Read the thread, or simply download the current version of the rules now!

30 May 2013: Figured it was time to update the first post here with bit of a more precise summary rather than the somewhat vague stuff from before. The original introduction to the thread is still included in a quoteblock below.

Aetherverse:

is a 25-30mm scale sci-fi (or fantasy, or modern) unit-based miniatures wargame

has a "universal" army list creation system allowing for the building of army lists to fit whatever models (or background) you like

has a unique "Weighted Random" activation system - all players are involved in the turn, rather than sitting around watching your opponents roll dice while you sit there... but also avoiding the problems inherent in an alternating system when a side outnumbers the other

features a background centered around travel between alternate universes, literally allowing for any background you might want to create for your army to fit into the game multiverse

is absolutely FREE. While I hope to sell "pretty" book and digital versions in the future, the game rules themselves are going to always be available in a plain PDF format

The game is currently in an Alpha Release: the core rules have been released and I am adding in new sections on a monthly basis. The schedule for these releases are as follows:

1 May: Core Rules

5 June: Personalities and Leaders

3 July: Vehicles

7 August: Aircraft and Artillery

4 September: Magic and Mutation

October: Cover/Terrain Overhaul

The Updates are all complete ahead of schedule, as of 1 September

The most current version of the rules will always be available at a link at the top of the page, or from the Aetherverse Page at TitaniumSpork.org.

Old Original Post wrote:
Hi, all.

After doing a bit of a lockdown while the big while elephant of the 40K 6E release was stomping about, I've been back to working on the 2nd Edition of Aetherverse. The current playtest rules are essentially complete: the entirety of the base Army Design System is now in place, allowing for a complete experience with the game. This is very close to what the "Alpha Release" Core Rules will consist of, so this is the best chance to add your influence to how that edition is going to turn out. My plan is for the Alpha "book" to release in May, with monthly releases after that expanding the rules.

The rules can be downloaded from the Aetherverse Page at TitaniumSpork.org. Feedback and questions are welcome here, there... pretty much anywhere!

A brief description from the website:

What is Aetherverse?

Aetherverse is a tabletop sci-fi wargame that I first published in 2004. The concept of the game was to create a sort of "universal" rules system that players could use to create and play with armies sourced from any of the many miniatures manufacturers on the market. While this had been done before in a generic sense, I designed the system to build armies that had real character rather than just being a collection of numbers.

What's the game like?

Designed to be fairly fast-paced (the 2nd edition cuts the required die rolls down by at least 25%), the game is a mass skirmish level wargame (20-100 models in an army is sort of the "core" target). The system uses a "weighted random" activation system which keeps both players active during the course of a game turn (rather than a clumsy system in which one player does everything while the other sits and watches) and allows for true tactical movement such as feints and outflanking maneuvers.

How Much will it cost?

Aetherverse is going to be free. I don't really have the desire to go through the process of starting up a company again, nor to seek out funding and the like just to print a book. I'll be releasing the completed game via Creative Commons and anyone will be able to download a "basic copy" of the game (meaning it will be limited in terms of graphics, fiction and the like, it'll still be the full game). I'll probably sell "high quality" versions (both digital and print) for those that wish to support the game (and might consider going Kickstarter for those) but there will never by any cost required to actually play the game.

I wouldn't call 20-100 models a skirmish 0.o

 doc1234 wrote:
I wouldn't call 20-100 models a skirmish 0.o

I might be thinking in terms of different game scales... plus, to be honest, 100 models is likely on the extremely high side of things. The model count for games is probably in the range of a mid-sized Warmachine battle, maybe? There's not currently a "standard" point value, either, though the sample armies were built out to 500 pts.

Honestly my thinking for calling it a "skirmish" game is that it's not quite in the realm of "Mass Battles" like Flames of War and because vehicles are fairly rare (or will be, once Vehicle Rules are added into the game).

Hmmm may want to look for another term then, Skirmish is misleading. Generally applies to games with forces of say 5-12 models per side. 50-100 IS mass battle in the same way 40k or something is.

 doc1234 wrote:
Hmmm may want to look for another term then, Skirmish is misleading. Generally applies to games with forces of say 5-12 models per side. 50-100 IS mass battle in the same way 40k or something is.

I'll see what I can think of.

Thanks!

Might I suggest 'Mass Skirmish' as a name? Combines both, to hit a midpoint.

 Lord of Timbraxia wrote:
Might I suggest 'Mass Skirmish' as a name? Combines both, to hit a midpoint.

Done! Free copy to Timbraxia.

Hooray! Free copy for a.... free ruleset..... shucks

Are you the original developer? I bought the rule set way back when.

Are you planning to release a Necromunda/Mordheim-like version as was in development when this went underground the first time around?

I liked the rules from before, but never had a chance to play them. :(

~Eric

 Taarnak wrote:
Are you the original developer? I bought the rule set way back when.

Are you planning to release a Necromunda/Mordheim-like version as was in development when this went underground the first time around?

I liked the rules from before, but never had a chance to play them. :(

~Eric

I am the original writer, yes. Thanks for buying it the first time around.

We'll see about "modded" versions like the RPG-esque thing I was planning back then, but right now I'm just planning on slowly getting the game released over the course of a few months.

 Magc8Ball wrote:

 Taarnak wrote:
Are you the original developer? I bought the rule set way back when.

Are you planning to release a Necromunda/Mordheim-like version as was in development when this went underground the first time around?

I liked the rules from before, but never had a chance to play them. :(

~Eric

I am the original writer, yes. Thanks for buying it the first time around.

We'll see about "modded" versions like the RPG-esque thing I was planning back then, but right now I'm just planning on slowly getting the game released over the course of a few months.

Cool. And kudos to you for taking a second run at it.

~Eric

 Taarnak wrote:

Cool. And kudos to you for taking a second run at it.

Thanks! Technically this is like the 3rd run at the 2nd run, but I think I've finally found a good way of going about it that will keep my head in the game, so to speak. No more starting-and-stopping.

In news: I'm currently in the process of "laying out" the Alpha Release, which is the system's core rulebook. It'll include all of the necessary rules to play the game (the gameplay rules and the army design system). Since this will be a digital-only release, I'm trying to make sure the layout is optimized to be easy to read on tablets. My Nexus 7 will be the primary testing platform, but once I bet the "book" completed I'll put it up for review to try and get folks with iPads, Nooks, and other tablets to take a look at it.

Also: I’ve switched http://titaniumspork.org to a different provider for the “Social Login” services (the box on the site that lets you log in with Facebook, Twitter, etc). The old one updated and caused some issues with the site, so it had to go.

If you had problems trying to sign up before, give it another go. Similarly, if you have problems trying to sign up or log in now, shoot a message to jason@ the website address. If you don’t see the login box… that probably means you’re logged in already.

I am currently finalizing the Alpha Release (the core rules) and the last step is for me to build some sample army lists to include with the book. I'm going to include a total of 10-12 army lists, and I've picked 5 armies from the old book to be carried forward into this one (as many of the lists rely on features of the 1E book that will not be in the Alpha Release):

-Roman Legion XXXVII Centauri
Plus, I will be adding a core Roman Legion (XIII Caesar's Own) that will represent the more advanced Roman army rather than the more backwater 37th (which is more of a garrison force.
-The Machinacons
-Yamato Squadron
-The Knights of the Wheel
-Tuatha de Dan'ur

This leaves me with 4-6 army "slots" for the book. What I'm looking for from the community are ideas for what these armies should be. Full army designs are not needed, just a paraphrasing of their theme, their fighting style, or their overall look. Linking to something that you think would be a good line of minis to base an army on is welcome as well.

Thanks, all!

Totally agree the labeling the game as "skirmish" (even "mass skirmish" is misleading. Anytime models are in units I think "wargame" instead. Are you against just calling it a tabletop wargame? I don't think mixed forces of vehicles and troops are needed for a game to be called mass battle. But I DO think you need individual unit control, lots of depth to each character, and plenty of customization to call it a skirmish game.

Anyways I had a couple of unasked for notes on the rules

I like the alternating, random initiative and the ability to do the actions in any order. I find a lot of games get stuck in the 40k approach of having the whole army move in the same turn. That and forcing people to move, shoot, charge in a set order.

You have difficult terrain as a TODO. What are you planning for that? Or is it basically half movement (like you have now) but fleshed out and explained? Or are you going for a totally different system?

Shooting seems sort of similar to 40k with the roll to hit, roll to wound, and Overkill. But I like roll + stat > TN. Er wait, equal to TN = success, right? I like the addition of Critical Fumbles and Hits. Also having pinning be an effect right after the shot probably makes combat feel a bit more realistic. About how often do you find enemies failing their pinning tests?
How many D10s are you generally rolling in a shooting attack? Do you find it harder to manage compared to D6s?

For melee I like the option of Fighting Defensively. Not sure if I like initiative order being equal to DEX though. What about just having the unit who spent the Melee action get to attack, and the enemy can attack back during their activation only if they also spend a Melee action, instead of both attacking each round. Mainly because it's not like shooting goes back and forth (ie: attack, then return fire), so why would melee? Then again I'm a big fan of having the shooting and melee system be the same.
I'm also not a fan of having STR as a separate stat that only factors into melee. I can understand wanting to differentiate stronger attackers, but I'm kind of getting flashbacks to 40k, and I always look at their statlines and think "This so doesn't fit a sci-fi game and is just jammed in from fantasy Warhammer".

As to your actual question about army types, I don't know if you have a "default" universe or what, since you are saying the rules are universal. So then making up armies is a little tough. Time travelling people? Savage lizard people? Demolition experts from an apocalyptic town? I don't know what would fit

 bosky wrote:
Totally agree the labeling the game as "skirmish" (even "mass skirmish" is misleading. Anytime models are in units I think "wargame" instead. Are you against just calling it a tabletop wargame? I don't think mixed forces of vehicles and troops are needed for a game to be called mass battle. But I DO think you need individual unit control, lots of depth to each character, and plenty of customization to call it a skirmish game.

I generally refer to it as a tabletop wargame before any other descriptor, skirmish is just something I add on after everything else when. This isn't really a major point, I'll drop that descriptor when I start doing the final release stuff.

I'll comment on the rest of your post in a sec...

Here's an army list idea:

The Würtige Königstruppen - First Cohort of the Emperor.
Spreading the creed of the Technocratic Empire of Würtigeland by force across known space, the Cohorts of the Imperial Army are a force not known for their acceptance of loss. Indeed, the very concept of defeat is lost on them, as the subjugated people of the Würtige Empire will reluctantly restify. Paving the way of the Imperial Army is the First Cohort of the Emperor, the infamous Königstruppen. The unstoppable force that has never met an immovable object, the Königstruppen carry the best weapons in the Empire, either forged back home on the planet of Würtigeland, or manufactured by the peoples they have conquered. Indomitable, irrepressible, inevitable.

