers it don't make sense, but hey, a dude swinging an energy sword just looks badass!
Actually HtH does make sense, it still happens, though a lot less, and was a frequent occurrence in WW1. If you read All's Quiet on the Western Front, the author, a German Vet, says that it became the practice to simply assault with nothing but hand grenades and a sharpened hand spade. So assaults would definitely be in, the thing is that you shouldn't make it easy for an army to simply waltz across a board and attack an entrenched position without having a HUGE numerical or toughness advantage on their side.
As reguards to gameplay.
I think forcing a low tec WWI trenchwarfare atrition into a future warfare, is just wrong.As this simply stopped when tanks and aircraft showed up.
I always think of the 4fs for modern warfare.
Find them.
Fix them with supressive fire.
Flank them,
Finish them in close assault.
Mobility, firepower and close assault ability should be EQUALY important in the game IMO.
40k is such a massive abstrtaction to allow the rule of cool to be king.
Yzz.
The 'ready' action allows the unit to set up heavier weapons -get them ready to fire.Or to stow thier gear tightly to move stealthily , or take up firing/observation positions.
In short its a catch all term for units combat actions that are not moving or attacking.
Yup I cant spell moral(e) , it is a rough draught .
As reguard scaling up, my rules are focused on unit interaction.What a unit represents can be used to scale the game apropriatley.
A single model for skirmish games.
A squad for large skirmish games.
A platoon for battle games
A company for massive battles.
For generic units titles I prefer a rarety classification as this allows simple themeing for army composition.
HQ, compulsory unit.
For each HQ you may have 3 support units and 4 common units.
For every 2 common units you can select one specialist unit.
For every 2 specialist units you can select one restricted unit.
ok so im working on a game idea myself, i have the idea behind it down but im only on the brainstorming part, im trying to blend axis and allies simplicity in turn structure and how attacking works, while using the ideas of movement and armor/cover saves of WH40k.
there are four factions, each with general positives and negatives but still open enough so that people can design their own armies within the factions. the main fights will take place at small scale city fighting (15 v 15 with 1-2 vehicles a side)
the rebels (strong infantry, weak vehicles), the empire defense force (average at everything), the ancients (powerful but costly), the newborn (weak infantry, strong vehicles)
note: all factions can be used as human or aliens, just depends on if you can make a back story for them
the units will be very general so that people can use what ever minitures they can
also thinking of moral for the whole army? don't know how to make it work but its all brain storming right now
DaemonJellybaby wrote:Smacks, how can a new game scatter templates without a scatter dice?
cos that's GW copyright
Well, if you use a d12, rather than a d6, you can use 'clock face' directions. "That scatters to 5 o'clock!".
The other advantage of a larger die like d10 or d12 is that you'll get a lot greater range of variability than d6 (so there's more distinction between armor saves, etc.), as well as avoiding a lot of the look and feel of GW's games.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Another option for designing a game would be to use a good "points based" RPG system (HERO comes to mind). HERO has detailed enough rules to allow it to be played as a tactical battle game. You could then use the points system to design all of the units. The advantage here would be that if a player wanted to introduce some new unit (or use models from another game), the underlying points structure would be right there in the open to design it.
Something like this would be a lot of initial work, but it would be relatively simple to add new units. Admittedly, HERO might be TOO detailed, but it seems a lot easier to pare down complexity than add complexity without screwing up game balance.
If you want a good skirmish game for 28mm, there are loads currently available.
StargruntII, Fast and Dirty, No limits ,ChainReactionIII, Infinity etc.
You can find links to the free to download ones at freewargamesrules.
I assume we are talking about developing a similar sized game to the current 40k game size.Because quite franky sci fi games at this size are few and far between .
And rules wise 40k is utterly overcomplicated compared to the simplistic gameplay it offers.
And that the game play would be focused on UNIT interaction.
With characters confering special abilities to units.
Why are people concerned about manufacturing new minatures?
Are there not enough minature manufactureres currently available?
If you are NOT using GW rules you, can still use your curent scifi minature colection to play surley?
^It depends on whether the rule set comes with its own backstory. I think that whay people are aiming for is a new universe with a new ruleset and cheaper models from that universe to boot. But they want a similar feel and scale to 40k, and possiby a similarly dark background or feeling to the game. They don't just want a rule set, they want the whole experience.
Over the past year or so I've been working on rules for a "Zombie Apocalypse" game.
Various scenrios ranging from " Rescue" and "escape" skirmish games to more "siege" based battles ( think Battle of Yonkers WWZ)..
Still trying to iron everything out..but making progress.
Hi all.
I am ok with other more artisticaly gifted folks making up the background and creating the game universe.
However, I belive its important to establish EXACTLY what type of gameplay were are aiming for.
The most intuitive rule sets are simulations of well known events.
Blood Bowl, Epic , Man O War,BFG, Dark Future , in fact ALL GW specialist games have a very strong simulationist gameplay.
If Rick Priestly refers to 40k game mechanics as '..old fashioned and clunky..' then I agree, we should use more modern ones.
So are we happy with the same scale and scope of the current 40k game play?
As the 40k universe is populated by combat units closest in similarity to modern units, (NOT Ancient or Napoleonic,) do you think a modern warfare simulation would be the best fit ?
I wouldn't mind seeing a game that plays more like a RTS game on the tabletop more than the classic 6-turn GW game.
I would love to see a game more about maneuvering, quick turns and gathering resources and other 'board game' type mechanics than just a war game shootem out. Generating units on the fly based upon the situation.
I could see rules for buildings and resources and such. You win a game by cutting off resources and such not just killing crap and sitting on a nickel.
Not sure how best to handle it, but I could see some abstractions and movement trays added to help speed of movement.
Just ideas but I kinda would like to see some alternatives to the GW wargame design. I am not sure how really changing the model drastically would work but worth a shot discussion.
^ All of that is handled much better by a boardgame,
As for scale I think around 40kish in the amount of units/models is about what the community wants. Whether they want their rules more complicated or streamlined should also be decided.
Do you want an average game to be quicker?
Do you want a more realistic shooting/cover/armour system?
Do you want a game that is heavy on CC?
Do you want a game that is mech heavy, infantry heavy, both?
Do you want a game that is true line of sight or abstracted?
All of these things and more should be decided upon. Though we could also have a rules competition on Dakka if Yak would be in agreement.
Another option is to put all of these decisions "out to tender" so to speak. Describe what you want, say true line of sight/abstracted LOS for shooting and then just let people put up their own rule mechanics and have someone select a short list/the one that will be used.
Lanrak wrote:As the 40k universe is populated by combat units closest in similarity to modern units, (NOT Ancient or Napoleonic,) do you think a modern warfare simulation would be the best fit ?
Not so sure if modern/contemporary warfare is the way to go. Several issues involved, from copyright to political. While I'd love to play somali technicals blazing through the streets of Mogadishu or spanish BMRs fending off taliban ambushers on the road to Herat, I'd rather play it safe and sci-fi for the time being.
Some things to keep in mind -
I think GW really has it right with their armor saves. Many people who comment on rules say it doesnt make sense that you roll for saves after rolling to wound, but I feel it is psychologically important for the defender to have the last say.
Also: D6 vs D10 vs DXX: D6's are good because they are ubiquitous and small. You can reasonably easily pick up a handful of 30 dice to roll (hence some 40k units get ludicrous amounts of attacks in combat). But its much harder for someone to acquire a set of 30 D20's, let alone attempt to roll them all at the same time. Higher sided dice encourage lower model count games.
Made some rules up, put them in a spoiler to stop this thread from getting clogged up. I present to you... DeadZone!
Spoiler:
Rules for DeadZone. A minature game set in the far future. Were humans fight for their emperor. Were space orcs wage battles to put space into never ending war. Were the Eldan fight for their very survival, and their dark cousins torture and enslave worlds. Were demons spawn on worlds to taint those pure. Were Tyranix feast on the bodies of their victims. Were Taal expand and conquer for the greater good. Were billions upon billions die daily.
This is DeadZone
In DeadZone you can create your own stats, wich are used to create a unit. special rules, weapons and armor are all purchaseable. Each stat more than 0 cost points, so M=1 point for every stat upgrade, WS=5 BS=5 S=4 T=3 W=6 I=2. EG, Space ork pirate, light infantry; M WSBS S T W I 4 4 2 3 4 1 2 = 67
The game would be a small, skirmish style. the points for a game can range between 200pts to 5000pts. there are 4 different types of infantry; Light, Heavy, Specialist and Support.
Light infantry can have a maximum stat line; M/6 WS/4 BS/4 S/4 T/4 W/1 I/4 Light infantry can take light armor for 2 points, and heavy armor for 5 points.
Heavy can have a min of; M/1 WS/2 BS/2 S/2 T/2 W/1 I/1 And a max of; M/3 WS/6 BS/6 S/4 T/4 W/1 I/4 Heavy infantry can only choose heavy weapons. they have the coice to upgrade to heavy armor for 4 additional points.
Specialist infantry can have a min of; M/5 WS/2 BS/2 S/3 T/2 W/2 I/3 a max of; M/10 WS/7 BS/4 S/5 T/5 W/3 I/7
One of these stats must upgraded to 8 for 5 points less
Suport can have a min of their race stat line and a max of: M/6 WS/4 BS/4 S/4 T/4 W/1 I/7 They can purchase up to two support special rules.
All races must have a base statline. this refers to their race. a base statline is the statline of their average citizen. here is an example of an normal human statline; M/3 WS/2 BS/2 S/2 T/2 W/1 I/3 The statline of a unit cannot go below the base statline for the race. nor may the light, heavy or support infantry may exceed any stats on the base statline by 2 stats. Specialist may exceed by 3 points. Leaders may exceed by 5. 1 stat in the base statline MUST stay the same throughout the army. The one stat that must be kept the same throughout the army cost as shown: M=70pts WS=0pts BS=0pts S=5pts T=5pts I=60pts W=0pts Leaders ignore this rule.
One leader maybe chosen per army, they may have a max of 500pts and a min of 100pts. They are the only choice in the game that may not have to follow the one stat stay the same rule. If the leader is killed, all units must roll a dice, if the number is below 3 the unit may not move this turn. if the number is above, they may move as normal. Leaders may take light armor free, and heavy armor for 3pts. A leader also gets 10% of the cost for a specific stat, rounded down.
More to come, Heavy weapons are essentially more powerful than normal weapons, ill think of tanks later. I wanted to change the names of the races so that it isnt just 40k with slightly different rules. Suggestions would be great!
