In the Raging Heroes Kickstarter thread, Azazelx brought up the idea of an open source ruleset that you could use with anyone's minis.

 Azazelx wrote:
I honestly wouldn't put much stock in their "game". The market is flooded with sci-fi skirmish titles, both out and upcoming. It's a large financial investment to get a ruleset up and running, and with RH being French, you'd expect that the rules would first have to be written in French, then playtested, then translated into English and have the living hell proofread out of them by competently bilingual people. That's a huge investment of time and money. There's a reason, after all that Felix eventually decided that Warthrone wouldn't be getting released in English.

I feel the same way about the Dreamforge and Anvil "games" as well, FWIW - and the same again if Vic decides that she wants a game to go with her Not-Guard.

I think a better solution would be for some kind of GURPS option, almost. A solid ruleset for sci-fi skirmish battles, open licence (similar to what WotC did with D20 years back) then used in a universal manner by all the small companies. Let's say Mantic decided to go this way with the Warpath 2.0 ruleset, which I've not played, but seems to have good feedback. Then companies like RH, Dreamforge, Vic, etc etc could essentially release their own "Worldbook" with the base rules reprinted as well as their own faction's rules and fluff included. If you know one system, you know them all. - and then each company caretakes their own version. If you want to play Kurganovas vs Eisenkern, then if your opponent agrees, then go for it. (Bearing in mind Dreamforge may not be balanced against Kurganovas) If not, it's Kurganovas vs Iron Empire.

Seriously, if several of these smaller companies wanted to get together and grow the hobby a little, this would be a good way to go about it, they'd then all be in cooperation as well as competition - which is a good thing considering the number of failed games over the years. Put some money in, get a couple of quality guys to put together a ruleset - Alessio, Priestley, Chambers, Hoare, Thornton are all out there doing work for hire.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
I have an idea for that. Do it like RPGs. Or more accurately do it like Az suggested. Like GURPS. So we have the core rule set. Book X. Book X contains the basic rules for Sci Fi war gaming, and includes a couple army lists from various systems and some generic ones you can play with literally everything. The book's simple, easy to understand (Unlike GURPS which is calculus in disguise) but if you play a particular system, like say we're all Raging Heroes fans, you go to your FLGS and pick up the TGG Splatbook, which contains all the lore, special rules and army lists for the five TGG armies. (IE, KST, Jail Birds, DE and Battle Space Nuns). Larger systems like Iron Core(with it's 8+ factions) might be in multiple volumes. Or have actual individual faction codex equivalents available along with more special rules and more in-depth fluff/lore.

 vic wrote:
Its certainly an intriguing idea. In regard to the Vic Minis range, I have focused on modelling, not rules. Rules might happen in the future, but how many sci-fi skirmish games does the industry really need. I am not a rules writer, my first love is modelling and background, Andy Hoare has written some great fluff for my regiments. If there was a system where all that could be integrated with other ranges, I'd be very interested. Consider me the first company to throw the hat in the ring.

--------------------------------------------------------------


I don't know... how to get that started. I guess first you start with wishlisting, then eliminate the unworkable stuff, then what.... talk to the writers mentioned and see what it takes to contract them?

Hey, thanks Ouze and everyone else for the positive feedback on the concept. As it happens, Vic's post is exactly why I've had this on my mind for awhile - how many skirmish rulesets do we need? - and with Kickstarters coming out of the woodwork these days and every second producer wanting to have their own game down the line, it just seems like a more elegant solution than a pile of Balkanised (great job, there!) rulesets. This sort of thing could be wide ranging enough to support published volumes or PDFs depending on the manufacturer's wants and needs. And things like Hasslefree's Grymm, Heresy's various sci-fi troopers, Copplestone's Future Warriors, even Foundry's Future Warriors could have a home of their own aside from being proxied for Imperial Guard.

The other reason I've been thinking about this idea lately is reading many posts in various threads talking about "hopefully one day _____ will be able to compete more directly with GW." Individually it's probably not going to happen, but with a more ...united approach to the ruleset, and a touch of friendly cross-promotion, I'd imagine that beginning to carry the ______ range might become more attractive to retailers if they're already selling the rules and some other figures in the broader "family" - resulting in more pie for all those participating.

Kind of in the same way that I went into my former FLGS across town several years ago after the D20 "revolution" and saw all these open licence games on the shelf. Except that rather than buying one core rulebook and a couple supplements per game for that group of 4-6 players, and then concentrating on the one product, the thought it that it would/could be much more like one person buying a new splat book and then purchasing 10-100 new models from a participating manufacturer to go with it...

I'm not sure what the next step would be? Contact people like the Mantic guys, Kev (Hasslefree), Mark (DFG), the RH crew and so forth and see if/who would be interested?

IMO the idea is great. as Azazelx said "Dreamforge may not be balanced against Kurganovas"...well...IMHO the point cost and the balancing shoul be somehow granted.

if company A sells a standard soldier with standard stats, valued 10 points...and if company B sells his how standard soldier with the same stats, but a point cost of 5...that's just ugly and unfair. They are not really part of the same game...
I think there should be at least some guidelines of a sort of control of the community on that kind of stuff. My2cents

It's an intriguing idea. I'd be interested if it ever came to fruitition. I personally love 40k. But I'm not going to pretend parts of that love aren't nostalgia (since I've been playing for 15+ years), the lore, the models, or ease of finding a game. I enjoy 40k's game play but if a universal skirmish/full scale wargame was set up then I'd be interested if only for variety. As it stands right now it's hard to get into a different game because of the sheer number of them and the difficulty of finding a game or wondering how long the game will actually exist.

That's kind of the point. We've had a lot of scattered and failed sci-fi skirmish games over the years, and while I tend to buy most of my stuff with one eye to using them as Imperial Guard, it seems that most producers have a sci-fi skirmish game on their radar. I just figure it'd be easier to maintain one ruleset and a number of splat books - ie: Codex: Dreamforge - with all of the fluff/rules for Eisenkern and Shadowkesh and whatnot included - I figure it gives all the smaller producers a chance to have their background and rules for their models out there without more competing skirmish rulesets (the majority of which will be very small or doomed to failure).

The world is flooded with tabletop rules, why not make another one? With playtested rules for every existing miniature in the world? Yeah why not?

It should be written in Esperanto, an easy language without the ballast of other languages

I think the easiest "model" would be to base it on WYSIWYG. A basic 28mm human trooper in some form of non-powered armor with a low powered laser rifle.

So you have the stats of a human, tack on "save" that his type of armor grants, and apply the rules of a "low powered laser rifle"

Though I'm probably looking at a system to cover the models and how they looks, rather than a system that would keep the flavor and feeling of the model and include it in the system.

I think the idea has merit, I've lost count of the number of skirmish games that I've seen touted about over the years.

Balance could be an issue, though if the basic book included things like the old VDR and a similar system for pointing up troops, it'd be both easier to keep things balanced and give something for those who just want a set of rules to play around with.

Approach wise, it may be better going down the route of getting something together before approaching companies to see what they think. It does mean that it could be a lot of work for nothing (other than another set of rules kicking around) if no one is interested, but it'd likely pay off to have something to show off rather than an idea.

Oh, and we'd need to launch the core rules via kickstarter

As long as I can use my flying assault butts, I don't care how the system is started

This is a legitimately cool idea! I'd be willing to buy it if such a thing was created.
It might give me a justification for the endless variety of human minis I possess, and actually motivate me to paint them.
Plus I love fluff, but hate learning new rules - so this seems tailored for me perfectly.

Edit: spelling.

Geez, I'm glad someone started this thread. After read Az's post last night, I just couldn't sleep, eh. I had so many visions and ideas of how wonderful this would be.

My friends all have W40K armies, but barely know the rules, because they find them counterintuitive and reading the book is just too much of a time investment. Now of course as soon as I bring up the idea of another game, I get shot down.