Units:
Landwehr - weaker troops, larger than average units, below average morale.
Soldaten - average troops, heavily armoured, good morale when in ranks formation, poor morale when in loose order.
Blitzars - assault troops, heavily armoured, jetpacks, shotguns and morning star flails, dangerous when hit in the rear/isolated.
Ülans - quadrupedal robot steeds, heavily armoured, electro-lances, slower than usual bikes or cavalry.

Vehicles:
Autowagen - Armoured Personnel carrier, carries 12 men, fast, weak armour.
Würtpanzer - Light tank, fast, heavily armed, weak armour.

Leaders
Hauptmann - Leader character, bestows morale benefits on surrounding men.

It's not much, but I think that'd be enough for a 'mass skirmish'/small wargame, right?

 bosky wrote:
Anyways I had a couple of unasked for notes on the rules

No such thing as unasked for notes! The whole point of putting them out into public is to get commentary and feedback.

I like the alternating, random initiative and the ability to do the actions in any order. I find a lot of games get stuck in the 40k approach of having the whole army move in the same turn. That and forcing people to move, shoot, charge in a set order.

Thanks. The entire reason for me even starting to design the game those many years ago was frustration with the 40K standard I-Go-You-Go system. Having my Eldar tanks blown up on turn 1 was just so frustrating I had to do something about it.

You have difficult terrain as a TODO. What are you planning for that? Or is it basically half movement (like you have now) but fleshed out and explained? Or are you going for a totally different system?

I've put that into v0.14 (hasn't been released yet). At this point I've just gone with "halves movement" (and grants up to Cover 2 depending on the unit's size). I might add more detail to it when I start expanding the rules, but for right now I'm comfortable with that level of abstraction.

Equal to TN = success, right?

Indeed. I believe I have that as the first line in the "Important Universal Rules" section.

About how often do you find enemies failing their pinning tests?

Really varies, since it's a combination of the unit's Morale vs. the wounds caused. I've not noticed it happening more than would be statistically expected.

How many D10s are you generally rolling in a shooting attack? Do you find it harder to manage compared to D6s?

Units range from 1 to 20 models, and heavy weapons can fire up to 4 times... though I expect that most units are going to not have more than one or two shots, given the multiplicative cost of additional shots on a weapon. So, 10-20 dice is probably around average. I've had no problems rolling d10's, but I'm also a longtime RPG player so rolling large numbers of "odd" dice isn't really a problem.

For melee I like the option of Fighting Defensively. Not sure if I like initiative order being equal to DEX though. What about just having the unit who spent the Melee action get to attack, and the enemy can attack back during their activation only if they also spend a Melee action, instead of both attacking each round. Mainly because it's not like shooting goes back and forth (ie: attack, then return fire), so why would melee?

It's designed that way so that melee, when it happens, is resolved fairly quickly. It's supposed to be this swirling, deadly, mess. I also wanted to be able to differentiate units' close combat capabilities to a degree more than just "their player happened to get to activate them first".

I'm also not a fan of having STR as a separate stat that only factors into melee. I can understand wanting to differentiate stronger attackers, but I'm kind of getting flashbacks to 40k, and I always look at their statlines and think "This so doesn't fit a sci-fi game and is just jammed in from fantasy Warhammer"

There is an ability that was in the first edition that I'm working on getting back into this one (I'd set it aside and forgot to re-implement it) that allows units to use Light Weapons in close combat, including using their DEX to hit. Once I put this back in, it'll put close combat back into the realm of "extremely close-in fighting" that isn't necessarily the 40K "guns and shields" thing. It'll be more like "submachine guns and pistols, except for either crazies, primitives, or people from the Dune universe".

Yeah I'm amazed when games still use UGO-IGO. Nothing like sitting down for 45 minutes while your army is cut to ribbons, haha.
Would you consider an alternate dice based activation instead of tokens or playing cards? Basically a roll-off. Just in case people don't have little glass beads on hand or something.

Makes sense for Difficult Terrain. That seems like a pretty standard approach so I think people will be comfortable with it. I just thought since you had it as a TODO you might have some crazy scheme saved up

I like the "equal to TN" instead of "greater than equal to", since that is definitely not something you see all the time.

Good thing people can buy tubes of D10s, since even RPGers probably wouldn't have more than five or ten on hand (now D20s might be a different story...).

Using DEX over STR for melee could make sense. Sort of like Weapon Finesse from D&D (not sure if you're familiar). The downside is then STR becomes a lot less important than DEX, since DEX would handle shooting, initiative, and melee for some characters.

- Well if you're going the alternate Earth universe I'd instantly say British Empire. Sounds like you already have Roman, but some pith helmet wearing red coats with various native troops could be cool.
- Dinosaurs never being wiped out by an asteroid might be another option (although I could be biased since I have dinos in my game ).
- An alternate history approach where the Black Death plague wipes out more of the west, so China and other eastern countries end up dominating the world.
- Could go with the more sci-fi idea of something lying dormant under the ice in Antarctica.
- Wild west cowboys. Or maybe alternate history USA where the wild west hung around for longer in general, so you'd get something a little more steampunky (if that's your thing).
- Easy to do a post apocalyptic faction, say that the Cold War heated up and they are the desperate, hungry survivors.

 bosky wrote:
Would you consider an alternate dice based activation instead of tokens or playing cards? Basically a roll-off. Just in case people don't have little glass beads on hand or something.

The very, very, very original design of the game used dice-based, and it just took way too long to roll for every unit (it was based on the system from Clan War, an L5R minis game). If the players just roll a die and take turns, that defeats the purpose of the weighted random system since it gives a massive advantage to a side with more units than the other.

If someone is coming to AV from another minis game, they'll have a ton of dice, most likely d6's, and most likely in one or two colors. As long as each players' dice are different colors but the same size, they'll work well as activation counters.

I like the "equal to TN" instead of "greater than equal to", since that is definitely not something you see all the time.

Equals TN = Success is what's used in the d20-based RPGs.

Good thing people can buy tubes of D10s, since even RPGers probably wouldn't have more than five or ten on hand (now D20s might be a different story...).

If the RPG'ers in question played any White Wolf games, they'll have quite an excess of d10's.

Using DEX over STR for melee could make sense. Sort of like Weapon Finesse from D&D (not sure if you're familiar). The downside is then STR becomes a lot less important than DEX, since DEX would handle shooting, initiative, and melee for some characters.

DEX has always been the 2nd most important stat in the game (behind TEK), and it's something that I've just had to come to accept. STR does get used for a couple other things in special abilities, and I'll be adding other uses for it when I start adding in other features.

- Well if you're going the alternate Earth universe I'd instantly say British Empire. Sounds like you already have Roman, but some pith helmet wearing red coats with various native troops could be cool.

The first edition book actually has a British Empire army in it. It just features the use of the Artillery Rules, which won't be in for a few months after release.

- Dinosaurs never being wiped out by an asteroid might be another option (although I could be biased since I have dinos in my game ).
- An alternate history approach where the Black Death plague wipes out more of the west, so China and other eastern countries end up dominating the world.
- Could go with the more sci-fi idea of something lying dormant under the ice in Antarctica.
- Wild west cowboys. Or maybe alternate history USA where the wild west hung around for longer in general, so you'd get something a little more steampunky (if that's your thing).
- Easy to do a post apocalyptic faction, say that the Cold War heated up and they are the desperate, hungry survivors.

Dinos evolving into something a bit more intelligent (and probably much smaller) is definitely a possibility. Finding minis for them may be difficult, which might be why I left them out of the first book (though I included Cat People, so I dunno). Other current Earth Cultures being more prominent is always a possibility, and the "Knights of the Wheel" are a sort of post-apoc army (they were survivors who came across a "Relic" of "Saint Harley of Davidson" and are now a Chivalrous Order of Biker Gangs. ). Steampunk I definitely want to work in in some manner, too. We'll see how that one comes across.

 Magc8Ball wrote:
Equals TN = Success is what's used in the d20-based RPGs.

Wait, no, they all use greater than equal to. If you are rolling to hit 14 AC a result of 16 will be a success.

 bosky wrote:

 Magc8Ball wrote:
Equals TN = Success is what's used in the d20-based RPGs.

Wait, no, they all use greater than equal to. If you are rolling to hit 14 AC a result of 16 will be a success.

Sorry, yes, Equals-or-is-greater-than. I meant specifically between "equals succeeds or equals fails".

Ah I see. But in Aetherverse's case it's exactly equal = success, not greater than equal to, correct?

 bosky wrote:
Ah I see. But in Aetherverse's case it's exactly equal = success, not greater than equal to, correct?

No. It's the d20 version: equaling or exceeding the TN gives you a success.

EDIT: I see how that might be ambiguous in the rules. I'll add "or exceeds" to that line.

EDIT 2: Fixed. In v0.14, the rule will read "• Any rolls that equal or exceed a target number (TN) are successes."

The intent of that particular line was to stress that matching the TN does count as a success as opposed to systems where you MUST exceed it, not that ONLY matching was a success.

Well now that makes a looooot more sense. I was thinking the number had to be exactly equal. Thanks for clarifying for the next release.

Just made a fairly major-ish adjustment to the army design system. After careful consideration, I have come to decide that I somewhat overcompensated with the costs of extra weapons in a unit not being divided by the number of models in the unit.

I've made a post about the new wording at the site, rather than just including it in the v0.14 patch notes, since it's a fairly fundamental change to the way armies are built.

Thanks!

 Magc8Ball wrote:
Would you consider an alternate dice based Other current Earth Cultures being more prominent is always a possibility, and the "Knights of the Wheel" are a sort of post-apoc army (they were survivors who came across a "Relic" of "Saint Harley of Davidson" and are now a Chivalrous Order of Biker Gangs. ).

I love this Coming from a fairly decent biker family myself, I definitely think I could get used to this army

 bosky wrote:
Using DEX over STR for melee could make sense. Sort of like Weapon Finesse from D&D (not sure if you're familiar).

This change has been implemented (well, more like re-implemented since it was present in the 1st Edition). The wording of the rule is as follows:

Light weapons in melee combat:
Units equipped with Light ranged weapons that are engaged in close combat may use those weapons instead of melee weapons as follows:
1. When rolling to hit, they use their DEX rather than STR and may not Fight Defensively. Their TN to hit is not changed from normal melee (as their targets attempt to push them out of firing position).
2. When rolling to wound, use the ranged weapon’s DAM and do not add the firing model’s STR.
3. Critical hits, failures, and overkill all still apply, as do the chances for a ranged weapon to suffer catastrophic failure.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
In addition, as in this news post:

The release date for the core rules has now been set: May 1, 2013. Each subsequent segment of the rules will be released on the first Wednesday of each month until the Alpha Release rules are completed. After that, themed monthly releases will begin.