DAWARBOSS wrote:Made some rules up, put them in a spoiler to stop this thread from getting clogged up. I present to you...
DeadZone!
Spoiler:
Rules for DeadZone. A minature game set in the far future. Were humans fight for their emperor. Were space orcs wage battles to put space into never ending war. Were the Eldan fight for their very survival, and their dark cousins torture and enslave worlds. Were demons spawn on worlds to taint those pure. Were Tyranix feast on the bodies of their victims. Were Taal expand and conquer for the greater good. Were billions upon billions die daily.
This is DeadZone
In DeadZone you can create your own stats, wich are used to create a unit. special rules, weapons and armor are all purchaseable. Each stat more than 0 cost points, so M=1 point for every stat upgrade, WS=5 BS=5 S=4 T=3 W=6 I=2. EG,
Space ork pirate, light infantry;
M WSBS S T W I
4 4 2 3 4 1 2 = 67
The game would be a small, skirmish style. the points for a game can range between 200pts to 5000pts. there are 4 different types of infantry; Light, Heavy, Specialist and Support.
Light infantry can have a maximum stat line;
M/6 WS/4 BS/4 S/4 T/4 W/1 I/4
Light infantry can take light armor for 2 points, and heavy armor for 5 points.
Heavy can have a min of;
M/1 WS/2 BS/2 S/2 T/2 W/1 I/1
And a max of;
M/3 WS/6 BS/6 S/4 T/4 W/1 I/4
Heavy infantry can only choose heavy weapons. they have the coice to upgrade to heavy armor for 4 additional points.
Specialist infantry can have a min of;
M/5 WS/2 BS/2 S/3 T/2 W/2 I/3
a max of;
M/10 WS/7 BS/4 S/5 T/5 W/3 I/7
One of these stats must upgraded to 8 for 5 points less
Suport can have a min of their race stat line and a max of:
M/6 WS/4 BS/4 S/4 T/4 W/1 I/7
They can purchase up to two support special rules.
All races must have a base statline. this refers to their race. a base statline is the statline of their average citizen. here is an example of an normal human statline;
M/3 WS/2 BS/2 S/2 T/2 W/1 I/3
The statline of a unit cannot go below the base statline for the race. nor may the light, heavy or support infantry may exceed any stats on the base statline by 2 stats. Specialist may exceed by 3 points. Leaders may exceed by 5. 1 stat in the base statline MUST stay the same throughout the army. The one stat that must be kept the same throughout the army cost as shown:
M=70pts WS=0pts BS=0pts S=5pts T=5pts I=60pts W=0pts
Leaders ignore this rule.
One leader maybe chosen per army, they may have a max of 500pts and a min of 100pts. They are the only choice in the game that may not have to follow the one stat stay the same rule. If the leader is killed, all units must roll a dice, if the number is below 3 the unit may not move this turn. if the number is above, they may move as normal. Leaders may take light armor free, and heavy armor for 3pts. A leader also gets 10% of the cost for a specific stat, rounded down.
More to come, Heavy weapons are essentially more powerful than normal weapons, ill think of tanks later. I wanted to change the names of the races so that it isnt just 40k with slightly different rules. Suggestions would be great!
DAWARBOSS wrote:Made some rules up, put them in a spoiler to stop this thread from getting clogged up. I present to you...
DeadZone!
Spoiler:
Rules for DeadZone. A minature game set in the far future. Were humans fight for their emperor. Were space orcs wage battles to put space into never ending war. Were the Eldan fight for their very survival, and their dark cousins torture and enslave worlds. Were demons spawn on worlds to taint those pure. Were Tyranix feast on the bodies of their victims. Were Taal expand and conquer for the greater good. Were billions upon billions die daily.
This is DeadZone
In DeadZone you can create your own stats, wich are used to create a unit. special rules, weapons and armor are all purchaseable. Each stat more than 0 cost points, so M=1 point for every stat upgrade, WS=5 BS=5 S=4 T=3 W=6 I=2. EG,
Space ork pirate, light infantry;
M WSBS S T W I
4 4 2 3 4 1 2 = 67
The game would be a small, skirmish style. the points for a game can range between 200pts to 5000pts. there are 4 different types of infantry; Light, Heavy, Specialist and Support.
Light infantry can have a maximum stat line;
M/6 WS/4 BS/4 S/4 T/4 W/1 I/4
Light infantry can take light armor for 2 points, and heavy armor for 5 points.
Heavy can have a min of;
M/1 WS/2 BS/2 S/2 T/2 W/1 I/1
And a max of;
M/3 WS/6 BS/6 S/4 T/4 W/1 I/4
Heavy infantry can only choose heavy weapons. they have the coice to upgrade to heavy armor for 4 additional points.
Specialist infantry can have a min of;
M/5 WS/2 BS/2 S/3 T/2 W/2 I/3
a max of;
M/10 WS/7 BS/4 S/5 T/5 W/3 I/7
One of these stats must upgraded to 8 for 5 points less
Suport can have a min of their race stat line and a max of:
M/6 WS/4 BS/4 S/4 T/4 W/1 I/7
They can purchase up to two support special rules.
All races must have a base statline. this refers to their race. a base statline is the statline of their average citizen. here is an example of an normal human statline;
M/3 WS/2 BS/2 S/2 T/2 W/1 I/3
The statline of a unit cannot go below the base statline for the race. nor may the light, heavy or support infantry may exceed any stats on the base statline by 2 stats. Specialist may exceed by 3 points. Leaders may exceed by 5. 1 stat in the base statline MUST stay the same throughout the army. The one stat that must be kept the same throughout the army cost as shown:
M=70pts WS=0pts BS=0pts S=5pts T=5pts I=60pts W=0pts
Leaders ignore this rule.
One leader maybe chosen per army, they may have a max of 500pts and a min of 100pts. They are the only choice in the game that may not have to follow the one stat stay the same rule. If the leader is killed, all units must roll a dice, if the number is below 3 the unit may not move this turn. if the number is above, they may move as normal. Leaders may take light armor free, and heavy armor for 3pts. A leader also gets 10% of the cost for a specific stat, rounded down.
More to come, Heavy weapons are essentially more powerful than normal weapons, ill think of tanks later. I wanted to change the names of the races so that it isnt just 40k with slightly different rules. Suggestions would be great!
I found this very funny.
huh? what do you mean funny? just an WIP... Is it bad?
Hello again.
JUST TO BE CLEAR, when I suggested using modern warfare units as a base for the simulation , I was refering the the GAME MECHANICS used. The setting a what the units look like and fight like would be determined by the background writers.
Modern warfare simulation covers the game play type of WWII to present and into the future , if warfare continues to use similar unit types.
EG if you think the opening sequence to Dawn of war is how the game should play , then that is a simulation of modern wafare assault-defence.
Notice how the orks do not move forward, while the SM stand and wait, then the orks shoot, while the SM get hit and fall over, then the orks move forward into assault clobber the marines , and the the marins clout them back.
Units take apropriate actions and the opposing units respond .
The rough outline for a rule set I posted earlier can be used for ANY modern warfare ground combat.(WWII, to 1000 years into the future.)
I prefer to have a even loading of mobility-firepower and assault.
However if the majority like heavy assault loading , then thats fine too, but just dont get there by abstracting morale like 40k does.
As reguard to the dice used.
Using a larger dice for UNIT action rolls , eg where you throw one dice per unit for Morale Checks or Target Aquisition, is great.
But using the ubiquitous D6 when rolling saves etc, where number of dice thrown is a factor, is a good comprimise IMO.
If you use dice in a deterministic way,(eg the dice roll is the ONLY deciding factor,) eg roll over value X for sucess.
Then no matter what size of dice you use you end up with only 2 posible results, sucess or fail.
Where as if you use the dice base score that is modified by skill-situation.OR use the dice as a modifier to a skill score then you can get more proportional results.
Eg If you deduct the target armour value from the attackers weapon damage to arrive at the saving throw required.
Then the weapon power and the armour strenght determine the save throw , not a FIXED set value rolled on a D6.
ONLY if you are using a an alternating game turn , eg one player does EVERTHING with all units , then the other palyer does EVERYTHING with all units , is it important for the defender to roll saves last.
If however you use a game turn mechanic written in the last 20 years , not the last 50 !
You can arrive at a far more tacticaly rewarding and interactive game turn.
Lanrak wrote:If you want a good skirmish game for 28mm, there are loads currently available.
StargruntII, Fast and Dirty, No limits ,ChainReactionIII, Infinity etc.
You can find links to the free to download ones at freewargamesrules...
...Why are people concerned about manufacturing new minatures?
Are there not enough minature manufactureres currently available?
If you are NOT using GW rules you, can still use your curent scifi minature colection to play surley?
3 very good points.
1) No one should start a new ruleset without reading through several different rulesets. Tons of folks coming out of GW have written their own ruleset, and mostly they tend to look like 40k clones. I'm currently working on a ruleset for car combat. Before I started writing, I read 6 different car combat rulesets and read reveiws of 3-4 more.
2) Unless you've got significant financial backing, it's probably better to focus on making rules or miniatures, not both.
3) Don't be too attached to having to have certain miniatures for a certain game.
Additionally.
Rule writing should not be a committe event until after the first draft has been written.
Before you start writing a rulest these are just a few of the things you should take into consderation.
1) What scale?
2) What is the scope of battle (skirmish, platoon, mass battle)
3) How complex do you want the rules to be?
4) How long do you want the game to take?
5) What kind of activation system do you like?
6) What's the era?
Too many folks try to make a ruleset that will cover all scale's, scopes, era's. Era may be fudgable, but I've yet to see a ruleset that truely covers a wide range of scopes and scale's well without an additinal supplement or separate set of sub-rules dealing with different scales/scopes.
Lastly,
Before writing your own ruleset, consider modfiying an existing rulest. There are so many rulesets out there, that it's very likely that there's one you can modify or house rule to get it to do what you want.
I've spent some time with friends thinking about creating a new game or simply overhauling 40k (50k ).
I'm not very skilled at rules design, but I'm a master of character design! If anyone is interested,
I would be more than happy to help in the designs of races and cultures of a Dakka game.
Thanks for the ideas for scattering peeps, am liking them all.
Thinking of using the idea of having a grid with shots hitting different squares would make a good spray or grenade or cluster bomb template.
I can't work out how to have a good CC system that is brutal but is smooth. Thoughts Dakka?