With this, it might ease the pain. We'd have to find a way of making the mechanics scale, though, to be usable from skirmish to company level.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So, can we start the wishlisting phase?

This is already being worked on. The rules system that I'm writing, Aetherverse, is specifically licensed for use by anyone, including miniatures producers that want to create rules for their own minis. It is very much designed from the ground up to be used in the manner which you are all speaking of, and I've granted blanked permission for anyone out there to release army books for the game using the rules within the books.

There's even a suggestion box in the forums for people to help create new rules to fit in with other lines of miniatures that might not already be covered.

Basically, instead of trying to start yet another ruleset... consider helping to support one that does exactly what you're looking for.


From the licensing page:

As noted in the rules PDF and in several places on the page, Aetherverse 2nd Edition is licensed under a Creative Commons license, specifically one that allows for portions of the game (or things derived from the rules, such as Army Lists) to be reprinted by others for non-commercial use, as long as they follow the other provisions of the license. Those that wish to use the rulebook for commercial means (basically, anything that makes money) cannot do so unless they first acquire permission from the author.

This page, however, serves as blanket permission for the following limited commercial uses:.
-Permission is granted for the commercial distribution of army lists created using the Aetherverse 2nd Edition Army Creation System. This allows authors to create and sell “army books” using background material of their own creation, including to support specific miniature lines.
-Army lists created may be freely released to support the commercial distribution of miniature lines.

I think this is a great idea, but it would be hard to make happen. If you had a single driving force behind it creating a solid and flexible rule set, then you'd have a better chance to suceed than with too many cooks in the kitchen.

D20 worked because WotC was driving. When they took the keys away, everyone was stuck.

Didn't Mongoose make the Battlefield Evolution rules open source? I don't know anything about them, so I don't know how good they are.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yes, Aetherverse is a system I'm interested in looking at. I also want to take a look at Fanticide, but that is geared more towards fantasy, so it would not be a good fit for sci-fi.

I'd love to see a system that can function as a skirmish game with a handful of models or scale up to army vs. army, but that also could be used for any setting, such as fantasy, steampunk, sci-fi, etc.

It would have to be able to handle unit/vehicle creation, magic/psychic powers, tournaments, various figure scales (6mm-32mm), etc.

I don't think that will happen soon, but it could happen eventually. I feel like we've been in a golden age of the hobby with all the small manufacturers that have been churning out great models, but maybe the next evolution of the hobby could include a system such as this.

I am printing the ruleset of Aetherverse. It's what I was looking for. How can we help you in the testing?

Sergio Tulkas wrote:
I am printing the ruleset of Aetherverse. It's what I was looking for. How can we help you in the testing?

Read, build armies, play, post at the forums at the site (or in the thread for the game in this forum)! That's all there is to it.

I actually wouldn't recommend printing unless you have no other way to make it portable when you're playing. It's up to 80-something pages and is having new stuff added every month.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 bbb wrote:
I'd love to see a system that can function as a skirmish game with a handful of models or scale up to army vs. army, but that also could be used for any setting, such as fantasy, steampunk, sci-fi, etc.

It would have to be able to handle unit/vehicle creation, magic/psychic powers, tournaments, various figure scales (6mm-32mm), etc.

I don't think that will happen soon, but it could happen eventually.

AV does or will do everything you talk about. 1st edition had conversion rules for 6mm (that are probably still valid with the 2nd edition, I just haven't looked at it yet) and I will be doing a conversion of the old narrative campaign system for playing with extremely low numbers of models. It works for Fantasy/Historical simply by capping one stat at the desired level.

It is a good idea on paper, but has many many issues.

GURPS and the D20 system have the virtue of been an RPG, every RPG that will be made essentially follows the same concept,character doing stuff, wargames on the other hand have, different scales and different scope, you cannot realistically hope one universal system will allow to play a skirmish level game with 10 figures and a mass battles game with around a hundred in 28mm, let alone 15mm 6mm and so on.

At best one should need to create a universal system for each category and then you have a lot of game systems to haggle with.

Do folks realize that this has already been done many times?

What they are talking about is referred to as a "Generic" ruleset in that it can be adapted to different minis and one can create their own stats.

Aetherverse is a good, fairly recent example, but there have been quite a few rulesets that are either completely free and open source or are commercial, but have a unit creation mechanic.

Commercial games that have-or-had a unit creation mechanic. Some have a setting and some don't.

-Tomorrows War
-Shockforce
-Vor
-Future War Commander
-Song of Blades and Heroes
-Gruntz

Open source free games that have a unit creation mechanic:
-WarEngine (base rules from Shockforce)
-No Limits
-No Quarter
-In The Emperors Name
-FUBAR

There are many more...

In the end, when regarding such a ruleset, I'd like to know:

-What does it do better than existing rulesets?
-What is the specific scope. Is it skirmish, platoon, battalion, etc? You can make a game that is generic in setting and units, but if it tries to cover all scopes it is bound to fail.

You could say that, in theory a really generic game system were other creators can create their own game with lists and special rules instead of a generic system with a build in list creator could be different, I do not think its plausible though.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
You could say that, in theory a really generic game system were other creators can create their own game with lists and special rules instead of a generic system with a build in list creator could be different, I do not think its plausible though.

Technically, any game that has been released via Creative Commons allows this. For instance, AV's license allows for authors to use and modify the work for (noncommercial) uses. This can include people creating their own games using the AV rules as a base. Someone can take the rules, create a lightweight skirmish version or huge 6mm mass-battle version of the game, and release it (again, noncommercially, unless they ask for permission which I'm very likely to give) as a standalone game. It is plenty plausible, and I am fully in support of someone doing that with my rules.

In a more general functionality sense, though, truly open-source in the software sense of anyone being able to create new rules/additions and have them be considered official for the core rules wouldn't work very well for a miniatures game just because of balancing issues. Balance is even more critical than in RPG's where there's always a GM that can say "look, that's just too silly". Otherwise, anybody can walk into a shop or (gods forbid) a tournament with a book they typed up on their own giving their army unbeatable rules. A system that is going to be functional in such a way needs to at least have either a rigid algorithm that covers any possibility of the way things can be used in the rules (which ends up like VOR's design system: boring as hell) or with a central authority (either the original author of a team that understands the rules and can work together) vetting and editing suggestions.

I've chosen the latter for mine since it's just the easiest and "safest" way to do so. Any new rules created from others' suggestions will be worked on publicly, allowing for anybody to comment and help create them, but the final check will always come down to me. (I'd toyed with the idea of just releasing the whole thing to Dakka Dakka to let the entire community write the game, but felt that was going to end up being a bit too chaotic. Creating a subforum for rules development would be fun, though, if the Dakka management was up for it.)

Eilif:
The games that you quoted as "open source": did those specifically allow for publication of units/armies created with the rules? "Free" does not equal "open source"; there are a number of rules that are free with creation mechanics, but in order for there to be any chance of other companies using those rules they should be explicitly given permission to do so.

When Az first suggested this, I was really stoked. After giving it some consideration, I did have some second thoughts though.

Specifically, I thought about the OGL and its effect on gaming. While it's true that the d20 system gave us a lot of quality material, it also gave us (far, far more) utter crap. And even worse, many older titles were relaunched as d20 systems (Deadlands, Cthulu) and several games which came out during that time came out as d20 games rather than coming up with an original system. Unfortunately, many of these games (and every single d20 reboot I ever played) weren't worth the match it would take to properly dispose of them.

That being said, I would still be tentatively interested in something like this. There's been some mention of WYSIWYG being incorporated into the system somehow, which I think is a worthwhile avenue to pursue. I'd really be interested in some kind of mechanical advantage for armies that are completely assembled/based/painted as well. There is precedent, actually, for WYSIWYG determining the stat line of a model. The Fuzzy Heroes game, although a bit silly, was using that very idea in their mechanics twenty years ago. (Although it lacks complexity, it's a fun game, incidentally. Although I've never managed to find anything that can bring down the limited edition KISS action figures. )

Someone said it earlier, but the key to success for such a system is that it will require a significant driving force behind it. A community made ruleset will remain just that: a community's ruleset. A small company's ruleset will also remain equally small. Without a Brand™ behind it to give it prominence, it won't take off. The GURPS analogy has been brought up, so why can't Steve Jackson Games get in on this idea?