The schedule for the Alpha Release rules are as follows:

1 May 2013: Core Rules
5 June 2013: Personalities and Commanders
3 July 2013: Vehicles
7 August 2013: Aircraft and Artillery
4 September 2013: Magic and Mutation

Welcome back!

I also picked up Aetherverse back in the day.

With all the new projects launching I've been thinking for a while the time is right for a good universal system. Honestly as much as I might like the new Warzone, Dreamforge, the steampunk game etc, who has time to learn new rule sets and then teach them to friends.

Dunno if I have time for Aetherverse but I feel good knowing it's out there.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
With all the new projects launching I've been thinking for a while the time is right for a good universal system. Honestly as much as I might like the new Warzone, Dreamforge, the steampunk game etc, who has time to learn new rule sets and then teach them to friends.

Yeah, that was kind of the final impetus to get me going enough to work through the inertia that had stalled the last couple of attempts at getting this finished. There are all these great miniatures out there that just need a good home, other than being a stand-in for some 40K army.

Hi, all. More News from the Aetherverse front!

I have just finished updating the core rulebook to a new version. This version is now a complete rulebook: all of the rules are in one place, and it has been laid out and edited into a fully readable form. This is essentially what is going to be released on May 1, with some additional army lists and art in place.

The PDF can be downloaded here. It's "tablet optimized", so some of the graphics might appear somewhat low-res on a high-end monitor, but there isn't very much art in this version to begin with.

Feedback continues to be welcome and encouraged, either here or at the TiSpork forums.

Thank you for your continued support, Dakka!

Just added a small tip to the TiSpork site:

Excel Formula for base profile cost:

Here’s a tip that some people might find useful for building their army lists. When you are building the army’s basic profile (and if you are using a spreadsheet program such as Microsoft Excel or OpenOffice Calc), it’s a simple process to calculate each stat’s point cost without having to flip back to that page in the book.

The spreadsheet formula for each stat’s point cost is X*(X+1)/2, where X is the cell that you have the stat in. So, if you have “5″ in cell A2, then A2*(A2+1)/2 = 15, the cost of a basic stat of 5. Then just add a SUM( ) formula along the bottom row, and there’s your basic profile before modifiers.

In one week (May 1, 2013) I will officially be launching the Alpha Release of Aetherverse 2nd Edition. I've started a "one week countdown", and the first thing that I'm doing with that is releasing one last version of the playtest rules. Only a couple of changes in this one (mainly, I realized that I'd never stated that one could not shoot into a melee, which needed a fixing), so this pretty much is what will be in the Alpha Release. All that remains to do for next week is to finish up some more sample armies, and to get ready to actually start talking about the game on sites other than Dakka.

The latest rules can be downloaded from the website. Feedback is welcome and encouraged, either here or there.

For Day 2 of the Countdown, I have created what is probably the longest post ever created at TitaniumSpork.org: a demonstration of the Aetherverse Army Design System, which is pretty much the entire reason for the game's existence.

This demo goes through the process of creating an army's base profile, as well as the steps needed to create a unit within the army. This is what allows you to field models from any miniature line in existence while also instilling them with character fitting their background.

Comments and feedback welcome as always, either here or at the site.

Thanks!

Just a reminder: tomorrow (1 May) is the launch of the Alpha Release! I'll be announcing it in the News/Rumors forum and a couple of other sites, but I'll need help from other people to spread the word. Once I get the official announcement up tomorrow, I'd love it if people would share it on their favorite gaming sites or with their local clubs, or even their Twitter/Facebook feeds. This is going to be one big word-of-mouth campaign, since traditional advertising doesn't really make sense at this point.

This is also your last chance to get suggestions into place for tomorrow's release! I'll be putting together some final armies over the course of the day, doing a final pass over the text, stuff like that. Then it's on to the next phase of the release: the rules for Personalities and Commanders!

Thanks for the support so far, Dakka.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You know what? The heck with it, we're going live right now!

From the TiSpork Website:

The time has come! The Alpha Release of Aetherverse, 2nd Edition, is now officially released to the public. Aetherverse is a free tabletop wargame, designed to be used with almost all 25-30mm scale miniatures, regardless of manufacturer. For more specific information visit the Aetherverse page here on the site.

The rules can be found there, or simply download the current edition of the rulebook here.

This release consists of the core rules: everything that one needs to create a standard army consisting of infantry of various types along with for any other model that would be supported by similar rules. Every month, we’ll be adding a new section of the rules: rules for solo models, for vehicles of various types, rules for psi-powers (magic), etc. A complete schedule is listed here.

This version of Aetherverse is and always will be free. Eventually we’ll look into doing a Kickstarter to create a printed book and a “pretty” digital version containing full-color art and additional background material, but the text of the rules themselves will remain a free game, released under a Creative Commons license as noted in the site credits and in the rules file.

As always, feedback is welcome, through comments on this post, through the forums, or through any of our social media contact methods.

Finally, and this is very important: word of the game travels best through word of mouth. If you like it, or just the idea of it, please share word of this release with your gaming groups, on your own social media, or on gaming sites that you might frequent (don’t worry about DakkaDakka, I’ve got that one!)

I thank all of you for your support now and in the future!

Because I apparently suck at this, I built the armies in the first released version using a "mental copy" of the old weapon costs. These were changed in the 2nd Edition, but I blanked on that.

EDIT:
v1.01 is now available in a fully bookmarked version. This includes the fixes noted above.

I figured that since it is one of the "selling" points (as much as a free game can be "sold"), I should post more about the activation system. This is crossposted from the TiSpork website and to N&R:

One of the things that sets Aetherverse apart from a number of the larger games available is its turn sequence. Rather than the boring, traditional “I Go, You Go” system where one player does everything while the other player sits and watches them roll dice, Aetherverse uses an activation system in which both players are active throughout the turn. I have uploaded page 11 from the rulebook, which summarizes the turn sequence, allowing potential players to see how Aetherverse differs from other games. I have also posted the sequence below.

Aetherverse Turn Sequence

1. Collect activation tokens / Shuffle activation deck (be sure to remove markers for dead units). See the end for a more detailed description of the activation system.

2. Draw activation marker.

3. Activate a Unit: The player indicated by the marker chooses one of their units that has not yet been activated and performs up to two actions. No action may be performed twice, except “Move”. Actions may be performed in any order, except that units with models in base-to base contact (“Melee contact”) with enemy models may only move (either moving models closer to enemies or a “withdrawal move”, see the movement section for details) or perform melee strikes.

The possible actions:

-Move (Default move distance is 6”)
-Shoot
-Charge
-Melee (requires models in base contact with an enemy, may only be performed once per activation)
-Take Cover (prevents further actions but makes the unit harder to hit with shooting)
-Pass

4. Repeat steps 2 and 3 until there are no remaining markers

5. Perform “End of Turn Cleanup”

-Remove markers for any dead units
-Resolve “until end of turn” effects
-Check for victory conditions being met and/or game end

Unit Activation:

Aetherverse uses a weighted random initiative system that can be performed with a few different methods. Regardless of which method you choose, you’ll be starting each turn by doing one of the following.

1. Count out a number of glass beads/colored dice for each player equal to the number of their units. Each player must have a distinct color from the others. Place the markers in an opaque cup or a hat, then draw when required.

2. Count out a number of playing cards for each player’s units; each player is assigned a suit (or a color if they
have more than 13 units). Shuffle these together and deal one out when activation is required.

Right, time to get to work on the rules for Personalities!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And here is the initial draft of the Personality Rules. What is left to do are the following:
-Write rules for Command Squads
-Add Personality-Only traits

Download the Personality Rules v0.1.

I have completed the draft of the Personality Rules. This includes rules for leaders, command squads, and traits for both standard personalities and those that have been upgraded to use the leader trait. I have not yet updated the sample armies, but that will likely wait until the June 5 release up the updated Core Rules.

The draft personality rules can be downloaded here.

Inevitably, I've got a couple of users working on a set of conversion stats for 40K armies. It's not something I can heavily contribute to myself, other than giving suggestions on how to effectively use the system to do so, but it's a pretty good start for what's there.

I suspect that at some point it'll be compiled into a sort of unofficial "book" (wargamers are a resourceful bunch) so I'm pointing to the discussion in case anyone wishes to add to it.

I am basically finished with the personality and leader rules; they'll be coming out next week with the June update.

In other news, I'm trying to decide if I want to make a change to the unit creation rules. Currently, when you select extra models for a unit, you can give them a different weapon from their unit. This weapon has no discounts for being given to one model instead of a whole unit, so it can get rather expensive. My initial reasoning for this was:

1. You are paying extra for giving a unit increased flexibility
2. It makes it easier to do the math (no need for an extra division step)

Now, though, I'm thinking that it might just be overkill. You're essentially paying a 300-800% premium on a weapon to be able to gain a little bit more firepower for a unit, or to let it throw occasional potshots while it moves forward. The way that the rules are set up, the extra weapon in a squad isn't going to have a huge impact.

So, I am considering changing the rules so that when you build a special weapon for a unit, you divide the cost by the base number of models in the unit. This would bring it in line with the rules for paying for the extra models themselves.

Whether I would do this for personalities as well (probably using the base model count of an equivalent Elite unit as the divisor) is up in the air.

Updated the first post to be a bit more informative and concise.

Do you have any battle reports using the Aetherverse rules?
I had done the read through of the rules a while back, but I wouldn't mind seeing the game in action. I tried looking on your blog but didn't see any after action or session reports.

 bosky wrote:
Do you have any battle reports using the Aetherverse rules?
I had done the read through of the rules a while back, but I wouldn't mind seeing the game in action. I tried looking on your blog but didn't see any after action or session reports.

Haven't done that yet, no. Once I have the personality rules in place (since the Command mechanic is something I think really adds to the game) I'll see about getting some stuff like that put together.

I look forward to it! Text, video, whatever form it takes, I think having a clear demo would be great.

Version 1.02 of the Alpha Release is now available! Once again it's a few days early, but I don't think anyone minds. Download the newest update directly!

This update bring Leaders and Personalities into the game. Leaders are single models capable of boosting the stats of friendly units or even granting special powers to those units. Leaders can also bring along a command unit which is capable of increasing the range at which they can command their troops. These squads range from primitive drum beating or flag waving up to satellite transmission systems or even psychic messages. Personalities are similarly single-model units, though they tend more towards the "heroic deeds" end of the spectrum.

This continues the monthly release plan for Aetherverse 2nd Edition, where I'll add in a new segment of the rules until the game is entirely complete and ready for a full publishing run.

Feedback on the game is always welcome here or at the Titanium Spork Gaming website.