DaemonJellybaby wrote:Thanks for the ideas for scattering peeps, am liking them all.
Thinking of using the idea of having a grid with shots hitting different squares would make a good spray or grenade or cluster bomb template.
I can't work out how to have a good CC system that is brutal but is smooth. Thoughts Dakka?
What other CC systems have you read and what have you liked or not-liked about them? Give us some idea of what you are looking for.
Just to say I have been designing a new game and I have the barebones here for you all to read. I will be adding more to it when I can eventually be bothered to.
Well I have read the current 40kCC rules
Like: they are simple and brutal,
Dislike: GW's and rely on large amounts of attacks rather than good quality attacks
2nd Ed CC rules
Like: they are very different to the current rules and show how combat can change
Dislike: Takes ages to play out because it is one-on-one therefore is not smooth, and is GW's
Crimson Galaxy
Like:Options when charged, combat res,
Dislike:Odd wording on some things make it hard to understand fully, to hit score modifiers
I would recommend checking out infinity, Warmahordes and Inquisitor's combat rules as they are all very different and show a different approach/level of detail.
1. The concept could be an arena fighting thing [or just on the front lines of a big ongoing war]. Like putting people in suits [maybe like crisis suit things (I am currently working on a suit that has come from my own mind when I was thinking about ‘Skinnie Venerable Marauders’ and the ‘Tau Crisis Suit’ and I put my own spin on it and I WILL be reproducing it. [no it doesn’t have any GW parts on it or any other parts. It is mainly green-stuff, plastic card, and plastic sprews.]) Maybe it could be some way that the universe settles fights and or wars or just for fun and fame. You could play with a few men [say 5 on a team or less] and have a lot more options than the usual 40k unit (like have different weapons and equipment. Different suits, ex.).
2. I’m a good artist and I could put pictures up of my vision. I mean really, who would be better at envisioning the creators vision then the creator?
3. The scale could be the same as 40k [but they would be in suits so… Ya know].
4. I would have to think about the rule sets.
5. I am starting to make my own miniatures [I have yet to mold them (soon though, soon)].
It could be a skirmish game too. I think it would be quite fun.
MeanGreenStompa
Mantic are doing a sci fi game , exellent!
(Lets see what Alessio comes up with for sci fi rules.When allowed to write rules on his own he can develop great rule sets....)
DeamonJellyBaby
I would just like to point out that the rules for 40k ARE NOT SIMPLE.They are over complicated.
The basic mechanics are quite simple, but they cover so little of the game play 40k requires 2 extra rule sets to cover the bits the core rules miss.(Vehicle rules and USR-special rules.)
Eg
Basic mechanic.' Roll over the models armour save to prevent the wound.'
Inclusive clause 'UNLESS the weapons AP value is lower than the save.'
(Extra unecissary exceptions)
USR-special rules.
UNLESS the model has an invunerable save,
UNLESS the weapon ignores that particualr type of invunerable save,
Vehicle rules.
UNLESS the target unit is vehicle then use a completly seperate system !!! (AV vs weapon strenght!)
ACTUAL SIMPLE RULES>
Basic mechanic.Deduct the targets armour value from the weapons damage value to determine the save roll reqired.(This alos provides natural invunerablity and auto wound.)
Thats it , it applies to ALL units and gives scalable results across all weapon and armour interaction.
The type of rules I prefer tend to cover EVERTHING in the core rules , and they tend to be less than 40 pages of text.
But then I prefer tactical loading (choces in game,)over strategic loading (build dependant,) in games.
DaemonJellybaby wrote:Well I have read the current 40kCC rules
Like: they are simple and brutal,
Dislike: GW's and rely on large amounts of attacks rather than good quality attacks
2nd Ed CC rules
Like: they are very different to the current rules and show how combat can change
Dislike: Takes ages to play out because it is one-on-one therefore is not smooth, and is GW's
Crimson Galaxy
Like:Options when charged, combat res,
Dislike:Odd wording on some things make it hard to understand fully, to hit score modifiers
Based on the above take a look at Warengine/Shockforce system for ideas.
At first glance it seems to be just a individual vs individual system, which would seem to be slower. However, it has a few things that keep it moving quickly.
1) It uses a "combined attack" mechanic so that figures can group their attacks to support one model attacking another.
2) It does away with hits and armor saves
3) The game tends to encourage smaller squads, so it's not so hard to whittle down the number of an enemy squad.
4) Rather than having a certain number of attacks in the profile, each charachter has a certain number of weapons. This is an interesting way of giving the characther several different kind of attacks without introducing a specific mechanic.
The type of rules I prefer tend to cover EVERTHING in the core rules , and they tend to be less than 40 pages of text.
Unfortunately there are always going to be additional bits changing things, and using different rules for different things, and exceptions to the first and second 'sets' of rules (all over the codexes)
But then I prefer tactical loading (choces in game,)over strategic loading (build dependant,) in games.
I prefer this too, it means you are thinking about how you are playing the game rather than simply buying as many Terminators as possible.
I like strength changing armour values in WHFB because most models are only S3 or 4 without weapons, but in a futuristic setting, where most weapons are going to be considerably stronger than a warrior's arm, having strength modifiers on armour is difficult, when the most common weapon in 40k would cause a -1 save mod.
I would give some weapons a -1 save penalty and some weapons would ignore (infantry) armour outright but not a strength modifier.
But having weapon strength changing tank armour values would mean tanks would have an armour save, and would therefore be possible to take tanks down with lots of lasguns or lasgun equivalents.
Although 'tank saves' would be a cool concept to think about, that means another set of rules that dictate how tanks are damaged and how they lose thier saves, do they gradually get destroyed, or do they explode after a few round of hits?
Am thinking for something similar to the monster damage table from WOTR, modifiers depending on what type of tanks and how much damage it has already taken.
I am overstating the problem, but you see where I am coming from?
*Sorry Eilif, havent got time to reply to you, will get round to it tho!
Although 'tank saves' would be a cool concept to think about, that means another set of rules that dictate how tanks are damaged and how they lose thier saves, do they gradually get destroyed, or do they explode after a few round of hits?
Simply make the toughness of the tank too high for regular guns. You don't have to be limited to stats of ten max.
Hi folks.
Weapons are developed to inflict damage on a target.
Armour is develped to reduce -stop weapons damage from effecting the target.
If we give ALL units an armour value from 1 to 15 for example.
Light infantry AV 1 to 3, meduim infantry AV 4 to 5 , heavy infantry and light vehicles AV 6 to 9, Meduim vehicles AV 10 to 12 , heavy vehicles AV13 to 15.
ONLY anti tank weapons get a bonus dice to damage vs vehicle/ MC targets.
A vehicle with front av of 13 is INVUNERABLE to small arms fire.(6 to 9 -13 = less than zero!)
However a Laser cannon Dam 12+D6 rolls a 4 for penetration bonus.
16-13=3+ save for the vehicle .
But on a meduim vehicle AV 11
16-11=5+ save.
IF the armour value modifies the damage we DONT NEED additional modifiers do we?
We can simply alter the AV and weapon damage value and bonuses up and down to get the result we think are most apropriate!
As each change in value of 1 alters the result in an equaly dispersed way.
Unlike tyhe AP system where increasing the AP or save value has dipsproportionate amounts.
IF we have 2 types of unit, descreet and indescreet.
One unit type removes models to denote damage .
The other unit type records damage from a damage table .
Eg vehicles and MCs get damage tables .
The ONLY reason you have to change -add rules to a system is if you were NOT professional enough to include ALL unit interaction types at the original concept stage.
40k written for infantry skirmish.
And so EVERY addition to the game play required more rules to cover it.
Firefly was written to cover ALL land combat with combined air and artillery suport across all thatres of war.
And it covers ALL this plus over 600 units and 45 army list in the rule book with less pages than 40k BBB.
DeamonJellyBaby.
I am not a genuis, I just like to keep things a simple as possible, so I can understand them!
Thats why its important to determine the scale and scope of the game at the start , so we CAN cover everything with the core game mechanics and rules.(In the most intuitive and straightforward way possible.)
I tend to play lots of battalion level and higher wargames.(I am not great at painting minatures, and 2mm to 10mm dont need great paint jobs to look good at a distance. )
And these tend to use straightforward game mechanics and rules so they dont bog down game play when larger numbers of units are in play.
IMOWHFB and 40k are written exclusivley to promote the latest minatures.
I am not saying my ideas are the best, but I am trying to illustrate there are lots of options for straightforward rules that result in complex tactical gameplay.
WE DO NOT NEED TO INCLUDE ANY game mechanic or rules from the current 40k game, if they are not the best fit with the game play we want.
There are a few IMPORTANT features of a modern wargame that have been played down in the current 40k game.
Psychology ....
1/Morale(I have now learned to spell morale properly... )
2/Suppression.
There are lots of simple ways to include these effects in the core rules.And so get the depth of game play without loads of conditioanl additional rules.(Epic Armageddon has one of the most elegant supression game mechanics ever!)
I propose that anti tank type weapons have a bonus to armour piercing , Anti infantry weapons have a bonus to supressive effects.(Small arms do not have any bonuses.)
Spacial awarness-ground scale.
3/Aquisition.
4/Requsition,(of off table support).
Having a fixed chance to hit ANYTHING in range is just too much of an abstraction for my liking.Hitting a Land raiider in the open 1" away SHOULD be far easier than hitting a single infanty model 48" away in heavy cover.
I prefer having to roll to aquire a target.(Rolling to see.)
And the targets Stealth Value is the score the attacker has to roll over to see it.(We could use a FEW simple modifiers for disposition to include them.)
Eg
Add to Stealth value.
Target in cover +1.
Target on stealth order. +1
Target over 36" away. +1
Add to aquisition roll.
Attacker on fire support order+1
Target handed on by friends+1.
Target under 18" away.
This SIMPLE process includes target size/shape distances and dispositions.(To add more detail just add more modifiers, NOT special rules.)This also removes the need to artificialy restrict targeting.The players choose how much risk they want to take on target selection.
IF we use target aquisition to determine engagments,we can show a units skill at shooting DIRECTLY in the units state under the effective range.
Better shots have a longer effective range.
Numpty with a Mauser Sniper rifle effective range 600m.
Trianed Sniper with the same rifle effective range 1500m.
So rather than alloting a fixed efective range to a weapon, and using a seperate fixed chance to hit.
We could simply list the combined effects of the weapon AND user in the unit stats.