I wonder if H.G. Wells ever made the system that he and his buddies invented publicly available.

 daedalus wrote:
I wonder if H.G. Wells ever made the system that he and his buddies invented publicly available.

Yes.

http://www.amazon.com/Little-Wars-Dodo-Press-Wells/dp/140993134X

 Magc8Ball wrote:

Eilif:
The games that you quoted as "open source": did those specifically allow for publication of units/armies created with the rules? "Free" does not equal "open source"; there are a number of rules that are free with creation mechanics, but in order for there to be any chance of other companies using those rules they should be explicitly given permission to do so.

That's a good point. I don't think that the rules themselves were completely open source. However, many of them encouraged folks to make stats for any given army or game and post them online. WarEngine, No Limits, Gruntz, and a few others were very much in this vein.

Some other games like Future War Commander went so far as to include stats for dozens of companies rules in the rules.

One other thing that happens fairly often is that a good set of rules (often one with a good unit creation mechanic) will be used for multiple games and even licensed to other companies.
-Song of Blades and Heroes was licensed to make "Song of Our Ancestors" (By Zombiesmith) and Shadowsea (by ANtimater games) and supplements have been made for lines of figures by Eureka and Splintered Light.
-Shockforce (Warengine) was used by it's own company to make GWAR and then by another to make "Golgo Island"
-Two Hour Wargames "Reaction" Engine has been used for several games published by "Rebel Miniatures"

I don't really see any intrinsic value in "Open Source" rules. By virtue of being Open Source, people are going to modify them and there won't be one ruleset "to be used with anyone's miniatures" anyway, just a bunch of not-necessarily-compatible games that are similar. Rather than trusting the masses to make a ruleset, I prefer very well crafted "generic" rulesets with a good unit creation mechanic to it and that's almost all that I play.

In the end though, it could probably work on a small scale, but I don't think we'll see such a ruleset really catch on in a big way. Not every gamer is looking for the same kind of rules. Those who play independent games are going to by nature have wider range of tastes, and those who play the big games often prefer to have rules and minaitures in one synergistic package.

 Kroothawk wrote:
The world is flooded with tabletop rules, why not make another one? With playtested rules for every existing miniature in the world? Yeah why not?

It should be written in Esperanto, an easy language without the ballast of other languages

It appears that you are choosing to wilfully ignore the point of the idea - which is to say that the most likely outcome for the rulesets of the many individual manufacturers is to end up alongside the piles of other dead sci-fi skirmish games. No one is suggesting at all there would or should be playtested rules for every miniature in the world or anything as ridiculous as that. I'm suggesting one basic set of rules used by all, and then RH can use and include those base rules for movement, shooting, bikes, walkers, etc in their own "Raging Rulebook" which they then take responsibility for looking after as far as editions, upgrades, playtesting, etc. Dreamforge, Vic, etc would do the same - look after their own rules. With some guidelines put in place by the rules authors, individual companies can decide whether to make their stuff broadly compatible with others (by using consistent points costs), or go their own way.

Make the rules usable for tournament play

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Someone said it earlier, but the key to success for such a system is that it will require a significant driving force behind it. A community made ruleset will remain just that: a community's ruleset. A small company's ruleset will also remain equally small. Without a Brand™ behind it to give it prominence, it won't take off. The GURPS analogy has been brought up, so why can't Steve Jackson Games get in on this idea?

That's kind of the point. Not saying "here's some open source rules - use those" to games companies, but suggesting that several of them might want to talk to one another to compare their individual wants and needs and cooperate on a broad ruleset (of agreed conflict size) rather than going it alone individually at a much greater investment and expense of time and money (and being more likely to fail) - whether it's taking on board something already written or getting Rick Hoare-Chambers and Alessio Thornton to put something together for them.

I don't see the "driver" being the community (it's not a GOA-style idea) so much as, say, Hasslefree, Vic Minis, Raging Heroes and Dreamforge all having a chat about what they want, putting in a bit of money together (rather than a lot individually) and getting their own "Fanticide" written up, which they all share an investment and ownership in. (as opposed to a third non-miniatures party like SJG). The Brands™ would be their own brands - just the same as the theoretical RH ruleset is it's own brand, and Dreamforge's ruleset is also it's own brand.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 loki old fart wrote:
Make the rules usable for tournament play

Not really the point (between manufacturers, anyway). If individual companies want to make their own armies directly cross-compatible, then fine. I'm sure if someone like Alessio had a hand in writing rules they would have an eye towards that. - so certainly tourneys between RH's own different factions could obviously be done if they chose to have the rules written with that in mind.

IF you make the rules fair and concise enough for tournament play they should be good enough to be accepted quicker.

Besides I like the thought of forge fathers v space wolves etc in a match

Um.. I don't think GW would be on board with this, so any SW (or other GW) rules would be completely house-ruled or community-made (and thus not likely to be tournament-accepted), which isn't so different to you just using Forgefathers as Ultramarine proxies...

The point is there will never be a good "do it all" wargames rule set.

I can see several one for each type of wargaming, but not a "GURPS" of wargaming because each scale and type of combat is different, I do wonder how much pressure would this place on the manufacturers who choose to adapt it, would they be forced to make vehicles for example because the system would theoretically need them?

I've actually been crunching on this for about 2 years. I also sent some PM's to the creator of Aetherverse but never heard back. The odd thing about that is, it's actually the name I wanted to use when I started and while searching it out for conflicting games, I found his.

I like the idea behind his system, but find some of it too clunky.

The "trick" to the system I'm working on is that it can scale between sizes of 6mm, 15mm, and 28mm/Heroics. I also have another card up my sleeve, but I don't want to reveal that angle yet.

This, in theory so far, can be used with any miniatures at any scale and any army from any game. For example you could run High Elves against Space Marines, Napoleonics against Battlemechs, and so on. I've ran several test combats/games and point scaling units is very important. It's hard to keep it generic enough to include just about anything, yet specific enough to warrant running different armies.

I'd be willing to bang heads with a couple people on it if they are *really* interested. Just keep in mind that most people take their creations seriously, even if they aren't good, lol. So many people may not want hang their baby out there for people to rip apart. At least until they've quadruple checked their work.

[Edit] I also have a good idea of how it all ties together in the fluff. We all know good fluff sells the game.

 TalonZahn wrote:
I've actually been crunching on this for about 2 years. I also sent some PM's to the creator of Aetherverse but never heard back. The odd thing about that is, it's actually the name I wanted to use when I started and while searching it out for conflicting games, I found his.

If you sent it a couple of years ago it's very likely that at the time I just wasn't paying attention. I've only really been working on AV2 with any seriousness since last fall or so. I did a little bit of talking regarding someone in the UK using the system for what they were working on, but they had no idea what they were doing in terms of an actual publication plan, so I cut that off. Beyond that, if I got communication about the game prior to the current "uptime", I'm sorry it got missed but I wasn't all that interested in much of anything at the time.

That said, I think that the direction of this thread seems to be away from an independent game and rather the pipe dream of a number of independent companies working together on something.

It had to be at least a year and a half ago.

I was mostly looking to knock heads together or possibly have someone tell me I'm insane in my direction. My stuff is based around D12, unit point structures, etc..

It's definitely not at easy as some might think.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
The point is there will never be a good "do it all" wargames rule set.
I can see several one for each type of wargaming, but not a "GURPS" of wargaming because each scale and type of combat is different, I do wonder how much pressure would this place on the manufacturers who choose to adapt it, would they be forced to make vehicles for example because the system would theoretically need them?