While discussing in the Eden Project thread, shooting into melee combat was brought up. It's something that I didn't have in AV1, mainly because when I first wrote the rules they were a little bit too influenced by 40k. Even though the 1st Edition moved away from it with deliberate effort, that is one thing that I never really thought about adding back into the game. Since adding my suggestion to that thread, though, I've been giving it thought and I might put it into Aetherverse as well.

What I would probably do is something similar to the D&D method.

1. You may shoot at enemy units who are engaged in close combat
2. Units in close combat gain Cover 4
3. Any shots that miss hit your own unit(s) in the same combat. If you have multiple units in the combat, simply roll a d10 and divide the possible results by the number of units in the combat (i.e. if there are two units, unit A is hit on 1-5, unit B on 6-10).
4. Blast and Flamethrower weapons may not fire into combat (largely a rules expediency)

Comments?

I replied in the Eden Project thread as well, but figured we could brainstorm here too

I always feel that going "Okay 1-3 it hits that guy, 4-5 it hits that guy", etc. (generally followed by ("Wait, who was a roll of 3 again?") is rather awkward. It also can be a hassle in larger games with uneven numbers in combat, like with a D10 and 6 combatants, how do you allocate that?

I do like your idea of giving a flat Cover bonus, and only doing fancy stuff on a miss. I feel like a shot that hits should always hit, and shooting into melee and hitting would represent the classic Hollywood scene of someone with a gun nervously trying to aim at two rolling combatants before pegging the right person.

Although I like slick mechanics as much as the next guy, I also like mechanics that help players interact and help create memorable moments. That's why I recommended a roll off style as an option in the Eden Project thread. In the case of Aetherverse each combatant would roll a D10 and add +X where X = number of enemies in combat. Whoever gets higher chooses where to direct the shot. When I visualize people playing through this system I can imagine the cheers of an underdog player who has a +1 mod rolling against someone with a +5 mod and winning. Then the satisfied glee as they direct friendly fire onto their foe.

A simpler idea could be that if the shot misses it hits the CLOSEST target instead, regardless of whether they are friend or foe. That does away with worrying about delegating numbers to mass combats. It also helps facilitate positioning and risk management as a player goes "Well, I couldn't get the enemy closest, so I could try to shoot and maybe hit my own guy...".

You could also do some kind of competing melee roll on a missed shot where the victor basically uses an enemy of their choice as a human shield against the shot. Very thematic.

Or the simplest approach that if the shot misses, then it misses, no extra effect (I did that for Dinosaur Cowboys and it works fine). The combatants are closer together in melee, but it's not like there are extra rules for a missed ranged shot, even though maybe the bullet deflects or goes wide and hits a further unit. Don't have to have rules for every possible scenario just because it's realistic, after all.

 bosky wrote:
Or the simplest approach that if the shot misses, then it misses, no extra effect (I did that for Dinosaur Cowboys and it works fine). The combatants are closer together in melee, but it's not like there are extra rules for a missed ranged shot, even though maybe the bullet deflects or goes wide and hits a further unit. Don't have to have rules for every possible scenario just because it's realistic, after all.

That might be the way I end up going if I add the rule in. Being a predominately SciFi setting without major GrimDark (except when players want it!) means that "close combat" generally isn't "I want to hit you with my sword" and more "we're all really close together and being particularly careful about taking cover in this close-up firefight". Giving the target a unit a flat cover save and not really doing anything else on a miss is the simplest and quickest solution. I miiiight keep in a bit of the "misses hit" element by saying any roll of a 1 hits your own unit.

Your other suggestions probably don't work for this particular system. The battles aren't as big as 40k, but I still have been trying to keep extra die rolls out of the game. "Roll off" elements, are definitely flavorful and something that I plan to use in a couple of other small-game designs that I've got locked away, but they're not quite something I want to add to AV.

Yeah in the end simple is normally better. Especially in a hi-tech universe where something like this modern day "smart" rifle would be extremely mundane.

With the release of the Personalities and Leaders update it is time for me to start work on the Vehicles update. This is going to be a big part of the 2nd Edition since it adds a new type of model to the game that will use different rules (Personalities essentially acts just like regular units for the most part).

I've got a whole month to work out what direction I want to go with the vehicle rules, so I wanted to open things up to the community to give you folks a chance to help influence them. I've got a couple of possible ideas (one of them involves just treating vehicles as normal models, with wounds and such, that just happen to have a number of special rules attached) but I'd like to see what other people might want to add.

One thing I definitely want to hear about is what you like about how other games handle vehicles. I know the 40K system for them pretty well but I'm not too up on how Dust Tactics (for instance) treats them. Systems like Flame of War or Dropzone Commander, where you potentially have dozens of them running around, might not be the best example to follow but would be worth hearing about, too.

Finally, it is important to note that, as with any other case of offering suggestions, by doing so you're giving me permission to use your suggestion(s) without expectation of credit or reward. I'll try to give thanks where I can, but in an annoying legal sense there's no obligation that I do so.

Thanks, all. Your commentary or feedback is welcome either in this thread or over at the TiSpork forums.

I think the answer depends on what feel you want for vehicles. Do you want nitty gritty low level tracking of mechanical failure? Do you want them to be big models that carry stuff and otherwise don't act much different? Do you want them to move uniquely with skidding and mandatory momentum?
Basically should they be a focus or not? How many vehicles do you see per side at once?

Some people seemed to love the 40k 2nd edition "Vehicle Cards" approach, where each vehicle had a unique critical hit table and so on.

I like more complex maneuvering, but that can get a bit finnicky depending on the size of the game and number of vehicles. Something like Car Wars with it's "turning key" or Firestorm Armada with it's 45 degree angles.

 bosky wrote:
I think the answer depends on what feel you want for vehicles. Do you want nitty gritty low level tracking of mechanical failure? Do you want them to be big models that carry stuff and otherwise don't act much different? Do you want them to move uniquely with skidding and mandatory momentum?
Basically should they be a focus or not? How many vehicles do you see per side at once?

Some people seemed to love the 40k 2nd edition "Vehicle Cards" approach, where each vehicle had a unique critical hit table and so on.

I like more complex maneuvering, but that can get a bit finnicky depending on the size of the game and number of vehicles. Something like Car Wars with it's "turning key" or Firestorm Armada with it's 45 degree angles.

As much as I hate to say it, something like 40K is kind of what I envision for the rules. Vehicles will be low in number (1 or 2 per side, really, at a maximum). On the whole I don't want very much data tracking in AV, other than "wounds" or wound equivalents. Similary, things like momentum, skidding, and mechanical/damage tracking is something that I think belongs better in a game that's more vehicle- or Mech-centered (Warmachine, Mechwarrior, even a Flames of War-level game) and I'd love to develop one some day, but it's not right for AV.

What I'm leaning towards right now is that vehicles will have a profile just like any other (though STR, CON, MOR, and PRE will be irrelevant) along with an Armor Value that's roughly equivalent to a normal model's Wound Level (CON+Armor) and that can max out at 20 (just like a normal WL). Beyond that there are a couple of options that seem to carry equal weight.

Option 1 (the easy, quick option):
-The Vehicle's Armor is reduced by an amount equal to the amount you beat it by (if you get a d10+DAM total of 17 vs. an Armor 15 vehicle, it loses 2 points of Armor). Equalling their armor has a 50/50 chance to reduce it by a point.
-Vehicles whose armor is reduced to (less than ten, or zero) are destroyed

Option 2 (the Aetherverse 1st Edition version):
-There is a damage table, though rather than rolling on it you just get a result determined by how much you beat the vehicles armor by

Option 3 (combine the two; involves a decent bit of bookkeeping since you have to track armor reduction AND damage table results):
-There is a table, result determined by beating the armor
-The vehicle's armor is reduced by a point for each point you beat it by

The table could be by how much you beat the armor by, for example

tied- must take skill/ morale check or become impaired temporarily
1 over- impaired temporarily
2 over lose shooting of weapon or throw a track
3 over lose all functions for a turn, impaired with aiming or moving permanently

And you can change this around for different vehicles, making some more succeptable to throwing a track, or having ammo go off!

And you have to roll a die to see if it loses hull points or explodes

tied- 6 it loses a hull point
1 over 3+ loses a hullpoint 5+ explodes
2 over 2+loses a hullpoint 4+ explodes
3 loses a hullpoint 3+ explodes

You can use these ideas, but in no way have ownership over them OP

The first edition had a table based on exceeding the TN, yeah. It would be interesting to add a die roll on top of that, as you suggest, though. It will definitely be something I consider.

I have completed the draft Vehicle Rules for Aetherverse 2nd Edition and have released them for feedback. You can download the file here. These rules will be incorporated into the Alpha Release rules next Wednesday.

In addition, the following rule change has been made (also going into effect next week):
Elite/Support ratio changed to 1/2 unit per Basic Unit, respectively

In the end, I went with my option 3 (there is a damage table, with the result determined by how much you beat the Armor by, and the armor is then reduced by the same amount).

I've made a few updates to the vehicle rules based on feedback from the TiSpork forums.

Post with the link is here.

v3 of the vehicle draft rules are now available!

(Crosspost from N+R) As scheduled, version 1.03 (the Vehicles Update) is now live. Download Link.

This update brings rules for fielding vehicles of all types into the game: everything from lumbering beasts loaded with troops to armored personnel carriers to massive 4-legged walkers to nimble hovering tanks bristling with firepower. The rules for fielding these machines (and creatures!) as well as the means by which you can create them are included in this latest update.

With the Vehicle Rules complete, this leaves only two more major updates of the rules remaining. Next month will see the Aircraft and Artillery release, and finally in September we will release the Magic and Mutation update. Once these two updates are complete, Aetherverse 2nd Edition will be finished and we will begin the process of looking forward to an official publication of a true rulebook.

As usual, thanks for your continued support, and please spread the word! We had some great feedback (both at TiSpork and here) to help make a quality vehicle release, and more people talking about the game will help us make it even better going forward.

More information about the game can be found at the Aetherverse Page on the site.

In case anybody was visiting the website and getting turned off by the horrible load times of the front page, the issues have been fixed. We were getting slowed down by some Facebook API changes; updating to the new stuff has solved the issues and the page loads quickly now.

Two new updates made last night.

First, I put together a draft mini-update, including a bunch of new rules that are sourced from old notes that weren't in the original rulebook. You can download the v0.1 of those here.

Second, I have now created a "Suggestion Box" for new traits and army characteristics (and other new rules). This gives a central location for people to post ideas that they might have to help support minis they might like, or just to add something cool to the game that they want to be able to do. Check that one out in the forums.

I'm currently in the process of reading through the new rules and had a couple questions:

First of all, in the first edition I found that DEX was one of the (or simply was) most important stat and armies with high DEX seemed to outperform those without. Is that still a problem in the current version of the rules, and if so, would it work to increase the specific cost of certain stats if they are used in more game mechanics?