'This is my rifle, there are many like it but this one is MINE!Without my rifle I am NOTHING,without me my rifle is NOTHING.'
In the same way we can simplty incresce the amount of attacks or damage for those units that are better in close combat.
When writing rules I prefer to start with the SIMPLEST method to cover the resolution, then work up.
I prefer to keep special abilities to , re roll dice ,OR roll an extra dice,OR ignore ONE condition.
EG
Amphibiuos the unit counts water features as open ground.(Ignores the conditional penalty of water features.)
Chainsaws allow the attacking unit to force the target to re-roll sucessful save rolls in assaults.
Advanced comms. The unit rolls an extra dice when handing on targets and requesting off table support.(Highest value used.)
Sorry about the long post.But if its a modern battle game you want , I have loads of game mechanics and resolution method ideas we can discuss...
DeathReaper.
Concidering the high level of complication and abstraction in the current 40k rule set , coupled with the diffuse and poorly worded rules.I think Gwar does a VERY good job.
Given that a new rule set would be written with intuitive gameplay in mind.Gwar WOULD be 100% correct!
I am sure GW plc just read what Gwar writes, and copies it.And then just alters a couple of things to make it look like THEY know what they are doing.
Current 40k is like trying to translate and decode German Messages in the Enima Code .(Ever changing settings and standard reels.)
Where as error seeking a new rule set would just be gramatical and spelling error check in comparison.
Gwar is far more constant and concistant than GW plc IMO.
If we give ALL units an armour value from 1 to 15 for example.
That seems somewhat akin to the toughness rules out of the Lord of the Ring SBG, except you took out the 6/4, 6/5 thing.
In the rule set I'm currently doing I considered using that toughness thing except with the max at 20, I feel it gives a better approximation because enough lasguns at a monstrous creature should eventually hit an eye or some other weak body spot, but hitting said target should be hard. Hence the 6/6 needed.
This is the most interesting thread I've read in a long time. Okay, here are some of my ideas, from a set of wargame rules concepts that I have been working on for sixteen years.
Spoiler:
First, Instead of having a set of completely arbitrary deployment situations and victory conditions that allow no participation on the part of the players, I instead prefer the following rules concepts.
DEPLOYMENT
Both players roll a die, add the appropriate stat of their overall leader (Discipline, leadership, whatever...) to determine who places a unit first. This player may place the unit anywhere on the tabletop. Then, the next player places a unit, anywhere on the tabletop that is at least 24" away from the unit placed by the opposing player. Then, the players alternate placing units until they are finished. Units may be placed anywhere that is within 3" of a friendly unit, and not within 24" of an opposing unit. If one player has more units than the other, they must place two units at a time until they reach parity.
VICTORY
After deployment, but before the first round, the players get to place their objective markers. They get 1 marker per so many points of their army. They may place them on an enemy unit, in which case they claim the objective by destroying or routing that unit, or on a terrain feature in which case they claim the objective by having a unit within 3" of the objective and keeping enemy units at least 6" away from the objective for a predetermined number of round.
THE TURN PHASES/ACTIONS
Instead of one player taking all of their actions and then the other player taking all of theirs, each action phase is performed by both players before moving on the the next. Player A moves, player B moves, player A shoots, player B shoots, player A makes charge movement, player B makes charge movement and then a single round of melee is resolved. (This way, maneuvering and shooting are more important than melee.)
I have more, but this is the core of the system, and the part than I am most passionate about.
@Ratbarf.
I am not overly fussed what name we give the value.
But the 'how difficult to damage the target ' SHOULD be a numerical value.(Thats used in comparison to weapon damage to determine the chance of survival.)
The scale we use , 1 to 10 ,1 to 20, or 1 to 50 or even 1 to 100.Doesnt alter the core game mechanic.
It just determines the level of 'deferentiation' we have in the system.
The 'lucky shot' can be factored into the 'how difficult the target is to damage value' , or we can add in an aditional machanic for critical hits.
@ warpcrafter.
I TOTALY agree a more interactive game turn mechanic is needed, wether its alternating actions or unit activationis not realy an issue to me.(I have played and like both.)
I would like deployment to be more themed to fit with more narrative tyoe of play.(Eg mission cards mixed with alternative deployment options.)
Lanrak wrote:@Ratbarf.
I am not overly fussed what name we give the value.
But the 'how difficult to damage the target ' SHOULD be a numerical value.(Thats used in comparison to weapon damage to determine the chance of survival.)
The scale we use , 1 to 10 ,1 to 20, or 1 to 50 or even 1 to 100.Doesnt alter the core game mechanic.
It just determines the level of 'deferentiation' we have in the system.
The 'lucky shot' can be factored into the 'how difficult the target is to damage value' , or we can add in an aditional machanic for critical hits.
@ warpcrafter.
I TOTALY agree a more interactive game turn mechanic is needed, wether its alternating actions or unit activationis not realy an issue to me.(I have played and like both.)
I would like deployment to be more themed to fit with more narrative tyoe of play.(Eg mission cards mixed with alternative deployment options.)
I also would like some sort of themed scenario, perhaps something determined by both players. Maybe where one player chooses a deployment scheme, and the other chooses a mission with objectives for both sides, and then they reveal their choices at the same time. That way, both players get to participate.
DaemonJellybaby wrote:Well I have read the current 40kCC rules
Like: they are simple and brutal,
Dislike: GW's and rely on large amounts of attacks rather than good quality attacks
2nd Ed CC rules
Like: they are very different to the current rules and show how combat can change
Dislike: Takes ages to play out because it is one-on-one therefore is not smooth, and is GW's
Crimson Galaxy
Like:Options when charged, combat res,
Dislike:Odd wording on some things make it hard to understand fully, to hit score modifiers
Thank you for the compliments and also the constructive criticism! I am currently redoing the entire combat section to make it easier to understand and easier to play. I will be making a thread with the new ruleset, I'm just tightening up my wording and making the game simpler to understand.
I will be uploading my next draft of the rules tomorrow.
:edit:
I should also mention that although I really like how the mission card system works (I've been using it for Crimson Galaxy), I've been toying around with the games involving an Attacker and a Defender.
For example, let's say the mission is "Supply Raid". Pirates would automatically be an attacker on a 3+ on a d6, otherwise you roll CMD of your Commander+1D12 and winner chooses.
Then, you'd set up some objectives and also add in stuff like explosive crates and whatnot. Attacker gets +VP for capturing supplies and auto-wins if at the end of any turn it controls all of the objectives, and defender wins if it has the majority of the supplies.
That being said, I really like the Attacker vs. Defender and then adding in secret mission cards (for example, attacker could draw Assassination and the defender would get "Protect your Commander") or something to that effect.
I really like Warpcrafter's deployment rules, they're much like the ones I've developed.
DaemonJellybaby wrote:Well I have read the current 40kCC rules
Like: they are simple and brutal,
Dislike: GW's and rely on large amounts of attacks rather than good quality attacks
2nd Ed CC rules
Like: they are very different to the current rules and show how combat can change
Dislike: Takes ages to play out because it is one-on-one therefore is not smooth, and is GW's
Crimson Galaxy
Like:Options when charged, combat res,
Dislike:Odd wording on some things make it hard to understand fully, to hit score modifiers
Thank you for the compliments and also the constructive criticism! I am currently redoing the entire combat section to make it easier to understand and easier to play. I will be making a thread with the new ruleset, I'm just tightening up my wording and making the game simpler to understand.
I will be uploading my next draft of the rules tomorrow.
:edit:
I should also mention that although I really like how the mission card system works (I've been using it for Crimson Galaxy), I've been toying around with the games involving an Attacker and a Defender.
For example, let's say the mission is "Supply Raid". Pirates would automatically be an attacker on a 3+ on a d6, otherwise you roll CMD of your Commander+1D12 and winner chooses.
Then, you'd set up some objectives and also add in stuff like explosive crates and whatnot. Attacker gets +VP for capturing supplies and auto-wins if at the end of any turn it controls all of the objectives, and defender wins if it has the majority of the supplies.
That being said, I really like the Attacker vs. Defender and then adding in secret mission cards (for example, attacker could draw Assassination and the defender would get "Protect your Commander") or something to that effect.
I really like Warpcrafter's deployment rules, they're much like the ones I've developed.
I read through most of your rules, and they are interesting, but very complex. I have been considering something more streamlined, but not in such an arbitrary manner as what plagues 40K.
Ok then,
@Lanrak, do you want me to PM/Email you my current ideas pages for you to improve/add-to/edit? I have them in Word10
@Vladsimpaler, I think that any unit (that is not looking the wrong way) is going to react to a charge, rather than stand and take it!
Both players roll a die, add the appropriate stat of their overall leader (Discipline, leadership, whatever...) to determine who places a unit first. This player may place the unit anywhere on the tabletop. Then, the next player places a unit, anywhere on the tabletop that is at least 24" away from the unit placed by the opposing player. Then, the players alternate placing units until they are finished. Units may be placed anywhere that is within 3" of a friendly unit, and not within 24" of an opposing unit. If one player has more units than the other, they must place two units at a time until they reach parity.
The problem I see with this is area denial. One unit consisting of a single model has a circular footprint that is 48" in diameter. Ergo, if you have one more unit than your opponent, you can now cordon off almost the entire board against them, or even make it so that your opponent cannot deploy his full army accoding to the rules.
Both players roll a die, add the appropriate stat of their overall leader (Discipline, leadership, whatever...) to determine who places a unit first. This player may place the unit anywhere on the tabletop. Then, the next player places a unit, anywhere on the tabletop that is at least 24" away from the unit placed by the opposing player. Then, the players alternate placing units until they are finished. Units may be placed anywhere that is within 3" of a friendly unit, and not within 24" of an opposing unit. If one player has more units than the other, they must place two units at a time until they reach parity.
The problem I see with this is area denial. One unit consisting of a single model has a circular footprint that is 48" in diameter. Ergo, if you have one more unit than your opponent, you can now cordon off almost the entire board against them, or even make it so that your opponent cannot deploy his full army accoding to the rules.
Not true. This is why I included the restriction that units be placed close to a friendly unit, so they can't scatter everywhere and hog the board.
The 'S.T.A.C.S' ruleset someone uploaded is VERY good. Certainly straight-forward and excellently written. As is Elif's car combat. Listen to them, they knoes how to write rules
I am quite passionate when it's about making up rules for new games, and this thread is some great fun reading. I made TCG:s together with a friend when I was younger, and this would be very enjoyable to help with.