Well, no. I'm talking about games in a more-or-less 40k scale, (Not Apocalypse, not Necromunda) since that's the size where companies like RH, Dreamforge, Anvil et al seem to aim most of the time. Something specific to the scale of the quite-a-few companies now who predominantly make not-40k figures and have talked about developing their own games. RH, DFG already have vehicles in their lines. No idea if Joel/Anvil has plans to develop them in the future, but it wouldn't be surprising, given his increasing breadth.

Other companies like Vic, Hasslefree, Heresy, etc have enough figures of the right scale and in "forces" that they would also work.

Not talking about EPIC/Air War/Space War etc at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Magc8Ball wrote:

That said, I think that the direction of this thread seems to be away from an independent game and rather the pipe dream of a number of independent companies working together on something.

Well, if you want to lead it and feel that you can get everyone on board in an official capacity to your personally-developed game, then more power to you. I think the idea of getting a bunch of established companies to come onboard, adopt and make official a perpetually WIP community-driven project written by unknowns is a bigger "pipe dream", personally.

I should point out that I have no desire to "lead" anything either - I think interested indy companies would need to take the lead and have some form of ownership over it to feel that it was theirs, and theirs to do what they will with after getting a system developed. With no disrespect, I think getting some of the more well-known, well-published names on board would do more for the idea and a take-up of it (from both gaming companies and consumers), if only in terms of proven writers being proven - the "Rick Prestly/Alessio Cavatore/Andy Chambers/etc wrote that? I'll have to check it out!"

I am in agree with the general idea but I think there is a problem in mixing two different interests:

1.creating a unique core rulest used by all the small manufacturers
2.creating a set of armybooks that should be balanced between them

Today the leading manufacturer (let's assume it is also the manufacturer with the biggest testing team and with the most important feedback from players) is not consistent in point cost with himself.

Twisted minds have spread the malignant gossips that this kind of behaviour is a conscious way to get planned obsolescence...indirectly pushing the players to get the newest models...what a freaky idea to compromise the quality of your product with the risk of losing customers...

Now imagine many manufacturer in cooperation to create a core ruleset but in competition between themselves to sell models...the same twisted minds might expect those companies to pretend to be totally consistent in points cost, but the temptation to be slightly better could be too strong for them...and we are just humans. And this slightly better little by little may totally jeopardize the project

Sergio Tulkas wrote:I am in agree with the general idea but I think there is a problem in mixing two different interests....
...2.creating a set of armybooks that should be balanced between them

This would be a challenge. If cross-compatability was the goal then armybook statting would have to be in the hands of a third party designer, and I wonder if the individual companies would want to give up that much control.

TalonZahn wrote:

This, in theory so far, can be used with any miniatures at any scale and any army from any game. For example you could run High Elves against Space Marines, Napoleonics against Battlemechs, and so on. I've ran several test combats/games and point scaling units is very important. It's hard to keep it generic enough to include just about anything, yet specific enough to warrant running different armies...

[Edit]... I also have a good idea of how it all ties together in the fluff. We all know good fluff sells the game.

Interesting, but is it also trying to encompass many scopes (skirmish warband, platoon, batallion, etc) It's not hard to use rules in different scales, but I've yet to see a game that really works well in different scopes. Also notable that you are writing some fluff. However, I have a feeling that the type of gamer who buys your rules will be much less interested in fluff as in a playable ruleset.

 Azazelx wrote:

I don't see the "driver" being the community (it's not a GOA-style idea) so much as, say, Hasslefree, Vic Minis, Raging Heroes and Dreamforge all having a chat about what they want, putting in a bit of money together (rather than a lot individually) and getting their own "Fanticide" written up, which they all share an investment and ownership in. (as opposed to a third non-miniatures party like SJG). The Brands™ would be their own brands - just the same as the theoretical RH ruleset is it's own brand, and Dreamforge's ruleset is also it's own brand.

This is a much better idea than an "open source" ruleset. However if they're all going to have their own version of the ruleset then I don't think it will be long before they modify it enough that it will not be compatible.

Another idea might be to have a ruleset for Dreamforge (the larger scale battle game, like 40k in scope) and have supplements that add the charachters or units from Raging Heroes and Hasslefree.

I don't see why skirmish can't be accomodated into a larger battle system. It could be as simple as adding an "advanced rules section" or "skirmish rules." I know, I'm being super creative this morning. It's just that with the more boutique producers, or at least the metal ones, a full army might not be in anyone's budget.

Az: Wouldn't it be simpler if the core ruleset was its own brand and RH, DFG, Defiance (gah) made their own compatible army list? Or if the community worked to make the list compatible?

It could be a way for manufacturers of assessing what the community thinks of their game as well. Imagine Tony Reidy seeing this and going "uh, so not everyone sees our PZG as gods of war who can annihilate everyone" and it might act as tacit feedback.

For what it's worth... I've always wanted to field a few Space Marines against a WFB Empire army...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And if I'm not too coherent, be gentle, I'm in the middle of exams.

Adding "skirmish" rules to a mass/larger battle system could be as simple as fleshing out the rules for characters/individuals and putting the focus on them for that battle. Instead of your basic unit being a "unit" it could instead be an individual (probably with multiple wounds).

On a slightly different note, if the ruleset had a solid "army creation system" it would eliminate the possibility of companies adjusting their points to make their models better. That said, it also creates a bit of a problem in that one person may use Company X's models and rules, while another player only uses Company X's models and designs their own rules (within the system); this could make it rather confusing for tournament play.

No, because if you want a good game the entire focus should be on the characters.

A good mass battles game (that means not something like 40k) should have the attention on the big picture and not on the individuals, a good skirmish game should focus on individual members not on big formations, these needs exclude overlapping if you want good rules.

And yes you can have squads in a skirmish game, but each squad should behave as would would expect from an individual and players should be able to interact with individual members of the squads, this is bad game design in a mass battles game.

Basically a true mass-battles won't focus so much on the unit members dying, but the unit as a whole, and the army as a whole? Something more like Flames of War or Kings of War...?

Do you think that it would be possible to have a set of core mechanics that could run both mass-battles and skirmish, while having either army creation or more specific rules for each genre further differentiate the two?

Correct on the first, the more you put on the table the more abstract the game should be, when you are commanding at company level, you do not care if private X from squad Y platoon Z carries a missile launcher and is good at it, what you care is that lieutenant of platoon 1C has understood your orders and is now positioning his platoon on cover to suppress the enemy formation that has taken cover in the buildings surrounding the roundabout.

On contrast on squad level you really care if private Michel that has the missile launcher is well trained and a good shot with it because the enemies have brought two exo armoured troops and the light weapons of the squad will have trouble eliminating them.

On the second part, I do not think that there will be a core set of game mechanics that can cover skirmish and mass battles in the same scale because the tactical and command needs are different, one could try to convert a "squad" to a "platoon" and to be honest I am experimenting with this very idea, but it leaves much to be desired, on the execution.

The needs of what each level of engagement needs are different and the rules should focus more on the different aspects.

That makes sense and I can agree with that.

So with the abovementioned companies, which setting would they fit best in? I suppose a better question would be "how big (model-wise) can/should skirmish go?" 5-10? 20-100?

Depends on what they want to sell really, a company that does really well sculpted, detailed, monoposed 28-30 mm models with the appropriate price tag should want to go for skirmish gaming, few models makes their range affordable and showcases their company.

On the contrary a company that sells decent to well sculpted multiposed models with low price tag should want to focus on mass battles format, were the masses of troops will serve their market strategy, when you make cheap models you do not want 10 or even 20 in the game you want a hundred or two hundred.

But after the scale of engagement there is a plethora of other things to decide, does the company want vehicles in, what will be the focus individual squads, formations, does something need to be showcased by the rules, can you go out of what the company already creates? the list goes on.

Good point. If there was a simple answer to this, the game would likely already be made.

That is the reason I keep this stance on it, it is not a negative stance, its a pragmatic stance.