Secondly, have any of your current playtesters done much min-maxing? I realize that this is not how everyone plays, however having a power-gamer or two testing what breaks the system can help balance the system. I also realize that having the ability to design your own army makes it much harder to protect against min-maxing, but it would be nice knowing that every option is more or less viable.

Thanks!

 Goremaul wrote:
I'm currently in the process of reading through the new rules and had a couple questions:

First of all, in the first edition I found that DEX was one of the (or simply was) most important stat and armies with high DEX seemed to outperform those without. Is that still a problem in the current version of the rules, and if so, would it work to increase the specific cost of certain stats if they are used in more game mechanics?

Secondly, have any of your current playtesters done much min-maxing? I realize that this is not how everyone plays, however having a power-gamer or two testing what breaks the system can help balance the system. I also realize that having the ability to design your own army makes it much harder to protect against min-maxing, but it would be nice knowing that every option is more or less viable.

Thanks!

To the first question, I made an effort to spread the importance of stats around. DEX is still going to be fairly important simply from the nature of the game, but it has been reduced in importance. For instance, DEX no longer affects the target number to hit a unit in melee combat unless the defending unit chooses to give up its STR on their own to-hit rolls. TEK and DEX are still going to be prime stats, along with CON, but not to such an extreme degree as in 1E. In addition, things that utilize STR (such as melee weapons and the like) have often been reduced in relative cost, allowing armies that want to focus on close combat to be able to match up a bit better.

To the second, I've not received reports that any of the volunteer playtesters have specifically attempted to powergame the system, but to date most of my effort has gone towards writing the rules rather than organizing dedicated playtesting. That'll come in the next couple of months as I get the last two major parts of the game complete.

Cool! I'm looking forward to trying out the new edition.

Thanks for the quick response too.

 Goremaul wrote:
Cool! I'm looking forward to trying out the new edition.

Thanks for the quick response too.

For kicks I went through and scanned the stats real fast to see where they're all being used (I don't have the notes from when I was trying to sort things out before I got to work).

DEX (5): Shooting To-Hit, Taking Cover action, charge distance bonus, melee initiative, melee defense if fighting defensively
STR: (3) Melee to-hit, Melee to-wound, melee defense
CON: (2) Wound defense (melee/ranged)
TEK: (X) Determines base cost and capabilities of all weapons and armor, determines availability of many abilities
MOR: (4) Coherency Distance, Withdrawal Move Attempt, Pinning Tests, Fallback Tests
PRE: (4) Preventing Withdrawal Moves, personality cover, Command Action range, Magic ability strength

So, DEX is used slightly more than the other stats, but not to any great degree.

That's handy to see actually.

Now to get designing an army...

 Goremaul wrote:
That's handy to see actually.

Now to get designing an army...

Please share when you do, I always like seeing what people do with the system. Sometimes it makes me go "wait, can do that?" even with something I wrote. That's part of what I like about the way the unit trait system works: there are a ton of possible combinations out there. Yeah... it might make for something being broken, but I can easily fix it when that happens. Even if/when there's a printed book, there's always going to be the "canon" digital version that's going to be the official wording of everything, and I can easily just make changes there to take care of problems.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Since I figured it might be interesting to share some of my design process, I posted my scratch design notes for the Artillery/Aircraft rules: http://www.titaniumspork.org/?p=763

If you plan on making frequent changes (or even the possibility of it) I would be extrememly cautious of making a printed book. It sucks to buy a nice printed book, then find out it is invalidated a month later due to a new pdf. I realize that that is the reason you are doing the game in pdf format though.

As a side note, where should I post my army ideas? I'm guessing on your forum at http://www.titaniumspork.org/?post_type=forum ?

Arty and aircraft stuff looks neat, though I'm not sure that it's necessary to have aircraft on the table at all, unless it is a grav-vehicle type.

Aircraft models are largely a marker for what is effectively "air strike artillery". Placing an aircraft model on the board allows for them to be shot at without extra abstraction. In first edition, though, there was also air to air combat, which was done off-table; I will likely keep that for interceptors: aircraft not capable of ground attack, but just there to protect against other aircraft.

And yes, either the TiSpork forums or here would be the best place to post armies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, I'm leaving towards a book if only because tablets aren't quite ubiquitous enough as of yet. For the most part, a physical book is going to be used at the table to look up gameplay rules, and I don't expect those to change very much once the game is finished. Mostly what I expect to be "living" are costs, and maybe small tweaks to abilities.

That would make sense. A mini rulebook with the core rules and a couple army lists, then the army design rules on pdf only?

 Goremaul wrote:
That would make sense. A mini rulebook with the core rules and a couple army lists, then the army design rules on pdf only?

That actually wouldn't be a bad way to go about it. I'm just enough of a gaming Luddite, though, that I'm still really hesitant about not having the rules available entirely in print: selling an incomplete product just feels too much like EA, even if the intent is for the print book to be a sort of "collection piece" and for the PDF to be the official, actual rules.

What I really want is to have army construction software available. The design system is a bit too complex for Battlescribe to handle, unfortunately. Also unfortunately I definitely can't afford to pay for a programmer to create one (short of making that a stretch goal on the eventual and inevitable Kickstarter).

I suppose the idea for the book would be to have a "quickstart" rulebook of sorts; something to get you playing with some basic lists, but not forcing army creation on people right away.

Army construction software would be pretty cool actually. I haven't played around with Battlescribe, but I have seen a couple of Excel spreadsheets that do a decent job of contruction (one was for Dystopian Wars with drop down menus). It'd take some time, but I wonder if you could work something on that?

 Goremaul wrote:
Army construction software would be pretty cool actually. I haven't played around with Battlescribe, but I have seen a couple of Excel spreadsheets that do a decent job of contruction (one was for Dystopian Wars with drop down menus). It'd take some time, but I wonder if you could work something on that?

Excel would be functional, certainly, and if I can't eventually find a dev willing to put together an app I'll probably consider doing something with it.

Since there were some questions early on about what sort of scale Aetherverse actually fits into, I decided to use one of my current favorite video games to demonstrate.

It's a bit of a long article (and it has lots of pictures), so I'll just link it rather than posting the whole thing here: http://www.titaniumspork.org/?p=774

So, played my first couple of games today.

There were three of us (played 1v1 both games). First game was ~600 points, just to get a feel for the system. The main thing that stuck out was how quickly stuff dies. We were running TEK 5/6 stuff and our units didn't last very long. Second game was 1000pts and one of us tried out a vehicle and a personality. We did had a couple of questions during that battle and some after brainstorming post-battle, so let's start with those...

1) Pinning tests: If I deal 10 wounds to a unit, but only kill 7 (due to LoS), do they take a pinning test vs 7 or 10?
2) Damage against a vehicle: I have a DAM 5 gun vs an ARM 20 vehicle. If I roll a critical for damage (total 15) do I still get to roll to reduce his ARM as if I tied it, seeing as I rolled a critical hit (auto-wound)? Can you ever get an additional roll to wound after rolling a 10 against a vehicle, and if so, when?
3) Personalities and Command actions: Can a personality use the Command action on a friendly vehicle?
4) Fearless: There are many mentions of it in the rulebook, but nowhere does it actually explain what it does.
5) Zero stats: One of your sample armies has some zero stats; is there a "limit" on how far that can go? Can I have a basic profile with zero CON, or a ranged weapon with zero DAM (just rolls d10 vs WL)? Alternately, if I make an army with the Militant trait (free off-hand weapon), could I "buy" a zero DAM melee/light weapon to gain the additional attack?

Now for some thoughts and observations.
1) Things die really quickly (except big vehicles if you don't have guns to properly hurt it...). This may have been how we built our forces, but DAM 4 vs WL 9 creates lots of casualties.
2) The morale/pinning type check after being shot at doesn't seem that important. Likewise, it may have been the forces we made, but it doesn't seem like it will be a problem for most armies, especially those with higher TEK.
3) Close combat seemed a bit convoluted at first. Using STR to attack STR seems to make allow both sides to hit each other -really- easily. Is "Fighting Defensively " supposed to be a default in melee, or just for the side that strikes last?

Some suggestions:
1) Beserk: there's nothing stopping the beserkers from Fighting Defensively. Is this an oversight, or by design?
2) There's no "Swarm" unit trait or anything that I could find. That might be something to consider adding.
3) This one's a bit more difficult. One of our players mentioned that he didn't like not being able to "save" against wounds. He suggested switching the damage roll into the defending players hands, thus the attacker rolls to hit, then the defender rolls to not die. Basically giving the defender/reactive player a bit more game time.

Overall we had a lot of fun with it. Combat was brutal and quick, the game feels overall like it will play quite quickly, and the activation system screws me up. Personally, I was having a tough time remebering to randomise the activations.

I'll post some armies (the one I used and two we came up with after) a bit later.

 Goremaul wrote:
So, played my first couple of games today.

Thanks for giving it a try. Replies to your comments and questions as we go...

The main thing that stuck out was how quickly stuff dies.

Definitely as intended. There should be enough terrain to allow for units to be able to maneuver out of line of sight for a while until decisively engaging enemies, but once firefights start things generally start dying fairly quickly. I'm willing to admit that it might be too fast and will look into making changes once I'm done with the writing updates (see the bottom for that).

1) Pinning tests: If I deal 10 wounds to a unit, but only kill 7 (due to LoS), do they take a pinning test vs 7 or 10?

It would be 7. I'll fix the wording on that to indicate that it should be 7 the number of casualties taken (except in a unit with multiple wounds-per-model).

2) Damage against a vehicle: I have a DAM 5 gun vs an ARM 20 vehicle. If I roll a critical for damage (total 15) do I still get to roll to reduce his ARM as if I tied it, seeing as I rolled a critical hit (auto-wound)? Can you ever get an additional roll to wound after rolling a 10 against a vehicle, and if so, when?

I actually hadn't taken into account critical damage rolls against vehicles; as they were the most recently written part of the rules I guess I just forgot. I think it will work as the following:
-To-hit rolls of 10 give another hit as normal
-Damage rolls of 10 that do not at least equal the vehicle's AV gain an additional roll that adds to the first (but do not auto-damage)

3) Personalities and Command actions: Can a personality use the Command action on a friendly vehicle?

If the vehicle is capable of benefiting from the command action, yes.

4) Fearless: There are many mentions of it in the rulebook, but nowhere does it actually explain what it does.

Bloody hell, it did. I probably cut that paragraph out accidentally while doing some layout. I'll make sure it gets back in. A Fearless unit automatically passes Pinning and Fallback tests.