One idea I got is that it could be set up a bit similar to the Heroes of Might and Magic games, i.e. that you place your units on your deployment part (can be different sized), depending on the mission with or without knowledge of how your enemy has put up his units. Then, instead of using player turns each unit has an initiative value. During each turn each unit makes actions in an order depending on their initiative value (higher value first until each unit has made an action).
I also liked the idea of placing counters upside down at each unit (can't remember who had that idea here).
An idea about what races and stuff should be incorporated (though that may be a bit early), what about not including space humans, space orcs or space elves of any kind, but instead make up our own races? That would be very different
Not true. This is why I included the restriction that units be placed close to a friendly unit, so they can't scatter everywhere and hog the board.
Ah, I misread your limitation. However, there is another problem I see coming up, whats stopping a massive unit deploying their models as far apart as possible from one another? An Ork Boy squad of 30 given a spacing of two inches per model can cover 60 inches of the board.
Not true. This is why I included the restriction that units be placed close to a friendly unit, so they can't scatter everywhere and hog the board.
Ah, I misread your limitation. However, there is another problem I see coming up, whats stopping a massive unit deploying their models as far apart as possible from one another? An Ork Boy squad of 30 given a spacing of two inches per model can cover 60 inches of the board.
Perkustin wrote:The 'S.T.A.C.S' ruleset someone uploaded is VERY good. Certainly straight-forward and excellently written.
As is Elif's car combat.
Listen to them, they knoes how to write rules
One addition to this conversation it can definitely make is that it has very specific goals in mind (listed on the first post) for what it wants to accomplish. It's not a system that will please everyone, and it definitely does not attempt to "do it all" but it is at least very clear about what it is.
Perkustin.
Thanks for the compliment on my rough outline for my 'S.T.A.C.S.' rule set.(It still has some spelling mistakes and the odd typoe... It needs more work but its going in the right direction.)
Eiif.
Your rule set is clearly defined and efficiently and elegantly written,IMO.
You obviously understand your subject , as it shines through in the intuitive simulation you have written.
DeamonJellyBaby.
You can PM me your ideas if you want.(I Only have 'Open office ' I hope it will let me read Word 10.)
As reguard to deployment and mission types.
IF we are looking at more narrative based games , then we should NOT worry about having OPTIMUM balance across all mission types and deployment types.
Because as in real war, you have to make the best of what you have got!
If the mission and deployment types are varied enough, there are NO optimum builds .Just a build type thats better at a few missions and not so good at others.So players tend to play the army they LIKE the theme of.Airborne , footslogger, mechanised, amoured etc.
The basic deployment options are across, along or across the cormers of the gaming area.
How do you feel about making this a random selection?
1-2 across.
3-4 along
5-6 Across the corners.
'Terrain and objective markers are placed to in mutualy agreed way.'(As long as the players are happy with the playing area set up,I dont care how it happens!)
IF we simply designate one player as the 'attacker', and the other as the 'defender'.
The defender chooses thier side of the playing area.The attacker takes thier actions/activation first.
The attacker draws an ATTACK mission card.(Which they keep secret.)
The defender draws a DEFENCE mission card .(Which they keep secret.)
The mission cards determine the VICTORY conditions.
They list what is required for a MAJOR victory and a MINOR victory.
After the game the players results are compared.Major Victory is 3 pts, Minor Victory is 2 pts and NO victory conditions met=1pt.
If the scores are the same = Draw.
If one player has 1 more pt than thier opponentthey have won a Minor Victroy.
If one player has 2 more pts than thier opponent they have won a Major Victory.
Excuse my poor narative skills but here is an example of mission cards.(Maybe 6 for attacker, and 6 for defender to give 36 possible game types!)
Attacker , HELLS HIGHWAY.('Operation Market Garden'.)
It is imperative you punch through the opposing defencive line to allow mechanised-armoured units to link up with a deep striking Airborne Assault Force.
You MUST clear and maintain a coridoor of advance at least 12" wide, that MUST be free of ALL enemy units ,and MUST also be out of range/LOS of any fire support weapons /on table F.O.O.
Major Victory , the coridoor of advance is established by turn 3 and held untill the end of turn 6.
Minor Victory, the coridoor of advance is established later than turn 3 and held untill the end of turn 6.
No Victory , the coridoor of advance is NOT estabilshed, or not held at the end of turn 6.
Defender. WHEELS OF TERROR.('Operation Nightshade'.)
Behind you location , the transport network of roads(highways), means the rest of the sector could be at risk from lighning raids by enemies equiped with fast moving vehicles.
You thefore MUST destroy ALL opposing units/vehicles/(M/Cs), with a movement value over 6".
Major Victory ALL enemy vehicles (MCs)destroyed/immobilised.
Minor Victory all enemy vehicles (MCs) have movement reduced to 5" or less.
No Victory , the enemy have vehicles(MCs) with movement value of 7" or more.
Narrative mission can be based on particular area, or objective markers,or unit, or a unit type,etc.Gives far more vairied and interesting games than KILL or HOLD.
I probably made a bit of a mess of explaining this.But moving away from 'Points Value fixation' and towards 'narrative play' is the direction I would prefer.
Random terrain generators are best I think, aside from mission specific terrain such as that one mission in Fantasy where you have to take the central tower. That way it keeps the games fresh and you can't always count on having the terrain disposition that you would like.
As for missions, the best way to set that up I feel is to mimic/take the best from the LotR SBG. Their missions are incredibly fun to play, as are some of their more generic ones as well.
Whats everyone's view on 'secret missions?' . As in special objectives chosen at the beginning of the game. I always thought they would be pretty neato.
There's a good little passage about terrain setups in Vlad's Crimson Galaxy.
@Elif: Anytime @Lanrak, ah twas you. Well Lanrak i loved your S.T.A.C.S ruleset and think it has real promise.
I think it would be good to have mission cards that players keep secret from each other.
That way it sort of mimics reality, as the oponent is never quite sure what your objectives are, and neither are you about oponent objectives.
And if the mission cards are randomly generated ,fewer seperate missions generate a wider range of games.Than missions which dictate the objectives for attacker and defender.
The alternative is using as set number of missions that dictate attacker and defenders objectives.
And then have a seperate deck of 'secret missions' that the player get bonus victory points for , perhaps.
I like the idea of having secret missions, but these would have to all be compatible with all the others.
On the deployment note, why not deploy as normal but use deployment counters, each one is either a unit (specified) or a dummy. Each player takes turns to place a counter, then all the counters are turned over at the same time, and the unit they represent is placed next to them. Dummy counters are ignored.
legionaires wrote:Do you REALLY want to affect GW? Stop buying their product. Just walk away. As far as I can see it there are only three reasons to stick with GW:
1) player base size
2) length the games have been around
3) there is no other scifi gamelike 40k
So let's work on making a new scifi game on the same scale (28mm large-scale skirmish) as 40k and take away one of those reasons. Hell we can even have playtesters.
what about infinity? you looked over skirmish level games
DeamonJellybaby.
Mission cards are kept secret from your oponent.This can determine the main reason for your deployment in the area,(random senario generation.)
Or just an aditional narrative bonus objectives, similar to the mission card in 2nd ed.
Using 'counters' and 'dummy counters' mechanics....
I have used dummy markers for artillery barrage placement,(where barrages are likley to fall.) and 'hidden deployment.'(Units inside buildings etc.)
Deploying actual units on table is not a problem, IF you make the attacking unit roll to spot the target.
(Only when you let players pick targets with 'god like knowledge' do we run in to unrealistic targeting, in my experiance.)
My mortar team is going to shoot over that wood at your HQ unit I can see, (even though the mortar team would have no idea your HQ is there).Is BAD IMO.
Scout unit spots enemy HQ sheltering behind a wood, and reports its location to its HQ.The HQ then give the information to the mortar section to fire indirect barrage at that point.
Is what actualy happens IRL, and this then makes for a more tacticaly diverse and interesting game.
(Where scout units actual scout , leaders dictate targeting priority, and support weapons are used to support an advance. )
Dahl corp
There are tons of great skirmish games currently available.
Infinty , Dust Tactics, StargruntII, Fast And Dirty,No Limits, Chain reaction III etc.
However, I belive this thread was about developing a 'sci fi battle game' at a similar size and scope to 40k.
But with rules written for gameplay, rather than minature marketing...
40k the background and asthetics are inspiring and awsome.
40k rules are over complicated and abstract to the point of disjoint with reality AND the background they are supposed to represent.
Write a rule set that is more elegant and efficient /has more clarity and brevity than 40k.Easily achievable.
Write a skirmish sci fi rule set that is better than all the others currently available in all aspects. IMPOSSIBLE and POINTLESS>
Hey guys! After a lot of work, I've uploaded a new draft of Crimson Galaxy. It's more like Crimson Galaxy 2.0, this time it's "Pirates of a Crimson Galaxy" which was the original name I had for the game. I've changed a lot and hopefully made close combat a bit easier to understand. Close combat has been the hardest thing to work out and it's still gonna need a lot of editing.
See some talk about saves, and save modifiers i.e. armor value - strength of weapon = save.
How about losing saves all together? Warmachine/Hordes style? If you get hit and suffer a wound, you lose that much HP? Or simply die? Brutal yes - but forces some serious decisions when making and playing the game.
Been working for months am looking forward to reading crimson galaxy and all other people's rules alike. I'll be posting mine as well.
I belive this thread is far more positive place to put forward ideas on a new game.
However , 'developing a game by comittee' only realy works when you have a well defined end target you are all working towards...
Do you want a 'current 40k rules with a few alterations' , a '2nd ed re-vamp' , 'a RT reshuffle','other system X with a few tweeks'.
Or a complete re-write from the ground up?
If its a complete re-write we have to be VERY precise on what we are working towards.
The scope and size of game should be similar to the current 40k game IMO.
Eg battle game focusing in unit interaction.
Abstract games need simple precise rules to work.(Pass the Pigs through to chess all have simple precise rules.)
Simulation allow more complex gameplay due to the players knowledge of the RL analoge.
If the game play follows generaly know expectations, it is intuitive and simple for the players to learn and play the game .
(Rather than having to learn and play the rules, independant of any RL analoge.)
If its a simulation , what are we trying to simulate?
Ancient warfare , Napoleionic type warfare, WWI, or modern warfare ?
Alot of alternative rules written by ex 40k players tend to keep the over complicated way GW present rules.
I prefer to start in the simplest way possible to cover ALL the interaction in the game, by writeing rules in an inclusive way.