D20 system. GURPS, tristat all tap on the virtue of RPG's been on the same scale always, players play an individual interacting with other individuals (players) and the world, game masters are the world.

Now the setting is irrelevant, players may be Neanderthals and homo sapiens at 200k BC after the Toba disaster or sentient fungoid of the Zcore space alliance at the war of the seven systems but the core system will always involve individuals interacting with the environment and other individuals, this allows everybody who wants to do so to create an add on adding what they need on the core system.

On the other hand wargames are more needed, they are not on the same scale, not on the same level and each company does not have the same needs thes eare the reasons why I do not think a generic wargame system will ever work.

Another problem is that generic wargame systems that try to cover as wide a gap as they can fall victims to bloating getting more into the core than they need.

Have you ever played "I ain't been shot, Mum?" It's the only WW2 mass battle system I tried, and apart from the fact that as soon as you suffered a single casualty in a squad it became useless, the level of abstraction of moving little stands of infantry instead of individual models was fine.

I could survive with a little stand of less than 10 space marines being moved to represent a full squad. You leave a little space on the stand to count down the members.

I still think the same rulebook, if generic enough, could have interesting skirmish rules as a section and mass battle games as another. It would consolidate the offer much more.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I forgot to add, I agree with the general statements and the specific examples you put forth, Psy.

An option would be to have basic rules that underlay how movement, shooting and combat are resolved, but then have rules that can slot in depending on the scale of the game. Say skirmish could represent individual models with statlines, whereas mass combat could instead grant a unit as a whole with a statline and effects would be resolved against an individual model in skirmish and a unit in mass combat.

Interesting thread, glad I found it!

A few points to consider, from the "small manufacturer" side of things - Im Joel from Anvil Industry and Im one of a small army of people planning "their own game".


- All the different companies who could be interested will have vastly differing scales of operation, financial resources, miniatures ranges etc and will want many different things from the rules set, how do you combine these competing needs?

-Making a "basic" ruleset is great, but if you try and include every possible kind of miniature/tactic/weapon you end up with a huge and complex rules set, which few people will want to sit through and learn.

On the flip side, if you make it overly simplistic, then it becomes rather limited in scope and all the different manufacturers are going to want to add in lots of extra rules for their own figures.

-Balance is a big issue, as has been noted, its virtually impossible to make a system which can fairly assign a "points cost" to any invented unit, that can only happen with usefull play testing time with human beings and the units concerned, and they have to be balanced against other units being created at the same time, this means you would have to create a number of "basic unit types" and then assign miniatures to pre existing unit entrys.

-Different manufacturers will want to focus their games in different ways and will have many unique ideas to add flavour and tactical interest. It would be almost impossible to come up with a system which wasnt then changed a bit by everyone to suit their own needs, at which point you just have half a dozen similar but incompatible games rules sets.

-Another issue is the financial incentive - a rules set, designed specifically for a particular miniatures range, acts as an advert for that product, thats why so many companies make their "quick rules" available to download for free.

Why would a company want to actively promote and finance a rules set which can be used with any other companies figures also, when its impossible to guarantee a return on the investment?


If you want a "general rules set" which is designed to use any figures, then why not just pick your favourite wargame ruleset and proxie any old models you like. Thats what people do with my product range at the moment.

--------

Referring specifically to the planned Anvil Industry Game - the first time Ive really discussed this in public -

I have a very specific vision for the game background, play style, ruleset/tactical options and miniatures, and each element will be designed to work in harmony with the others. I will be writing the rules as a means to play scenarios linked to a developing narrative and story line. The rules will necessarily have to reflect the specific style of military operations and the goals of each set of scenarios/missions.

The plan, very roughly, is to release the game in a series of narrative "chapters", each one of which will add new miniatures and expand the background while moving the storyline forward with a series of linked missions (plus the usual "line up and kill the other guy" type rules.

I have so many specific ideas for the units and tactics I want to see employed that using any kind of "generic" rules system just wouldnt work for the game, unless as I mentioned, the rules set was was incredibly complicated, which is its self a barrier to new players.

The most popular sci-fi game ruleset is boring and clunky, but does at least have the advantage that its core mechanics are relatively simple and easy to pick up, which is important.


TL/DR - This is a great idea in principle, but every manufacturer will want to do their game slightly differently, and in making a ruleset which is capable of factoring in ALL competing requirements risks being far to complicated for new players to bother learning. There are a lot of barriers to effectively creating a universal rules set which then needs to become well known in order to gain traction.

Cheers guys,

I will continue to follow this thread with interest.

Joel

Anvil Industry

Sergio Tulkas wrote:
2.creating a set of armybooks that should be balanced between them

This is not possible. The way I'd like to see it is people would have templates - archetypes if you will - that you would assign. You'd simply pick the archetype that fits - like "heavy infantry" for space marines, and use the profile for heavy infantry to decide points. Maybe collect together a bunch of different profiles for what game system has what profile for what unit in the same way that Army Builder comes up with their stuff.

The goal here is not to write a ruleset that would make other rulesets from major companies who have millions of dollars to throw at rules obsolete - that's not going to happen. It's simply, at least in my mind, a way to use minis that don't have any rules at all, or from games that don't normally fit together.

The challenges here are incredible; I certainly couldn't make this happen in a meaningful way. But to the smaller guys that don't have rules and aren't good at doing so, I imagine there must be quite an incentive to do so. Besides, hard isn't impossible. We do hard stuff all the time, we use our smart people for that.

-Another issue is the financial incentive - a rules set, designed specifically for a particular miniatures range, acts as an advert for that product, thats why so many companies make their "quick rules" available to download for free.

Why would a company want to actively promote and finance a rules set which can be used with any other companies figures also, when its impossible to guarantee a return on the investment?


If you want a "general rules set" which is designed to use any figures, then why not just pick your favourite wargame ruleset and proxie any old models you like. Thats what people do with my product range at the moment.

Hmm, I'll explain my current predicament as a random consumer. There are a great many models and games out there currently. I have found a number of models that I really like the looks of, but that have no corresponding game or "use" for them and, as a result, I'm less inclined to buy them. This supports your statement of "free quick-rules" promoting a company's game. With that in mind, supporting a generic system that also supports other companies doesn't make much sense.

I am currently looking really hard at the Dreamforge Stormtroopers. I like the models, but I do not play 40k (the most obvious game to proxy them for). I have heard that they are working on a game of their own, which is great! I can then buy the models and play the Dreamforge game! Unfortunately, trying to convince my normal gaming group that they should play this game instead of/as well as 40k, Infinity, Malifaux, Warmahordes, ect, might prove rather difficult. Personally, I'm getting a bit sick of learning 5-10 different rulesets based on what army/game I want to play. Part of it comes down to how much free time I get for gaming; if I can only play 1 or two games a week, I generally want to play my favourite one (in this case Warmahordes), which leaves my other armies and games sitting and collecting dust (Infinity, Flames of War, Warhammer, Malifaux). Thinking about this, I may pass on the Dreamforge models because I don't want to learn yet another game and have to convince people they should play it instead.

Further on the thought of proxying... Let's say I get your "free quick-start" rules from Anvil Industry and like the rules, but proxy all of my models because I don't like the ones you make (just speaking theoretically here). In this case, you gain a bit of recognition from the rules, but none of the profits from the models you are trying to sell. Alternately, you'll have people who dislike your rules, but buy models from your range to proxy for other games. Essentially proxying works both ways and I would argue that if people like your models and can use them, they will buy them, then make the rules work.

The point I'm trying to make is that having a "generic ruleset" will not invalidate the companies involved due to differing rulesets. Hmm, perhaps an example? Imagine if GW was instead a bunch of little companies with each company producing one army for 40k (heh, let's also assume that the game is fairly balanced too). If someone wants to play Tau, they will buy models from Tau company. If they want to play Chaos, they will buy from Chaos company. The players will be able to find games anywhere they go due to the game being generic and/or (hopefully) widespread enough that there are players everywhere. Admittedly, for this to work the ruleset would have to be very tight and either have strict rules for designing forces and assigning points or have that done by a third-party.