5) Zero stats: One of your sample armies has some zero stats; is there a "limit" on how far that can go? Can I have a basic profile with zero CON, or a ranged weapon with zero DAM (just rolls d10 vs WL)? Alternately, if I make an army with the Militant trait (free off-hand weapon), could I "buy" a zero DAM melee/light weapon to gain the additional attack?

All of the above is a "yes". You may not bring a stat below zero, and you may not purchase or select a trait that would take a stat below zero (no picking Stout if you have 0 DEX, for instance). Zero DAM costs zero points; a ranged weapon must cost at least 1 point (since you need to purchase at least one Range Increment for it to actually be a ranged weapon).

Now for some thoughts and observations.
1) Things die really quickly (except big vehicles if you don't have guns to properly hurt it...). This may have been how we built our forces, but DAM 4 vs WL 9 creates lots of casualties.
2) The morale/pinning type check after being shot at doesn't seem that important. Likewise, it may have been the forces we made, but it doesn't seem like it will be a problem for most armies, especially those with higher TEK.
3) Close combat seemed a bit convoluted at first. Using STR to attack STR seems to make allow both sides to hit each other -really- easily. Is "Fighting Defensively " supposed to be a default in melee, or just for the side that strikes last?

1. As stated above, things do die quickly when they can be cleanly shot at; there should be terrain to allow for good maneuvering.
2. I've been thinking of adjusting those tests to make them a little more likely to fail; there are also a ton of ways to boost MOR and such so I might really need to do some tweaking of those. This is something I'll be looking into once the Magic system is in place.
3. Close combat is meant to be decisive, though if a unit is interested in hanging around for a while fighting defensively is probably a good bet. I have been looking at some tweaks to that section as well just because I've never really been happy with how well it's written in language terms.

Some suggestions:
1) Beserk: there's nothing stopping the beserkers from Fighting Defensively. Is this an oversight, or by design?

I hadn't considered it to this point; it's a good suggestion to say that they can't. They're berserkers, after all.

2) There's no "Swarm" unit trait or anything that I could find. That might be something to consider adding.

That is planned. Probably in the Magic/Mutation update.

3) This one's a bit more difficult. One of our players mentioned that he didn't like not being able to "save" against wounds. He suggested switching the damage roll into the defending players hands, thus the attacker rolls to hit, then the defender rolls to not die. Basically giving the defender/reactive player a bit more game time.

There were saving throws in 1st edition; they were removed as a way to reduce dice rolls and to further differentiate the game from 40K. The Cover and Deflect system were implemented as a way to represent defensive abilities without adding additional rolls into the game play. As I get more feedback on the system, though, I'll definitely be considering increasing Cover, increasing Deflect, reducing the impact of melee and making things a bit more survivable in the system. There is a single "Save" mechanism: the Invulnerable trait; it's just incredibly rare at this point. I understand that Cover as it stands doesn't help the defending player feel like they're involved with the unit dying and I do sympathize with the feeling.

the activation system screws me up. Personally, I was having a tough time remebering to randomise the activations.

You'll get used to it. My hardest thing is remembering to pull cards out for dead units.

Thanks again. I appreciate the feedback, and I'll definitely take into account things that you've brought up. I'll be doing a heavy balance pass over the rules once I've finished writing them all (just two more updates to go).

3) This one's a bit more difficult. One of our players mentioned that he didn't like not being able to "save" against wounds. He suggested switching the damage roll into the defending players hands, thus the attacker rolls to hit, then the defender rolls to not die. Basically giving the defender/reactive player a bit more game time.

There were saving throws in 1st edition; they were removed as a way to reduce dice rolls and to further differentiate the game from 40K. The Cover and Deflect system were implemented as a way to represent defensive abilities without adding additional rolls into the game play. As I get more feedback on the system, though, I'll definitely be considering increasing Cover, increasing Deflect, reducing the impact of melee and making things a bit more survivable in the system. There is a single "Save" mechanism: the Invulnerable trait; it's just incredibly rare at this point. I understand that Cover as it stands doesn't help the defending player feel like they're involved with the unit dying and I do sympathize with the feeling.

A random thought for the "to-wound": what if it was a base TN of 10, plus your con/wound level, minus the DAM of the weapon, rolled by the Defender? Currently if I have a DAM 4 weapon and shoot a WL 8 model, I will kill on a 4+ (70% chance). With the above system, the defender would "save" on a 6+ (8WL - 4DM -> TN10) (50% chance). It would make things live longer most likely, which may not be what you're going for. It does put a bit more play into the defender's hands, and keeps the wounding in the the same style as to-hit (base TN 10) though.

TN 10 + DAM vs WL + d10?

what if it was a base TN of 10, plus your con/wound level, minus the DAM of the weapon, rolled by the Defender

I'm going to have to read this at some time other than late Sunday evening. My brain just broke.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Brain-breaking aside, I think it more likely that if I were to add some sort of Save system to the game, it wouldn't be based upon the unit itself but more upon meeting certain conditions.

Alternately, just allow the defending player to roll the dice for the to-wound rolls. Instead of having to hit a TN with the damage roll, think of it as "each hit automatically causes a wound, unless you roll UNDER a TN that is defined by the difference in the weapon's DAM and the unit's WL". I think that's mechanically the same thing (I'd have to do more math than I'm comfortable with right now to be sure).

Here's the army list I made for the games yesterday:

Eisenkern Stormtroopers - 317 Panzergrenadiers: Iron Agressors

Basic Army Profile
DEX 5 |STR 3 |CON 3 |TEK 6 |MOR 5 |PRE 3 |Cost 69
Mechanized: Vehicles become Elite. Require 3 Basic units per Support.
Experienced: All units must be Veterans for 5 points.


Basic Unit - Panzergrenadier Squad - 6 Models |Cost: 183
DEX 5 |STR 3 |CON 3 |TEK 6 |MOR 5 |PRE 3 |MV 6 |WL 9 |WP 1
Armour: Combat armour (ARM 6)
Ranged Weapon: MG-42 (DAM 5, 30", Assault 2)
Sergeant: One model in the unit must be modeled as a Sergeant. As long as the Sergeant is alive, the unit gains +1 MOR and +2” to their coherency. This model must be used for all coherency measurements while alive.
Veterans: Unit may re-roll fallback or pinning tests.
Suppressive Fire: When firing with ranged weapons, declare that the unit is using "suppressive fire" before to-hit rolls are made. Unit causes no wounds, but the target unit must take a pinning test with a TN equal to the number of hits caused.

Basic Unit - Panzergrenadier Pak40 Section - 6 Models |Cost: 190
DEX 5+1 |STR 3 |CON 3 |TEK 6 |MOR 5 |PRE 3 |MV 6 |WL 10 |WP 1
Armour: Gun Shield (ARM 7)
Ranged Weapon: Pak 40 (DAM 8, 40", Heavy 1+1, Team-Served: 1 gun per 2 models)
Veterans: Unit may re-roll fallback or pinning tests.

Basic Unit - Panzergrenadier Mortar Section - 6 Models |Cost: 231
DEX 5+1 |STR 3 |CON 3 |TEK 6 |MOR 5 |PRE 3 |MV 6 |WL 9 |WP 1
Armour: Combat armour (ARM 6)
Ranged Weapon: Triple Mortar (DAM 5, 60", Heavy 1, Barrage: no LoS needed @ DEX 3, Blast: d5 hits per gun & no extra shots on crit, Team-Served: 1 gun per 2 models)
Veterans: Unit may re-roll fallback or pinning tests.


After the game my friend told me that he made an army that would easily beat both the ones we used (even 2000pts vs 1000pts). WARNING: some powergaming ahead... Here it is!

Hairy Elcor Things (He didn't name them, but that was the look he described to me)

Basic Army Profile
DEX 4 |STR 7 |CON 7 |TEK 1 |MOR 5 |PRE 5 |Cost 68
Archaic, Barbaric, Bloodthirsty, Hardened, Militant, Terrifying

Basic Unit - 10 Models |Cost: 140
DEX 4 |STR 7 |CON 10 |TEK 1 |MOR 5 |PRE 5 |MV 6 |WL 11 |WP 3
Armour: ARM 1
Melee Weapon: DAM 1
Berserker, Frightening, Offhand Weapon, Huge

Elite Unit - 5 Models |Cost: 140
DEX 4 |STR 9 |CON 10 |TEK 1 |MOR 5 |PRE 5 |MV 6 |WL 11 |WP 3
Armour: ARM 1
Melee Weapon: DAM 1
Berserker, Frightening, Offhand Weapon, Huge

Personality - Level 3 |Cost: 300
DEX 4 |STR 7 |CON 10 |TEK 5 |MOR 5 |PRE 5 |MV 8 |WL 14 |WP 8
Armour: ARM 4
Melee Weapon: DAM 5
Berserker, Fieldcraft, Ferocious, Frightening, Graceful, Offhand Weapon, Gigantic, Vampiric, Huge Mount (Gigantic)


In response to that, I came up with a (hopefully) more broken army. Here goes!

The Swarm

Basic Army Profile
DEX 8 |STR 10 |CON 1 |TEK 0 |MOR 0 |PRE 2 |Cost 87
Barbaric: +2 STR, +1 CON, -3 TEK, units may be Berserk for 20 points.
Bloodthirsty: +2 PRE, must charge if able.
Guerilla: -2 TEK, units gain Fieldcraft.
Militant: Free Off-Hand Weapon, but may never defensive fire.


Basic Unit - Swarmlings - 20 Models |Cost: 162
DEX 9 |STR 10 |CON 0 |TEK 0 |MOR 0 |PRE 2 |MV 5 |WL 0 |WP 1
Melee Weapon: Claws and Teeth: DAM 0
Berserk: Fearless, Invulnerable 2. Must move max distance towards an enemy unit at least once during each activation, unless already engaged in melee. If the unit is close enough to charge at any point, it must. No Heavy weapons and no armour higher than TEK
Fieldcraft: No movement penalties for difficult terrain.
Offhand Weapon: Gain an additional attack in melee
Phalanx: If all models in the unit are base to base with at least 2 other models in the unit, double the effects of their shield trait.
Shield (Large): Cover 2.
Size (Small): +1 DEX, -1 CON, -1 MOV, Cover 1.

Stats of note: 40 some attacks at DEX 9 (Initiative), Cover 5 all the time, really hard to be hit in melee, and with Invulnerable 2. Also, fairly cheap points wise (6 units at 1000 points).

I haven't had time today to put time into responding, Gore, but I'll definitely look those over and take your feedback into consideration.

One bit of news that I DO want to share is that I've gotten permission from a couple of miniature companies to create army lists for some of their miniature lines and include them in the free version of the rulebook. One is Copplestone Castings, the other is Anvil Industry (in a somewhat limited capacity since one of their lines I asked about is actually based on someone else's IP so they can't give permission).

These are not endorsements of Aetherverse by these companies, but it is definitely a good sign that there are producers willing to be supportive of the concept.