@ Warpcrafter.
I am a 'techno-dunce' according to my wife and kids. If your rules set and army lists are in PDF format or word doc.Simply click the attachments button unerneath the text box where you write your posts.Then browse though your PC untill you find the documents you want to upload then upload them.(Click on the document then the upload button.)(My son told me how to do this...)
If you upload the basic rules first then we can see where you are coming from...
@RavagedWorlds.
It is possible to use lots of different mechanics in games.
Most games use some or all of the following to cover unit interaction as reguards to damage resolution.
Roll to see, roll to hit,roll damage, roll to save.
If you have a game where ALL elements that have multiple hit points , and the weapons simply reduce the hit points.And the reduction of hit points reduces the element performance.
Then this is great for games with lower numers of elements , and higher resolution in the interaction.(Skirmish games.)
In a game similar in size and scope to 40k , you would this level of detailed recording a bit clumbersome perhaps?
If the game is based on unit interaction , some factors can be fixed , some can be compared, and some can be variable that are 'rolled' for.
'Rollling for everything' using dice deterministic methods , reduces the game play to flatter result forms (everthing becomes averaged out.), and places more emphasis on strategic loading .(Current 40k.)
Comparing everything directly to determine chances of sucess reduces the randomness to a point of predetermined out come that places more emphasis on strategic loading.
As I belive we want a more tacticaly focused game , we should sort of go for the middle ground .
(Plus lots of gamers like roling big handfulls of dice now and again... )
There are loads of ways to reach any particular end game play.
An multiple options tend to mean mulltiple opinions on which is best.
So to get these opinions to be objective, we do need a clearly defined design goal, and development breif.
Ths is for game mechanics and game paly obviously..
The fluff can be what ever you want that ties into the gameplay.
(Vladsimpaler I also like you background for the PotCG.)
Any thoughts on reactions to a failed morale test people? I have suppressed,when a unit immediately moves back into cover. But I would like more, 2 pence for your thoughts Dakka?
Am looking for some more interesting weapons too,
Also, I am looking for an editor/critic who can hunt down my errors and suggest improvements for the wording and weaker points of my game, balance out units/weapons etc
Suppression(shaken).
The unit may retire(move away from enemy units,) to cover , or move to intervening( within movement distance and nearer than all enemy) cover .
In both cases the unit takes a single move action in the secondary action phase.
A unit that is in cover when it becomes suppressed will not move, but may take an attack action,in the secondary action phase .
A vehicle unit may turn to put its (highest) front AR facing to wards the attacking unit that suppressed it instead of moving to cover.
If all enemy units are within the vehicles units front AR facing, the vehicles unit may count as in cover.(Take an attack action in the secondary action phase.)
Neutralised (stunned).
The unit will not take any actions until rallied. Unless it is attacked with close combat weapons , at which point it will fight back normally.
When rallied a neutralised unit moves to suppressed.
Routing .
When a vehicle type unit looses all of its weapons , it must make a Moral test at the start of every game turn.
When an infantry type unit loses 75% or more of its starting DP, it must make a Moral test at the start of every game turn.
If these moral tests are failed the unit routes from the battle field, place a (R) counter next to the unit.
A routing unit must attempt to exit the playing area, as quickly as possible by the shortest available route. (Takes a compulsory move action in both action phases.)
TQSplinter wrote:*takes out intellectual property textbook*
Being a UK law student this is a 101 in UK Intellectual Property law, and there are lots and LOTS of case law and other things that complicate the matter. (Tbh i cant remember most of it but this still serves my purpose.) And being in the UK, a lot of stuff is relatively standardised between the US and Europe as a means of "protecting people better".
I wouldnt say copyright is the biggest worry, copyright protects expressions of ideas, NOT the ideas themselves.
3. Literary, dramatic and musical works. 3A. Databases
4. Artistic works. 5A. Sound recordings.
5B. Films.
5. Sound recordings and films.
6. Broadcasts.
6A. Safeguards in case of certain satellite broadcasts.
7. Cable programmes.
8. Published editions.
So basically out of those you need to be concerned with Literary works, and artistic works.
Literary being pretty much anything that you could identify word wise with the original game, for example "scatter dice", "Whirlwind Tank" etc..., as well as any published works like unique names of characters, unique weapon names, but need to be careful that even common place words with enough attachment to a unique idea could also be protected.
Artistic works could include all forms of the models, buildings etc, but this could also apply to the design of blast templates and such, which could give REAL difficulties when you're trying to find a way to make a new way of determining the radius of a set size explosion... Also could cover things like the designs of dice, including the special scatter dice etc.
Patents don't count here for the most part because the process of making them rests with the moulders, and they probably hold the patents for their moulding process, so custom designs shouldn't be a problem.
Design protection also could be problematic because one could argue that many different things including everything down the specific designs on individual dice, ruler designs and other things can be protected.
(I haven't mentioned trademarks because I think we all know using the GW trademark symbol is a rather bad idea for starters.)
Long story short, the actual methods of playing a game cannot be protected (roll a dice, move or shoot a model etc), but the designs, models and unique features of it are. best bet is to design everything from new and stay the hell away from GW designs, names and the like. (Unique names being a bit easier to deal with.)
Ideas for things such as the idea of "scatter dice" are fine to copy, but you cannot call them scatter dice or use dice that look like them. If you designed your own new dice faces and called them "danger close rolls", you'd probably be a lot safer. Or you could design a new method for assigning where shots land instead of using the GW method. (For example a circle of a predetermined size with a grid inside it, when you want to see how shots spread, then you roll several D6 and add the total up and count along the grid that number, for however many shots in a row. Or simply a "twister" style spinner which you spin simply to give the direction the shot moves and roll a dice for distance.)
Things like movement orders, line of fire shooting and the like are generally acceptable to copy because its commonplace stuff that exists in lots of different games. I would suggest that if you want to take other ideas for inspiration, look to other games, such as WW2 armies, fantasy, RPGs and as many different sources. If there are ideas that are common to all or most of them its a safe bet if you copy it with a different name and maybe a different method (definately with different designs) you should be ok.
Just to stay with a template idea, if you were to use big circular templates with a hole in the middle called "blast templates", GW would probably take a whack. If, however, you were to come up with a circular template, different size to GW, maybe put a carry handle on it instead of a hole, make it non see-through instead of clear and call it an "explosive damage radius portrait", you are far more likely to be left alone.
Finally, all of these protections have a lifespan, some a LOT more than others. (Copyright in the UK is 70 years plus life of author. Design protection at most 15 years.) Seeing as GW has been trading for 30 years there WILL be things that were protected and are now not.
Disclaimer: I am NOT qualified to give legal advice so all this advice i'm giving now is purely in a personal capacity as a law student and does not purport to be professional legal advice and as such I recommend that if you want accurate legal advice on your situation then you need to seek independent legal advice from a qualified legal practicioner.
If anybody finds me wrong on any points please say, and if anyone can contribute to this please do. I do hope that this is useful info for people
TQ.
(PS this is not me GW bashing, I support them fully and this is simply letting people know how not to attract the attention of solicitors letters also I hope to god I havent just gotten everything i've posted wrong haha)
The large template you could suggest a cd, or something of approx size (large blast radius).
The smaller one would be those small cd's. The hard one is the flamer template, but that can be made by drawing on a piece of card.
Of course this is what you could suggest (knowing people will use the gw ones anyway).
I would suggest to keep it simple, that everybody has the same ballistic skills. And to increase it you buy upgrades, in the form of equipment. the same with armour.
If you want to field intergalactic armoured marines instead of normal soldiers with better weapons skills they cost more, so you get less of them.
As far as I am aware , the ONLY restriction on devloping a new game is NOT using other companies specific terms.
And game mechanics and commonsense is NOT copywritable or protectable under Trade Mark.
ONLY specific terms and words.
Therfore 'Teardrop' shaped,(Diameter at the end and lenth specified,) 3" diameter , 5" diameter template to denote area of effect is fine.
I WANT to keep it simple.NOT using ANY resolution methods found in the current 40k game should help this.
I dont want to use seperate BS combined used in conjunction with weapon stats to finaly arrive at a weapon effect.
Just use the effective range to represent how good the unit is a shooting.
(Better shots hits things further away )
How do you feel about NOT using conventional points values.But something less granular and fiddely?
EG
Light infantry /vehicle /monster unit = 1 UNIT.
Meduim infantry unit /vehicle /monster unit= 2 UNITS
Heavy infantry unit/vehicle /monster unit =3 UNITS
And army composition something like this...
HQ Unit.
Allows 2 to 6 Common units to be taken.
Allows 0 to 2 support units to be taken.
2 common units taken allows 0 to 2 Specialist unit to be taken.
2 Specialist units taken allows 0 to 2 Restricted unit to be taken.
This allows us to select unit types and sizes that are roughly equal in game terms.
And use the level of 'rarity' to iron out synergistic imbalances.
(Eg if more than 2 'Monster X' become too powerful in playtesting , Make Monster X a 'Restricted unit' chioce.)
This way we can develop unit types in the relevant 'Bands' that are reasonably ballanced across all armies.
Eg All light infantry/vehicle /monster units are 'equaly' likley to beat any other light unit chioces in a straight up fight unit on unit..
The number of models in the unit , along with ALL the unit characteristics can be adjusted to get the level of balance we are all happy with.
This would effectily 'fix ' the unit sizes available.But as this just speed up the army composition and improves the chance of balancing everything with a greater level of sucess.
(As we would be balancing at the level of interaction , EG the unit level. Not like GW does at the individual model level then revise it at army level .)
This is a very simple way to achive diverse lists that have STRONG themes, that are ballanced through a narrative focus, and tons of playtesting.
EG a 12 UNIT conflict , between an Armoured Company and a Airbourne Infantry list might look like this.
HQ LAV (1)
Support , 2 1 Light Artilery .(2)
Common 4 MAV. (8)
Specialised , LAV scout.(1)
HQ ,Elite L.Infantry Unit.(1)
Support , 2 light Air CAP.(2)
Common 4 light infantry units (4)
Special 4 HWP equiped Light infantry teams.(4)
Resricted 1 LAV scout
I propose ALL armies will have units in all catagories.
And all armies will have composition lists for 3 out of 4 army themes.
Infantry- Armoured-Airbourne -Mechanised.
So you can have a teardrop template, just call it a flame-thrower template, and have different blast radii for blast weapons.