Eh, maybe it is more of a dream than anything.

Edit: It's nice to see some actual manufacturers getting into this dicussion too.

Ouze: so a list of generic troop and vehicle options would be a section of the generic core rules? I could definitely live with that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
A friend of mine on the forum, Ironbovin, proposed a card shuffle mechanism to select which unit goes when, with reshuffling in between each draw, to keep it as random as possible.

I argued that it could, theoretically, get very dull for the opponent whose cards never come up. Aside from the vagaries of war being such, does anyone else think this is a good idea?

I think that's a pretty awesome idea, the shuffling, and would like to see something like that as a variant at least, like a mission type.

 Goremaul wrote:


Hmm, I'll explain my current predicament as a random consumer. There are a great many models and games out there currently. I have found a number of models that I really like the looks of, but that have no corresponding game or "use" for them and, as a result, I'm less inclined to buy them. This supports your statement of "free quick-rules" promoting a company's game. With that in mind, supporting a generic system that also supports other companies doesn't make much sense.

I am currently looking really hard at the Dreamforge Stormtroopers. I like the models, but I do not play 40k (the most obvious game to proxy them for). I have heard that they are working on a game of their own, which is great! I can then buy the models and play the Dreamforge game! Unfortunately, trying to convince my normal gaming group that they should play this game instead of/as well as 40k, Infinity, Malifaux, Warmahordes, ect, might prove rather difficult. Personally, I'm getting a bit sick of learning 5-10 different rulesets based on what army/game I want to play. Part of it comes down to how much free time I get for gaming; if I can only play 1 or two games a week, I generally want to play my favourite one (in this case Warmahordes), which leaves my other armies and games sitting and collecting dust (Infinity, Flames of War, Warhammer, Malifaux). Thinking about this, I may pass on the Dreamforge models because I don't want to learn yet another game and have to convince people they should play it instead.
\
The point I'm trying to make is that having a "generic ruleset" will not invalidate the companies involved due to differing rulesets. Hmm, perhaps an example? Imagine if GW was instead a bunch of little companies with each company producing one army for 40k (heh, let's also assume that the game is fairly balanced too). If someone wants to play Tau, they will buy models from Tau company. If they want to play Chaos, they will buy from Chaos company. The players will be able to find games anywhere they go due to the game being generic and/or (hopefully) widespread enough that there are players everywhere. Admittedly, for this to work the ruleset would have to be very tight and either have strict rules for designing forces and assigning points or have that done by a third-party.

Eh, maybe it is more of a dream than anything.
)

I think you hit it on the head with that last statement. The chances of a bunch of companies agreeing on anything is pretty slim.

Good Generic rules to use with your Dreamforge figs already exist (Tomorrow's War, Warengine, No Limits, etc...). The problem, as you rightly point out, is getting your friend's to play those rules. Adding another ruleset to the mix -even one sponsored by a batch of indie companies- won't make it any more likely that your friend's will be wanting to play those rules.

The onus for making a generic ruleset (a new one or an old one) play is -as it has always been- on the gamer. You have to go out and do the legwork of finding like minded gamers or converting a few to your point of view. I was lucky enough to be able to find such people, and we've been playing generic games every other week for 3 years.


Lastly, and what some folks seem to forget is this:

Generic rulesets, are -by nature- breakable.

At this point I've probably played over a dozen rulesets with a unit creation mechanic. When the authors put the ability to build units in the hands of players, there are ALWAYS ways to manipulate the rules to create uber-charachters and imbalance the game, often resulting in an arms-race-like atmosphere where folks have to maintain a steady diet of cheese just to have a chance of winning. A group that cannot manage the WAAC impulses of their members will quickly find generic rulesets unplayable or at least not-enjoyable. That's why most folks are content to leave balance (or some approximation thereof) in the hands of game designers.

In our club we've done a pretty good job of culling that impulse, but sometimes we have to house rule to keep it so. I love generic rules, but I'm keenly aware of the extra effort required to make them work for a gaming group. That's why good generic rulesets will continue to be written and some will even sell pretty well, but I don't think that a generic ruleset will ever catch on in a "big" way.

Generic rulesets, are -by nature- breakable.

Too true sadly.

So the best case scenario would be a company/group (Entity Prime!) that -only- produces the rules to the game, then other companies create models and submit their rules to Entity Prime, who then playtests and makes changes to fit the models/army into the game. Rules are released either as pdfs or books... Maybe have the rules as a free pdf and then the companies can release their own "codexes"? Would something like this work...?

 Goremaul wrote:

Generic rulesets, are -by nature- breakable.

Too true sadly.

So the best case scenario would be a company/group (Entity Prime!) that -only- produces the rules to the game, then other companies create models and submit their rules to Entity Prime, who then playtests and makes changes to fit the models/army into the game. Rules are released either as pdfs or books... Maybe have the rules as a free pdf and then the companies can release their own "codexes"? Would something like this work...?

In a way it already has.

Two Hour Wargames has partnered with Rebel Miniatures (and possibly other companies) to make several rulesets (each with it's own army lists) that use their "Reaction" gaming engine. Technically these are separate games from THW's own games, but they are very similar, and in some cases cross compatible.

Ganesha Games did the same thing. Adapting it's rulesets for other companies miniatures, but retaining full or partial compatibility with their own rules.
-"Song of the Splintered Lands", for Splintered light miniatures and "Song of Fur and Buttons" for Eureka's colonial teddy bears are both completely compatible with "Song of Blades and Heroes"
-"Song of our Ancestors" for Zombiesmiths "Quar" minaiures is compatible with "Flying Lead"
-"Deep Wars" for Antimater games is mostly compatible (with some mods) with Song of Blades and heroes.

Ganesha is in progress of making a document that includes stats for Song of Blades and Heroes and Tale of Blades and Heroes (the RPG game) for every Reaper Bones miniatures. Additionally, Ganesha games almost all have unit creation mechanics and online force builders so you can stat up any miniature you have for thier games.

Craig Cartmell took his "In The Emperor's Name" game, a free fan-supported ruleset of 40k warband combat, and adapted it for Steampunk/Victoriana. It's now available from Osprey as "In Her Magesty's Name", with figs from North Star Miniatures

Lastly, when released, the game "Future War Commander" included stats for dozens of existing miniatures lines.

What I'm saying is that non-open-source rulesets already exist where the authors are willing to enter into agreements to make variant games or army lists for the miniatures, or settings of other companies. I'd put alot more trust in these proven rulesets where the author retains some measure of control than a more nebulously lead "open source" project.

 Goremaul wrote:

Generic rulesets, are -by nature- breakable.

Too true sadly.

So the best case scenario would be a company/group (Entity Prime!) that -only- produces the rules to the game, then other companies create models and submit their rules to Entity Prime, who then playtests and makes changes to fit the models/army into the game. Rules are released either as pdfs or books... Maybe have the rules as a free pdf and then the companies can release their own "codexes"? Would something like this work...?

That's the model I'm using for Aetherverse. Anybody is free to publish army lists/books using the rules, and there is a submission procedure in place to allow anyone to suggest new rules that they might need to fit their desired models. I still remain in control of what is legal, rules-wise, so that there's at least SOME semblance of balance.

I endorse this thread!

I agree with the premise, with all the mini companies, myself included running kickstarter and releasing new shinny toys, it would be nice to have an answer to a growing problem.

I have always said you cannot piss in a corner without hitting a ‘new game system’. I think the crux of such a design would be a very robust point purchase/unit build system that way the gamer and or the manufacturers could lay out the unit’s strengths, weaknesses and stats and play a balanced game with ANY figures.
I look back on RPG’s, Traveler, ICE, etc. where they had detailed unit creation systems.. ICE (Iron Crown Enterprises) although very complicated did just that, a generic sci-fi or fantasy game that had detailed unit/vehicle creation rules that allowed full customization and use within a game. You would need to test the rules past break point to get the balance right, but for the most part it is just math, %’s and costs.