That's awesome! Definitely a step in the right direction.

I have completed the draft rules (v0.1) of the Aircraft and Artillery rules for Aetherverse, 2nd Edition. This adds rules for three types of artillery (ballistic, laser-guided, and orbital) which are all located off-table to represent their immense range. The update also adds rules for two new vehicle types: Aircraft and Helicopters as well as a range of new traits to support or combat them.

The draft update may be downloaded here: (v0.1, 18 July 2013).

Also: I think I'm going to release the official A+A Update a week ahead of schedule (so, 31 July instead of 7 August). It's pretty much already done, and I'd like the extra week to think about the Magic/Superscience system.

 Magc8Ball wrote:

 Goremaul wrote:


The main thing that stuck out was how quickly stuff dies.

Definitely as intended. There should be enough terrain to allow for units to be able to maneuver out of line of sight for a while until decisively engaging enemies, but once firefights start things generally start dying fairly quickly. I'm willing to admit that it might be too fast and will look into making changes once I'm done with the writing updates (see the bottom for that).

One note to add to this that I remembered this afternoon:

I'm still going to flesh out the rules for cover, as well as adding in rules for buildings (basically just immobile vehicles, but I'll probably need to flesh out specifics of firing points and whatnot). This will definitely be adding in more survivability for infantry. Heavy cover is going to be bringing potential cover ratings up to 4, maybe 5, and units in buildings will of course (probably) be immune to direct fire.

I'm not sure if it's something I'm going to do for one of the two remaining scheduled updates, or if it will be the first thing I add after those. Heck, I might just add it as an additional scheduled update to the alpha release, making it the October update.

EDIT: I went ahead and made this official: http://t.co/Ik7g6W16WV

Cool. That will probably help actually. I'm guessing that you are envisioning boards with a lot of terrain then?

Crossposted from the TiSpork website. Big-time thanks to Joel at Anvil for giving me permission to use some of their miniatures in Aetherverse. It's a big step for the game and one that I hope will raise the visibility of the game significantly.

One of the goals for Aetherverse has been to provide a centralized rule set that miniature manufacturers can use as a way to make sure that their miniatures have a set of rules that they can be used with. Even if a miniature designer doesn’t have the time to also create a wargame for their minis they’ll have a home in Aetherverse. Today we’re introducing an example of this ideal that will appear in the next update.

While they are planning to release their own game in the future, Anvil Industry has graciously agreed to allow me to include rules for their miniatures in the Aetherverse Alpha Release. The 1.04 update on 31 July will include three army lists for their miniature lines: the cybernetic A.R.C., the heavily-armored Exo-Lords, and their elite Black Ops detachment. These lists show examples of how Anvil’s miniatures can be used to play Aetherverse but are by no means the only way to use them.

I’ve completed the first of these lists and felt it was a good time to share the news. As part of the news, I’ve uploaded the army list for the A.R.C. that will be appearing in the rulebook next week. The list is made up of heavily-armored, high-firepower squads that all can deploy using the Teleportation reserve rule, striking from nowhere into the heart of an enemy formation.

I'm working on finalizing the 1.04 update (Aircraft and Artillery) and I'm glad that this update lets me put the "Space British" back into the game because this is probably my 2nd favorite piece of art from the original book:

See the original post at the TiSpork site.

Release 1.04 of Aetherverse 2nd Edition, the Aircraft and Artillery update, is now available for free download (PDF file, updated 29 July 2013). This is the release originally planned for 7 August, but we bumped it ahead by one week to allow for more time to work on the Magic/Superscience update (as well as possibly working in a balance update in the middle of August).

This update adds rules for both Artillery (support fire called in from off the tabletop) and Aircraft (as well as Helicopters, a new vehicle type for Aetherverse). These new features provide even more ways to represent any sort of army that one can imagine. One interesting note about the Artillery rules is that there is no requirement to have a model for those units, as their attacks come from well away from the center of action (or even from space). This doesn’t mean that they’re impossible to stop, as they can be fired upon by aircraft and other artillery, and because each type of artillery has to be called in by models on the tabletop. Kill those models, and you stop the artillery. The interplay among artillery-summoning models, counterbattery fire, and aircraft zooming across the table will add new and exciting moments of drama in your battles.

Another exciting part of the 1.04 update is that it is the first update to include Army Lists designed specifically for use with miniatures produced by a third-party manufacturer! Anvil Industry has graciously allowed us to feature their miniatures in the rules, and the first two such army lists are included in this update. We hope to bring other miniature producers on board as we move forward with the book and later updates.

I' m currently working on a set of balancing changes to be made with the 1.05 update that will occur in mid-August. The main goal of these is to make pinning tests actually matter, and to improve survivability of models in melee combat. Here's the current slate of tweaks to the game:

Pinning Tests:
• Now occur only if the number of hits exceeds the unit’s MOR (changed from every time)
• Pinning Test TN is equal to the number of hits on the unit (changed from wounds)
• Suppression Fire unit trait changed to cause a Pinning Test with TN equal to twice the number of hits (changed from equal to hits)

Melee Combat:
• To-hit roll TN changed to double defending unit’s STR (changed from just 1x STR). Fighting Defensively still adds the unit’s DEX

Deflect (DEF):
• Remove Deflect as a stat (as only two things grant it and it’s nearly pointless anyways). Instead, the abilities that grant it will grant a bonus to the TN to wound the unit (essentially it will become bonus armor)

Anti-Grav Vehicles:
• Change base movement bonus to 0” (from +4”). Add the ability to buy up to 4” movement for 20pts per 2”.

Finally came up with an elegant solution for the Mercenary army trait. In 1st edition it allowed you to create an entirely new secondary profile for your elite units. That was... well, overpowered. I'd been banging my head on how to fix it for 2E... but I figured it out! It'll be back in 1.05 as a unit trait.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And now I'm trying to decide if it is worthwhile to put out the magic release a month ahead of schedule...

Version 1.05 of Aetherverse 2nd Edition is now available for download. This update does not add anything particularly new, but rather makes a number of changes to the rules based on playtester feedback that should positively affect gameplay. The specific changes to the rules are listed in the 1.05 change log.

In addition, I have uploaded the first draft of the Magic and Mutation Update! These are still subject to pretty heavy change, of course, but there is quite a bit of new stuff in these draft rules. The Magic and Mutation update is scheduled for full release on the first Wednesday of September.

As always, feedback on these releases is welcome here or at the TiSpork site!

Just plugged the Magic/Mutation update into the main rules doc. That brought the actual "rules" text over 70 pages (anything that's not fluff or army lists).

Approx. counts:
-Rules of Gameplay: 20 pgs
-Game setup, missions, etc: 8 pgs
-Army Design System Rules: 12 pgs
-Unit, weapon, vehicle traits/special rules: 20 pgs
-Schools of Magic/Minor Magic Abilities: 11 pgs

The total page count of the rulebook is now up to 117 pages.

Ooof. Just finished a bit of a marathon of army designing for the new lists going into the 1.06 update (well, new as in newly designed using 2nd edition rules; all of them are revamped versions of those in the 1E rulebook):

-A race of earth elementals (featuring both the Elemental magic ability which is unique amongst the others and the summoning system),
-The Royal Republic of Egypt, a pharoahs-of-the-future nation that I designed before ever watching Stargate
-Mentuemhut's Legion, the forces of an arch lich that keeps popping up in the deserts of Egypt's world, featuring the undead trait (and the new Unstable rule) to the nth degree
-Helionox Swarm, a fearsome hive minded alien species whose bodies are their weapons and who seem to have a knack for stowing away on dimension-jumping ships, spreading them into countless alternate dimensions
-The TransVerseCo Resource Acquisition Team, a mercenary army supported by expensive drones and AI-driven Assassins tasked with seeking out strange new alternate Earths and "preparing the population for proper assimilation into the TVC umbrella and allowing for maximum leverage of synergistic best practices and human resource organization".

With that I'll see if I can come up with a couple of other ones (though I'm limited in my art resources for the free book for now, so they'd have to be armies without visual add-ons). I'll also talk to a couple of players about starting up on an unofficial set of conversion lists for various games now that all of the expected army design options are in place (or will be, once 1.06 releases).

The latest update to the free Aetherverse 2nd Edition Rulebook has been released. Version 1.06, the Magic and Mutation update, can be downloaded here. This update adds rules for magic (or technology sufficiently advanced as to be indistinguishable from the same), a new Army Characteristic supporting the creation of entirely organic armies (such as alien species that grow their weapons from their bodies) and a number of new unit and weapon traits and vehicle upgrades.

This update essentially completes all of the planned rules sections for the initial release of Aetherverse 2nd Edition. The next planned update is a revision of the Cover and Terrain rules, followed by another balance pass.

The change log for v1.06 is as follows:

Aetherverse 2nd Edition v1.06 wrote:Additions:
-Schools of Magic system added
-Minor Magic abilities added
-Several new characteristics, traits, and upgrades have been added

Changes:
-Number of hits Blast weapons cause is now limited to the number of models in the target unit. Multiple weapons are each limited to this number (individually, not cumulatively).
-Excess wounds from non-ordinance blast weapons will now “overflow” to nearby units (enemy or friendly). Artillery weapons do not get this rule because they already hit more than one unit.
-Mob trait cannot be taken by unit with Phalanx trait
-Reserve: Standard is no longer a purchasable trait. Instead, any unit may be deployed into reserves by default and enters play using this method. The other forms of Reserves are unchanged and may still be purchased. A unit that has purchased a specific form of Reserves may either enter play using their chosen method or by standard reserves (walking on from their table edge).
-Additional wording in the Unit Coherency rules intended to prevent units from becoming “interlaced”, where two units are effectively occupying the same battlefield area to gain defensive line of sight advantages.
-Players may agree to ignore the Matter/Anti-Matter rule if they are playing armies from within a specific setting.
-Hits that equal (but do not exceed) a vehicle’s armor value have a 50% chance of still reducing its armor by 1. I thought this was already in the rulebook (as it is the intent) but it wasn’t present in the damage table. It has now been added.

With today's release of v1.06, I'm launching a short contest on both Facebook and Twitter:

If you'd like to help design an army to appear in the Aetherverse rulebook, do one (or both!) of the following:
-Retweet this tweet, or
-Share this Facebook post.

At the end of the day on Friday 22 August, I'll pick one person from each feed. These two winners will get to create an army using the Aetherverse Army Design System, which I'll then include in the next version of the rulebook (due out in October). Simple as that!

In addition to this, I'd appreciate any sort of sharing with bloggers and news sites that you might know about (other than Dakka, of course!) as with the game being "Feature Complete", it's time to start putting the word out about the great rules system. Thanks, Dakka!

(Crossposted from the TiSpork Website.)