I was thinking of having a points and unlocks system, so a command unit allows 2-6 grunt units, 0-1 support unit and 0-1 elite unit
For every 3 grunt units bought, you can take a specialist unit. Then a second command section would allow three extra slots in each category.
Points allow units to be customised, so an ordnance unit could take a: • Mortar • Light cannon, • Medium cannon • Heavy cannon • Multi-mortar • Heavy mortar • Field gun • Howitzer • Siege gun • Multiple Missile System All have pros and cons, but some are going to be better than others, so points would balance this out.
However ,IF we are to use a PV system it would HAVE to be provable.
EG ' gamer why deos a mortar team in army X cost 7 point more in army Y?'
'Becasue we thought army X needed a points break on this unit because of thier crap assault value' Oh so very craptastic ....
I much prefer ... '...here is the system we use to allocate PV, we have developed it over 8 years and its proven to be as accurate as humanly possible...'
Where as NOT using them and JUST using playtesting to achive rough balance across 'unit bands', and composition restrictions to remove synergistic problems.Is so much easier.
(With narrative missions , PV becomes irrelevant in game).
If a heavy weapon team has the chioce of Mortar -HMG- Laser cannon , Missile launcher.
(Eg indirect fire capability, BEST anti infantry weappon -BEST anti tank weapon , AVERAGE anti infantry -anti tank comprimise weapon. )
The the player has the option to just PICK what THEY want to use to suit thier style of play.
A support unit could be off table 'reserve units'or 'air strike' or 'artillery barrage.'
I was going to begin by having a generic army list with doctrines to make the armies customisable, then work from there, seeing what works/does not work, any OP doctrines etc
Need to write in some doctrines, but here is my initial army list and weapons list.
Obviously this is just indev, so please don't worry about seriously OP units, weapons or rules, they will be dealt with in time Constructive CnC is welcome, just make sure you have an alternative idea
Hi DJB.
The basic outlines for infantry and weapons seem ok.(A good starting point. )
However would it be better to simply include the weapon effect in the unit characteristic profile?
(If the game is about unit interaction, it would speed up resolution and improve variance across units.)
EG.
Mobility (Distance moves per move action and mobility type.)
Defencive value(How hard the unit is to damage.)
Hit points (How much damage the unit can take , wounds or structure points.)
Stealth value(How hard the unit is to see.)
Morale value (How wiling the unit is to fight on.)
Command value (Bonuses for the units leader abilities.)
This way we could alter the weapon profiles AND the characteristics, to adjust the combat effectivness of the unit in increments.(Which is better than bunging on loads of special rules instead... )
This information could be presented on a reference card (playing card sized.)
And the 'army composition' could be noted on the other side , so you pick your army , then flip the cards over when you play!
Instead of doctrines...
How would you feel about having several themed lists for each army.
EG -Infantry - mechanised - heavy armoured- cavalry(fast ground assault) -Airbourne
This means ALL armies can have lots of variety and themes without using loads of 'special rules '
(Alot of the time its just altering the rarety of the units within a list, eg a Med Tank is specialised in an infantry/mechanised list, common in a armoured list and restricted in a cavalry list and NOT in the airbourne list! )
So we use the same pool of units but organiose them in different ways to get the varied themes.Which is basicaly what 'doctrines' do at the micro level.
When you look at the 40k rule set.Use it as a guide of WHAT NOT TO DO!
So if you have absentmindedly used something from 40k rule set, double check it to see it it could be done better.(The answer is ALWAYS yes. )
As we are NOT '...in the buisness of selling toy soldiers to kiddies...' but developing a well defined intuitive and elegant rule set for modern warfare simulation...
Ps in game where the combat is mainly coprised on weapons swung-strung by the combatants , a strenght value is a good name for the power of the weapon hit.As it is directly proportionat to the wielder.
But when dealing with high velocity projectiles, chemicals ,superheated plasma and over powered lazer light.Perhaps 'power' or 'damage' might be more apropriate.
I like the idea of themes, but I am going to build these into the army doctrines, you will HAVE to take three doctrines in a similar way to the Call of Duty perks lists, so there will be a category that does a similar thing to the airborne, mechanised, cavalry etc other doctrines will be minor profile modifications, re-rolls and deployment bonuses rather than granting silly rules like FNP
I will put the weapon profile in with the unit profile to speed things up, they are just all in one section to make weapons easy to compare when writing up. Units might have hit-points, but I would rather hit points were represented by models, as having a multi-hit-pointed unit would mean that premium AT weapons would still only cause one loss of a single hit point, when we know something like a missile is going to blow infantry into pieces. 40k has this right with the Instant Death rule as noting is going to stop a high powered laser from killing you outright. This could be dealt with, but it means making more complex rules, and adding more statistics.
On the topic of Strength characteristics, I was going to put all weapons into one big list including CC weapons. So having weapon and wielder strength being standard means that the wordings don't need to be changed or new tables drawn.
Wikipedia wrote:In physics, power is the rate at which work is performed or energy is converted. Physical strength is the ability of a person or animal to exert force on physical objects using muscles. Damage can occur suddenly, as in the case of breakage due to mechanical stress, or gradual, in which case it is sometimes called wear and tear.
I think Strength defines the properties of muscles and weapons evenly.
Hi DJB.
As long as the 'doctrines' just determine what units are available to get a themed list , then is no different to having seperate comp lists.
So we can just use which ever is easier to write and understand.
Your list of 'weapon profiles' is purley for reference purpouses?Thats fair enough.
I was simply saying that 'Power', or 'Armour Piercing ' , are generic terms and apply to all weapon damage .
Strenght is PARTICULAR to weapon that have thier power suplied totaly by thier wielder.(Eg low tech weapons.)
Doctrines will allow armies to be tailored to your playstyle you can have almost any army style you like from a single set of interchangeable perks...
Am also considering doing away with points and having a similar system to Lanrak's choices
Hi DJB.
This sort of thing is great to set the framework we use when creating a set of army lists for a game .
But why make the players have to do all the calculations and adjustments?And leave the developers to playtest every possible combination to look for any imballance that might arise...
If we apply the frame work to build the army lists.We can playtest them to find the most balanced options, and simply put those in a army list where the palyers can pick freely from available chioces.
It no good providing thousands of possible options if the players only use 2 or 3 due to poor balancing,is it?
I have attached a sample WWII army 'Armoured' list I wrote for the WWII version of S.T.A.C.S.(Based on historical data so is a bit more restrictive than the one we would use in a new game.)
Just so you can see how simple the propsed lists are to use/write/amend.
I cant find the army data sheet with the unit info on...(It gave the in game data, and the UNIT costs.)
I wanted to have doctrines so players can have fluffy lists, but it seems easier to separate them from doctrines into several differently organised army lists, with each having strengths and weaknesses, and none being OP as far as we, the game writers, can see. The job of the developers and the play testers is to find where the writer went wrong with balance and help to fix the problem. I tried to give many possible doctrine options (150 in total) almost all being viable, granted some would be better than others. Good army list Lanrak, it gave me an idea on how to structure the resulting armies.
I have split down my current rules into different sections so they are easier to manage. What I need now is an editor to read thru them, hunt down the problems and help smooth them out rather than adding more to the game, More ideas will be appreciated when I have the basic stuff working smooth-ish-ly.
Hi DJB.
The sample list was just to show how straight forward lists can be structured with fixed unit sizes , and make picking an army a straight forward enjoyable exercise.
(I hate individualy priced elements that have to be calcualted into unit costing , its so time consuming and analy retentive ,IMO.)
Well post/attatch the sperate sections one at a time , and we can have a look see whats what.
If somthing can be swapped out to arrive at the end result in a more elegant and efficient way , do you want to concider that after the total review, or as we go along?
The Zoat.
My docs are PDFs ,so as long as you have 'Adobe Reader' , you should be OK.
I am not sure what format DJB uses, but Open Office 3 ,(free to download,) opens tham up just fine...
I use Word10 but can put the docs into PDF or word 97 compatible formats
Lanrak, my army list was pointed for single models like tanks, and 10 man squads like grunt infantry.
Changing things around after the full evaluation, then we can see what will affect the whole game.
DJB.
If tanks are used singularly in individual units, and troops are used in groups of 10 to form a unit.
Then costing at he UNIT level is best anyway.IMO.
Can you post-attach the first section of your rules , i am eagerto see what you have got so far.
Orders and their rules, units list with initial points, weapons and kit list.
Some of the features of Word10 might not be viewable in open office, but they are simply my army structure rules and can be found in an earlier post.
Hi DJB.
Having read through what you have posted so far, here are some comments and questions.
Introduction.
1) if the game is to be 20 to 500 minatures a side , perhaps we should focus on UNIT interaction , to reduce the amount of dice rolling to a managable amount?
Game objectives,
2)I belive we could get more interesting games with senarios , randomly generated by mission cards , or written specificaly for the game based on heroic encounters in history!
There is NOTHING wrong with the ones you sudgested, its just I want MORE!
3)Deployment could be randomly generated from a fixed set.(Similar to mission deployments .)Or specific to particular senario as indicated in 2).
4)Charactersitics.
Movment -OK.
Dicipline -OK
Armour -OK.
Could we add
Hit points(wounds -structure points .)
Command.(How good the leader is.)
Stealth.(How good the unit is at not being seen.)
If you want to use seperate skills and weapon effects.
Shooting -OK
Close Quarters -OK.
Attacks in close combat could simply be put on the weapon profile like number of shots for shooting?
5)The method you propose for close combat resolution is a bit too time consuming.Why not use multiple dice (set by situation) modified by the CQ value.
EG
Normal 2D6.
Additional freindly unit +1D6
Charged this turn +1D6.
On higher ground -defended obticle+1D6.
Defending fortification +2D6.
Supressed - 1 D6 Neutralised -1 D6 loose CQ value.
Routing NO dice rolled.
Compare the scores , the difference is the amount of hits, points the unit with the lowest score suffers.
Game turn
6)If you want to use alteranating actions ,GREAT.
But if you want to issue orders to, why not combaine the to to allow the units to select the actions they want to perform , set by the level of command the unit has?
(Eg the unit has a higher level of command it can perform actions more effectily.)
And if we have the units selecting the actions from a pool of options,then we dont need to have a seperate set of reactions do we?As we can include them in the action pool avaialble perhaps.
7)Moral descriptions -OK
8) Types of unit. Vehicles and MCs, descrete, and other types of unit indesrete.
The inability to move and fire should be on the WEAPONS profile NOT dictating the tye of unit...