Point me to some willing partners on such a venture and I would be happy to talk about the possibilities.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I was looking at 2-hours games ‘Recation system’ group of games as one potential match but I am not sold on the idea, mainly because its needs a bit more streamlining. If you want to field a smallish number of units it’s a good system but the player does loose some control over their units as some reactions are random. When you scale it up to Company sized games it starts to break under its size and complexity.

Point me to some willing partners on such a venture and I would be happy to talk about the possibilities.

If you're willing, maybe check out the rules/premise for Aetherverse. I am not the creator, but I want to (am?) doing some playtesting with a couple of friends for the system. Magc8Ball is really good at taking responses and feedback for it as well. We've got a thread about it over here (http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/518044.page). Check it out!

I may have based the army I played the other day off of the Eisenkern Stormtroopers...

 NoseGoblin wrote:


Point me to some willing partners on such a venture and I would be happy to talk about the possibilities.

This just got a lot more interesting!

Some thoughts:

The producer of the core system needs to be VERY active in supporting the system, this is one of the things that drew me to Two Hour Wargames, an existing fan base and a very active support group.

Name recognition would help, if you had a designer that was widely known within the industry it would certainly help generate more interest not only that of the end user but also the miniature manufacturers.

Cheese limiting design factors, you would need to have a very robust unit generation mechanic that would not allow ‘wherever possible’ Cheeze Whiz unit design “What do you mean I cannot mount 20 quad cannons on that half-track, it’s big and there is clearly room”.

A concerted effort to cross promote, not only by the core rule maker but also by the independent manufacturers. A yearly small licensing fee paid by people such as myself that is used to advertise the core system and promote awareness as well as fund promotions at the major conventions.

Last but certainly not least a fast and fun system that attempts to meet the needs of the widest variety of gaming styles.

They system would need to be scalable and fast with emphasis on numerical values over fluff and 'special abilities' this is the only way you will ever get armies form assorted manufacturers to play well together. I.E. an attack 6 with a range of 6 costs X points it it only has a range of 4 then it costs Y points, etc. If you want to add flavor to the play you can do it with event cards or some such thing but the base play will need to be very simple and the costs vs power of the attack and defense ,etc will need to be pretty straight forward.

 NoseGoblin wrote:

I was looking at 2-hours games ‘Recation system’ group of games as one potential match but I am not sold on the idea, mainly because its needs a bit more streamlining. If you want to field a smallish number of units it’s a good system but the player does loose some control over their units as some reactions are random. When you scale it up to Company sized games it starts to break under its size and complexity.

Why are you looking at company size games (80-250 men per side) when you are manufacturing 28mm figures? Surely you're not trying to cram more figs on a board than 40k's
armies-on-a-parade-ground setup?

As for THW. I'm not a huge fan of the reaction system, but it has alot of fans. Have you read the new 5150 Star Army ruleset? Ed claims that it has been modified from the original 5150 so it scales up to easily handle a few platoons on a side plus vehicles.

WarEngine might be one option. It's going to need some bolt-ons for huge mechs, but it's a very nice system that works well for platoon v platoon. Aaron (the creator) has been fiddling around with version 3.0 for a while, but he might be interested in working with a motivated company.

No, not advocating cramming a board, (I hate the Apoc parking lot) but I prefer not to rule out the option of larger forces spread over several boards with several players. I have always loved large scale games with several players as long as there is proper terrain then it makes for quite a spectacle and a very memorable game day.

I have a copy of Star Army but no one to play it with so I cannot judge the play speed aside form a solo game.

I cannot comment on WarEngine as I have never seen it, do you have a link?

I am also producing models in 15mm, Depending on the markets reaction to the 15mm kits currently in the queue I may release the full range in 15mm scale as well.

Two Fat Lardies have Quadrant 13, I'm reading the rules right now. It's based on their I ain't been shot, mum! system, which is to say that army list generation is pretty much by concensus.

Mark: Aetherverse seems to be very quick to play, from the playtest (insert name here) has been describing to Magic8Ball. It would represent the relative fragility of infantry when compared to gods of war such as Leviathans, methink.

Please, please please don't use StarGrunt...

I think Unified Game Theory did a great job with their Vortex ruleset. Designed to cover any type of figure with a point based build system and a bunch of scenraios to play with. Even have some free combatants inspired by the recent Reaper Kickstarter (the base rules are also free).

http://www.unifiedtheorygames.com/

I've been of the mind that no create your own units with points rules system will ever gain enough traction to dominate. The people who would play those games are all looking for different things. People don't want to do even more work just to start playing. They want the package. It also means that it's difficult to include and balance any of the more interesting features and abilities that players like in miniature games these days.

My idea was for a package system, with its own line of quality figures, army lists, and setting all built to high production values. Just like Warmachine or 40k. However, instead of a point creation system tacked on, it instead had a semi-open license to other miniature manufacturers to create packaged and vetted content for the rules and setting.

So for example, my scifi game, it's set in a bright future with a galaxy teeming with life. So it makes sense in the fluff that you have all these new aliens popping up all over the place. Any company that manufactures miniatures, and doesn't have a game of its own may freely use the open license to release either full army lists, or stats to use their miniatures as mercenary units, or both. This would include some limited use of the main game's promotional material, such as the logos, and other copyrighted names, etc.

Of course, there would have to be some quality control.

Business-wise, it's a somewhat terrible idea since it can pollute the image of your product, and lets other manufacturers undercut you while still using your own stuff. However, it may work due to the relative small and niche status of our hobby. We are a pretty small fraction of the entertainment industry as a whole, we're competing with movies, video games, and life for time, money, and table space.

Any market image, or sales, lost from this program might be made up by mind share. Being able to get control of the tabletops, letting people play with your rules, even if it's not your miniatures, means more potential players who are looking for more production value and official support.

For the manufacturers, the incentive to use this system would be to have official rules and a system behind it, and some other options for paid, opt-in programs where you get official status for your 3rd party miniatures, inclusion in the overall balance of the game, and your units are allowed at official events and tournaments. No longer are your 3rd party miniatures limited to use as proxies/counts as, or in less popular construct your own rules, but instead gain promotion by being usable in a larger popular game.

At least that's the theory, the reality is I don't know enough about business to make that call, and any system trying to make use of this needs to gain enough popularity from the start to try and push this.

I think this is an interesting idea. What i would recromend looking at is not so much making unit types to be needed for certain reasons ( 40k's silly infantry are really only needed for taking objectives), but making each unit type have certain advantages or having a certain place on the battlefield or role if you will to play. DBA is a very good game that shows this well. Support Infantry you could say are needed to support other infantry when assaulting enemy units that are dug in or behind cover. Artillery or mortar forces are great for softening enemy resistance that if you didnt do that you could exspect alot more losses attacking the enemy positions if not all out failure, however you still need the more basic infantry to assault those said postions .

Things like that, watch a ton of history shows and make it a feel of you can bring in what ever you want for your force, every unit has its strengths and weaknesses, Tanks for example are very exsposded to even weaker infantry AT weapons and need the support of infantry to avoid being taken out. I do know when i release my starting range and all goes well , i will be teaming up with someone to produce a very fun game system , that will also allow army creation into it within limits.

However as many earlyier have said and i agree many companies have failed in this path, that i feel is because they price their forces only for their game and such are not priced well to be used in other games. I can assure you i wont be making that mistake!, i will ensure my pricing is very competitive and attractive for all the community .

Anyhow if a game system is produced i would certainly back it, though no matter what if i do well i will create my own game system, but its success is not as much of a concern for me it will be more of a game system that i want to play because i enjoy the game as i have not found a game system out their sadly that is built more or less in the way i have described above !.