With the release of the 1.06 “Magic and Mutation” update, Aetherverse 2nd Edition is essentially “feature complete”. This means that all of the major portions of the rules are in place, and that there are not any plans to add additional sections at this time. There will still be changes here and there as we continue to balance the rules and work on the best ways to represent some rules (for instance, an overhaul of the Cover/Terrain system is coming in the 1.07 update) but there won’t be any large additions to the Alpha Release (or the “core rules” as an RPG company might term the book). What is in the future for Aetherverse, then? Let’s take a look.

As mentioned, the first thing is that we’ll be looking through the rules to fix any outstanding issues. The Cover/Terrain system that was initially put into place was largely a placeholder, as the effects of those table features was kind of reliant on what the rest of the rules contained. With the major features finished, the terrain rules can be worked on with a full understanding of what is needed and what’s not necessary. I’ll also be taking a second look at all of the unit traits (and weapon/armor/etc.) with a critical eye on their points values. I want to make sure that there’s a consistent curve across the board regarding what you get for your points, so that very few traits are strictly better or worse than any other on a cost-to-benefit basis.

Beyond tuning the core rules, there are some additions that I’m planning to begin work on. The first is something that I’ve received a number of requests for: a revision of the Narrative Campaign System that was created for the first edition. This modification of the core rules uses the base Aetherverse rules to create a small-scale skirmish-level version of the game with far fewer models than normal. With far fewer models, games are faster and more detailed, and as players can more easily play games beyond the first, units have the ability to gain experience and get bonus abilities beyond what they originally start with. This essentially turns the core rules into a form of role-playing game, where your units become even more characterful than they are in the Alpha Release, and over time base units can become quite elite and powerful.

The second planned modification is to create conversions for using the rules with smaller scaled models. The Alpha Release was designed solely with 25-30mm scale models in mind, but the rules are easily adaptable for use with 15mm or even 10mm/6mm miniatures. At these scales, armies can be enormous, with entire squadrons of tanks rolling across the table and artillery actually being represented with models.

The third thing in the works isn’t a rules modification at all, but rather a player aid. I’m beginning work with a software developer to create a free army building application for Aetherverse. Instead of needing to spend time in a spreadsheet or with paper and a calculator, you’ll be able to create armies entirely from scratch with only a few clicks of a mouse. There’s no current timeframe for this (as we’re just now talking about design specs) but it is something that is definitely is on the way. We’re planning for the application to be similar in function to Army Builder or Battlescribe, though the flexibility of the army creation system unfortunately prevented the use of either of those programs. Hence the need to create our own!

I've been enjoying the updates as well as the articles you have been posting here and on Titanium Spork Gaming.

I've given the game three test runs so far and I think I have figured out what I don't like about it.

Units attacking units. It speeds things up a lot, but I find it makes the models seem less important. Like i could just replace a squad with a stand of smaller scale miniatures and keep their strength on a roster or a card (sleeved to make dry erase an option). It's probably that I've been playing too much Warmachine/Hordes, but I now strongly prefer models fighting models rather than units fighting units.

Lethality even with tough and heavily armoured targets. Using the weapon strengths and armor+con values in the example lists as a guide line, I find everything dies way faster than you'd expect. Power armour is not reliable protection from small arms fire, for example. While I don't like 40k's armour save, I'm finding the integration of armour into the "to wound" roll to make it feel like armour doesn't matter.

Homogenous units. The system only handles units of uniform constitution and armor. I know this is a result of units firing on units and the difficulty of handing different armour and defensive equipment in such a system, but I have friends with 40k armies that have units with mixed units and it can be a deal breaker for getting them to try the game when i can't properly represent their miniatures and how they think of their army as fighting.

I do get though, that these issues are things that run contrary to the design goals of Aetherverse, so I'm not suggesting making any changes to accommodate my desires, just letting you know where things aren't working out for me and the people I've been trying to convince to dust off their 40k models that have been shelved for lack of a good rules set.

Thanks for the continued commentary, FW, it's appreciated!

-Warmachine is really a different scale of game from Aetherverse. While models attacking individually works well for WM, AV's model count is just enough higher that it would really bog things down. It might not seem like much if you're playing with lower model count armies, but take a look at some of the armies I added in the 1.06 update (especially the magic-based Terrans and the organic-based Helionox): these armies both have cheapish 20-strong units... I would really rather not have to deal with the possiblities of multiples of those units splitting their fire across several targets.

-I suspect that the lethality might be partially related to army construction with players not used to the 0-10 range. I would build Space Marine Power Armour with an AV of 7 or even 8 (on top of a CON of 5 or 6). As such, they're going to be rocking a to-wound target of 12-14, which means someone with a DAM 4 weapon is going to only cause a wound on an 8+

-The homogeneous unit bit is pretty much the way that the game is designed, and it's a design choice that I'm aware will be an issue for the more rigidly-minded. To be perfectly honest, though, the sorts of players that would turn down a new system simply because of that kind of difference aren't going to be very keen on trying the game to begin with so it really isn't worth the time and effort to try and make them happy.

The thing is, though, none of the 40K armies that use mixed units (or at least the ones that I can think of) really have that as a defining feature of the character of their army. Black Templars might mix in neophytes, but that's just an army list feature. Their character is that of the hyper-aggressive Crusading army, charging and burning and purging. Lots of Tau units have drones, but the character of the army is about the high-tech battlesuits and the firepower. I really doubt that a Black Templar player runs their army because they get to mix in scouts, or that a Tau player wouldn't have picked up the army if there weren't drones mixed into squads. Those armies were chosen because of the overall look and feel, and I'd suggest that Aetherverse does a better job of representing that than their native system can EVER do.

EDIT:
That all said, I'm certainly open to the possibility of adding the capability at some point for units to mix in extra models with differing stats. The main point is that I would want it to be something presented as an exception, or as something that has its own specific rules spelled out (so something like a specific army characteristic or unit trait). Something like a "Squires" unit trait that lets the Additional Models that can be added to a unit wear different armor in addition to carrying different weapons. It'll just require a lot of time and thinking to make it work and to work out all the bugs, which is why it's not something that I wanted in the core rules. Now that the game's feature complete, I'll be having more time to start working on special tweaks and exceptions to make other options possible going forward... it'll just be at a much slower pace because each new feature like that is going to require a lot of fitting into the existing system.

I have completed the first draft of the Cover and Terrain overhaul. There were less huge changes than I expected; the "overhaul" mostly consists of additional definitions and clarifications rather than a complete revamp of the system. Still, this update should fully flesh out the rules and assist in making tactical gameplay easier to figure out with fewer assumptions and guesses needing to be made by the player!

The draft rules may be downloaded here.

I think I'm just looking for a lower model count game where I can represent each miniature as what I want it to be rather than as unit members/wound counters. Giving Aetherverse a few goes was fun and people obviously like high model count games for the 40k universe even if I don't.

The next thing we might try is a 10-20 or so models per side game where we construct every model as a personality. We'll probably play with the activation system a bit to make it so there are not 40 dice in a cup. We'll also probably be more liberal with extra wound points and use higher numbers for armour.

Thanks to a TON of feedback and discussion, I think that I'm going to be making the following rules change in v1.07.

The melee combat to-wound roll will be changed to d10 plus the attacking unit’s melee weapon DAM or its STR. A unit may choose to strike as if its initiative were zero; if doing so it adds STR and DAM to the to-wound roll. The to-wound TN remains the same (target’s CON+Armor). This change essentially equalizes Melee and Ranged damage, which is a change that I should have made upon writing the 2nd edition (the first edition didn't have fully customizable melee weapons, only a select few options, making it necessary to add STR; this is no longer needed in the rules).

I've been convinced that this change, along with the prior change of the to-hit TN, will bring close combat lethality into line with that of ranged combat and allow units with even a little bit of combat skill to hang around for a turn or two (which is about the target for the game).

Due to a major change that I am making to the melee combat system, I am planning to release Aetherverse v1.07 - the Cover and Terrain Revision Update this Sunday, 1 September 2013. This is over a month ahead of schedule, and I'm putting it out this early for the following reasons:

I would like the aforementioned combat change to be published as soon as possible so that people who are actively playing/playtesting the game may begin providing feedback on the change as soon as possible, and

The Cover rules were finished and I didn't feel as if there was a reason to put out a minor update with just the combat changes when they were ready to go out as well.

The changelog for this release is available at the website (and it explains the melee combat change that has provoked the early release). I expect the update to go live approximately 10am Sunday morning, Pacific Time.

Aetherverse v1.07, the Cover and Terrain Revision Update, is now available for download. This update improves the cover and terrain rules, adding additional detail and information to better support the use of various types of terrain on your battlefields. The update also features a change to the melee combat rules, intended to increase the survivability of troops in close combat, based on player and playtesting feedback.

The Change Log for the new update can be viewed here. This update is actually one month ahead of schedule (it was originally planned for an October release) but the desire to get the melee combat change out to players overrode the wish to keep the releases somewhat spread out.

With this update, Aetherverse 2nd Edition is essentially complete. There are no more planned updates or revisions at this time, though I expect that there will still be monthly updates as we tweak rules and add new traits to the game. The plan going forward is to organize some additional playtesting, start getting the word out about the game, and begin the long drive towards beginning the Kickstarter!

A new update, via the Tispork site:

Titanium Spork Gaming wrote:With the completion of update 1.07, I have essentially finished the game. One of the things that helped me wrap up the game (when I had nothing but an outline and an apparently daunting task ahead of myself) was to set a schedule for my work. By setting a set date by which I needed to complete each segment of the rules, and posting it publicly, I gave myself the motivation needed to get the work on the game done. While I ended up getting it done a couple of months ahead of schedule, having the public “due date” available gave me a clear marker by which I could guide and plan my work.

As we move into the second stage of the Aetherverse lifecycle, I think it’s time for me to do the same with all of the various parts that I need to work on. This time, though, since there is no set end date for this work, It’ll be a weekly schedule, containing things that I feel are important to help push forward the overall awareness of the game. A few times a week, I’ll be posting new army lists, new blog posts, or new demo features for the game. This schedule won’t be as rigid as that for the game’s feature updates, and I will occasionally take weeks off due to real-world stuff, but I will be doing my best to adhere to goal of having new content on a set schedule. In doing so, players (and potential players) will know to check the site on those days for new material to support the game in some manner.

For now, we’re going to set a Tuesday-Thursday* schedule for new site content that will begin next week (1 October for the first post). The new content will vary, including new army lists (including conversion lists for armies from other games where possible due to legalities), fully game-ready demo armies, a continuation of the blog posts that I have started, demonstrations of various game elements (such as the army design system, which needs to have its demo rewritten) and battle reports. I’m open to other suggestions as to what sort of content that people would find useful, as well, and I’ll even be open to posting content created by other authors.