Other wise you get units defined bt equipment (14 types !)Not game mechanics (2 types.)
Oh a final note , the idea of spliting fire betweeen nearby units is good ,BUT you need a simple and intuitive way to control this.
(May I sugest using a targeting zone mechanics ,as used in SST,BFE, and others ?)
The unit and weapon lists are a great starting point .
But I think it would be best to finalise game emchanics and resolution methods first.
OK, sorry this is late but my internet went down for more than a week so posting has had to wait until now
2&3) I want to put in more varied methods of deploying, I enjoy playing DoW from 40k so will probably include that and have a basic pitched battle too. scenarios will have to come later in but they are also going to be there, and a scenario table.
5) Thanks for the alternative combat method, I knew my current one was very clunky and wanted a better one. your idea will be included in the second edit. this also means we are focusing on unit interactions.
4) Hit points and stealth can be put in with a little update to the current rules. am not sure about command tho, I was going to have tiers and ranks of officers of command teams, this is going to be coming in the next edit.
6) The orders are designed to stand alone like the IG orders and the charge reactions are intended to respond to being charged, similar to WHFB charge reactions where different units will take different reactions depending on their role. These could be made mandatory by having a charge response table? a D6 is rolled, 1, the unit is immediately suppressed/shaken/flees, 2/3 they hold, 4/5 they stand and shoot, 6 they counter charge.
8) the inability to move weapons is only forced onto infantry units manning ordnance because these are guns that require towing to a battlefield rather than being carried by a two man team. granted I have been rather heavy handed, blanketing several weapon into move or fire groups, but again this is subject to change.
For split fire, units must declare who is shooting who, and they must have TLOS to their target picture of this coming up
S Officer.Move Attack Ready,*Sustaned Attack,*Defencive positions, *Withdraw/Covered advance.
All units get 2 actions per turn.(Move Attack-Ready.)
BUT higher level command inspire greater feats of bravery-add more tactical insight.
NCOs can give ONE extra *special actions to a unit in thier command area.
J-Officers can give up to 2 units ONE *special action each , in thier command area.
S-Officers can give up to 3 units ONE *special action each , in thier command area.
Units may ONLY ever take a maximum of 3 actions in a game turn .
EG Move Attack-Sustaned attack.
As reguard to splitting fire .
If you designate an aiming point within LOS and range ,And say all models within 6" radius of this point can be targeted.
(If in weapons range and LOS)
Its a simple way of allowing units to 'split fire' without using more complicated explanations and restrictions.
Hi DJB.
I just wanted to show an example of how the basic idea could be implemented.
If its only 'characters' (officers) that can give out orders, wont that make them overly importantant?
Maybe some level of autonomy within units might be a good idea?
Or are you going with sequenced actions with seperate order overlay?
Beause if you are, is that not making things more complicated than necissary?
Would you be able to post up your latest draught, so we can see how its going?
(And i can get a better picture of what is happening... )
I have a 'Marshal' unit that acts like an independent officer, basically a commissar Tiers are represent skill and rank of officers. The tiers and points on the Units are in red
Hi DJB.
Rather than have seperate units with 'commanders ' in.
How do you feel about simply adding a Commander (model )to a unit ?
Rather than buying a special unit with the 'commander' in?
As this simply reduces the number of units we have to list...
EG 4 levels of command and 5 unit types means 20 extra unit descriptions .
Where as 4 levels of command , can be described independantly , and put into the units the player wants them in.
Also , are you indending to use a , move then shoot then assault game turn , with the orders as a seperate system that acts as an overlay ?
Wouldnt it be bettter to use the actions to make up 'orders' , as highlighted above , so the whole thing is included in the core game mechanic.
Rather than haveing the orders as a seperate game mechanics to the game turn?
I like your idea alot, I am just trying to find the most straight foreward way to present them.
Lanrak,
The Marshals would be bought as a support choice and act as adding a commander to a unit, and only infantry units would be able to purchase them. I need to add that to the unit description. Also the marshals would act out of the regular chain of command, as a political officer to give inspiration, improve discipline and act like an angry drill sergeant.
The rank/tier is simply an upgrade to a command unit rather than a separate unit in its own right.
And I only have 2 unit types, infantry and vehicle/MC
I intend the army to act as if it is already under 'simple orders'; move to that hill, fire over there, etc
Then the overlaying orders come into play, as if a high-ranking officer is directly ordering a unit to do something or demanding more reserves etc.
The overlaying orders would be given at the start of the game turn at the same time as the other player, representing the orders being given secretly.
An alternative to this would be to have the player who is going first, give his orders first, therefore giving the player going second, a slight advantage.
4 levels of command sounds about right IMO.(I am a bit worried you are focusing too heavily on 'IG' type armies, and the system would not 'fit' as well with xenos type armies.)
If we let the player allocate orders-(actions sets) in secret at the start of the game turn.Eg putting order counter(s) next to units.
We could use dummy special orders counters , so the opponent doesnt know which ints have the actual special actions-orders.
OR
We could JUST use order counters with NORMAL actions.
And then let the player use up thier very limited 'special actions' that the leaders-commanders give them.
As and when required?
I think keeping the units intended actiosn sevret unitll the are activated makes for a more tatical game.
Granted these orders dont do well fire alien races, but they can be modified to suit every army, and currently we only have one!
If we let the player allocate orders-(actions sets) in secret at the start of the game turn.Eg putting order counter(s) next to units.
that is what i want to do
Do you think we have the basic rules sussed out, or do they need some final fine-tuning? If they are ok atm, can you write up a xenos army list? just to give us two armies to be looking at and compare, feel free to do what you want with the xenos.
Hi DJB.
I think It might be a good idea to just do a re-cap of what we have so far.
As we have discussed things in isolation.They may need a bit of fine turning so they hang together as a set of rules.
(And my memory is not very good...)
Do you want to start by going over the game mechanics/resolution methods.
(I was hopeing to convert established sci fi armies into the new game.)
I just want the rules to be written to cover all army types , and use more generic language.
Eg In the rules refer to Unit leaders level 1,2,3,4.
Inthe game -army list these could be given race specific name like;-
Sgt, Vet Sgt, Leutenant and Captain.
Bruiser ,Thugg, Boss, Waross .
Master, Knight, Barron, Lord.
Or other better names written by people more artisticly gifted than me.
I prefer the rules straight forward and generic instructions on how to play.
All the theme and artstry in the army lists and background.
No worries, fluff will be left where fluff should be, in the back of the book, and written by someone who is not called Matthew Ward.
I will have a full revised draft coming up, i just need to put everything into one PDF/Word doc
Please add comments in blue and additions/edits in red
Hi DJB.
I was thinking about a recap in game mechanic 'short hand' so we can cover everthing in the open.And other can chime in with ideas as we built up the game from the basic frame work...
Game turn mechanic . Alternating actions , driven by order allocation.
Eg(Players alternate )
Place orders face down.
Reveal orders and take first action.
Remove order counter and take second action.
**Take extra action of special order as required.**
Mobility. Listed as Type /Speed.
How the unit moves / the maximum distance the unit can move taking a move action.
(Terrain type modifies speed of units dependant on unit type, as losted in a terrain chart?)
Defencive ability.
Armour value.(How hard the unit is to damage.Deduct this value from the weapon damage value to arrive at the units armour save.)
Hit Points.(How much damage the unit can take.)
Stealth.(How hard the unit is to hit at range.)
Morale.(How dedicated the unit is to staying in the fight!)
Command.(How good the leader is!Level 1 2 3 or4.)
Offencive capability.
Do want to list the net effect of units + weapons ?
Eg list the weapon data on a unit card under the unit stats?
Type /Name/Eff range/Eff/Special .
Is this the basics covered?Do you want to change any names,(I am rubbish at naming stuff! )
Ok, here goes nothing General Characteristics: Movement, shooting, CQ skiill, strength, Armour value, Discipline, Attacks
Attacks can be dropped as we don't seem to have a good system where they are of use.
You also want to add stealth, any thoughts on how to do that, as i dont really know.
Two types of unit, infantry and non-infantry for tanks, MCs etc.
Sub-category, infantry w/ ordnance, the only difference is that the cannot move their ordnance around as it would require a truck to move it.
Weapons have an effective range(0-2/2-X, strength, shots(no. of shots fired) and effect(like blast, suppressing etc)
Game Turn players alternate actions,
Players roll to see who goes first this game turn,
Players declare orders they want to give depending on command level of their command squads and marshals
Players roll for reserves and place them on the board edge
Players Move,
listed as M for movement value, terrain modifies movement distance depending on terrain
Players Shoot
simply roll above their shoot value
Then the targeted unit takes saves, Deduct the armour value from the weapon damage value to arrive at the units armour save.
Players Assault
Declare all assaulting units and targets targets then react. Models move. Combat is resolved
Morale is tested for as appropriate
Hi DJB.
To use Stealth we simply change the Shoot value , from how good the unit is at shooting , to how good it is at avoiding being shot at!
Eg rather than roll over the attackers shoot value, we roll over the TARGETS stealth value.(Cover adds to the target stealth value.)
Movement,Type and distance.
Stealth.(How hard the unit is to hit with ranged weapons.)
Assault value ,(How good the unit is in close combat. )
Armour value .(How hard the unit is to damage.)
Disciplin ,How likely the unit is to stay in the fight.
Command (How good the leader is.)
(Strenght - dependant on weapons used , more than sodiers own strenght.should we use weapon damage, on weapon profiles , to cover this perhaps?)
Do you think the units wounds/structure points are required to keep track of damage on non infantry targets?
Treat ordnance as a crewed vehilce with a movement value of 0.
Ill comment more on the game turn mechanic in a bit...
The "Core" rules include a basic human army list along with the Pirates and the Ashurzurian Dominion.
The Army Lists supplement includes all of the Dominions mentioned in the background of the core ruleset (excepting the Frenthons, I have a special use for them later!).
The supplement also includes rules for using stuff like Dinosaurs, swarms, giant spiders, and all that fun stuff. Also, it includes rules for Primitive Humans.
My current favorite tactic: Espannian Conquistadores supported by troops with muskets and crossbows.
Are you sure about having a roll to 'spot and shoot'
since most of the units are going to have a similar Stealth value, this really undermines the more elite units as they are not the pro shooters they should be.
)
![[Disk]](/dakkaforum/templates/default/images/icon_disk.gif){kind=icon}
It needs more work but its going in the right direction.)
.)
.