Good luck guys and look forward to seeing what you all create !

with best regards - Shawn.

My advice, price your product for what it is, not what the competition has.

Let your product sell for its own unique points and price it accordingly, if the miniatures are high quality sculpts and casting, they cannot be priced the same level average sculpts and casting models are, if you plan on a skirmish level game you can't expect to sustain your game with mass battle prices (that's a good reason why skirmish games tend to have higher quality sculpts and casting) .

Ignore the competition as far as compatibility goes, if your models are good, then people will buy them regardless of scale, proportions ectr, the majority of people complaining about not been compatible would not buy them even if they were, with a minority complaining of you trying to tap on X game systems popularity with your sculpts.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
My advice, price your product for what it is, not what the competition has.

Let your product sell for its own unique points and price it accordingly, if the miniatures are high quality sculpts and casting, they cannot be priced the same level average sculpts and casting models are, if you plan on a skirmish level game you can't expect to sustain your game with mass battle prices (that's a good reason why skirmish games tend to have higher quality sculpts and casting) .

Ignore the competition as far as compatibility goes, if your models are good, then people will buy them regardless of scale, proportions ectr, the majority of people complaining about not been compatible would not buy them even if they were, with a minority complaining of you trying to tap on X game systems popularity with your sculpts.

I dont know for sure if this comment is aimed towards me or towards the OP, however your talking about sculpts so i am going to assume its for me !, I dont want to bring this thread off track but i should respond to your feed back which i do apprecaite!. I tend to aim in somewhere in the middle, my miniatures are aimed to be high detail sculpts but i am getting them done in a way that is alot less costly than most companies do or havent yet considerd to do. So i will be able to sell my miniatures at a lower price which will give me that much better of a chance at getting the markets attention.

I know my range wont be switch parts out as compatable as some other miniature ranges are, and its good to hear most are not concerned for that, for i am to bring a unique line of miniatures to the market and not so much as rip offs or generic bland miniatures. I see your point as well and i agree is my main focus if the miniaturse are good enough sculpts they will sell themselves, when i do eventualy create our game system it will be aimed at around a platoon size game being the average full force game size.

thank you for posting your thoughts and feed back i greatly appreciate and will consider all you have posted here!.

thanks again and with best regards - Shawn.

I know I love In the Emperor's Name for playing rules-light skirmishes in the 40K universe, and I am currently pondering ways to make it a larger game. Currently it's a game of alternating activations, but actually in each phase of Movement, Shooting, Hand-to-Hand, etc., rather than a complete set of game phases with each unit.

It's rules-light, so there are easy creation rules for all sorts of fighters, any types of weapons you want to port in from 40K, infantry armor and vehicles.

Unfortunately the gameplay gets cumbersome with more than 10-12 figures per player. I want a system that's about the size of a 1500 pt WH40K 2nd edition game, where you might see a player fielding two units of Space marines, a Hero, and a Dreadnought on the field as a complete force.

I have been pondering, and I think that if each alternation activated a unit, instead of a single figure, things might actually balance out right there. There's even a bare-bones system for making vehicles, which would suffice for the types of vehicles such a small skirmish would see (like a Marine or Eldar bike/jetbike).


There have been tons of generic rulesets ever since Stargrunt And Stargrunt II in the 80's and 90's. Stargrunt II is completely free to download, but is pretty rules crunchy in that time-period's style of wargames, which I unfortunately dislike.

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/5686/stargrunt-ii

As said before several generic "open source" rulesets I have been meaning to check out are:

-Tomorrows War
-Gruntz
-both Scifi and Fantasy settings of Song of Blades and Heroes
etc.

The best part about generic rule systems is they don't have to be the Games Workshop-esque juggernaut. They are for people who are in it for the social aspect of gaming, as well as for the figures. The best rulesets are the ones that provide a fun game, but without overshadowing the two previous things. I love 40K for the universe and the figures. I only play 40K because it's the "familiar" option. On the other hand, I hate the tomes of rules and tedious collections of FAQ's that are required to play in my favorite sci-fi universe with the figure I love.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
I

Unfortunately the gameplay gets cumbersome with more than 10-12 figures per player. I want a system that's about the size of a 1500 pt WH40K 2nd edition game, where you might see a player fielding two units of Space marines, a Hero, and a Dreadnought on the field as a complete force.

I have been pondering, and I think that if each alternation activated a unit, instead of a single figure, things might actually balance out right there. There's even a bare-bones system for making vehicles, which would suffice for the types of vehicles such a small skirmish would see (like a Marine or Eldar bike/jetbike).
.

I think I mentioned it before, but if you're looking for an alternate unit activation system that is aimed at a few squads, heroes and very small vehicles, then you really need to check out WarEngine: The Wiki crashed last year, but all the rules (2.1 or 2.12 is the current version) are here:
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/WarEngine/
,,, as well as alot of force lists for 40k figs.
It's a fast system, but not lacking in tactical depth. It is not a reaction system like THW or Tomorrow's War though.

Thanks, I'll have to look into it!

I just had a quick look at three proposed universal games, waiting for a deeper review:

Aetherverse
open source. the second version of the rules is a work in progress (the fist version is still available). The core without army lists is around 60 pages. There is a minimal set of special rules (5 pages). The point cost value stems from a formula. d10 system.

Vortex (free version 29 pages)
you pay for it so I have no access to the complete version. Probably (because of the sentence "The full 172 page Core Rulebook contains not only these basic rules, but complete tools for building Combatants") the point cost value stems from a formula. d10 system.

Exoshift
(edit: Exoshift isn't open) the availabel version is the 0.36, 14 pages. There is just a page of special rules. d10 system. The army lists are not yet available but the point cost value maybe is not issued from a formula.

My ideal game (but you should cope with reality):
Free, possibly also opens source, a good set of special rules, d6 system, no-formula: standard profiles with point cost as references: you can possibly add units after a testing quality check.

underfire wargaming wrote:

I dont know for sure if this comment is aimed towards me or towards the OP, however your talking about sculpts so i am going to assume its for me !, I dont want to bring this thread off track but i should respond to your feed back which i do apprecaite!. I tend to aim in somewhere in the middle, my miniatures are aimed to be high detail sculpts but i am getting them done in a way that is alot less costly than most companies do or havent yet considerd to do. So i will be able to sell my miniatures at a lower price which will give me that much better of a chance at getting the markets attention.

I know my range wont be switch parts out as compatable as some other miniature ranges are, and its good to hear most are not concerned for that, for i am to bring a unique line of miniatures to the market and not so much as rip offs or generic bland miniatures. I see your point as well and i agree is my main focus if the miniaturse are good enough sculpts they will sell themselves, when i do eventualy create our game system it will be aimed at around a platoon size game being the average full force game size.

thank you for posting your thoughts and feed back i greatly appreciate and will consider all you have posted here!.

thanks again and with best regards - Shawn.

Indeed it was for you, will be interesting to see what you have planned.

I especially like In the Emperor's Name, as it is super rules-light, D6-based, has a super-simple formula for fighter, vehicle and weapon creation, and has a very easy system for quick gaming with points-balanced forces. Lots of the other games I really like are purely scenario-driven (a system I don't particularly like), so a simple "500 point" force is impossible with those.

Also, games without a standard "I go, You go" system are a refreshing change. Too many games of 40K result in a 10-minute wait until you can use what's now left of your force that you couldn't do anything to mitigate damage to other than armor save rolls. It's kind of draconian.

But then again I am on a rules-light kick lately. I can turn to 40K and AT-43.Confrontation: Age of Ragnarok for 80-page rulebooks. Hell, the current RPG I want to run is 16 pages, and I think ITEN is about 20..

Exoshift isn't open. My earlier post was just an idea early in development that has been shelved indefinitely. And I really need to take those old rules down.

Sergio Tulkas wrote:
My ideal game (but you should cope with reality):
Free, possibly also opens source, a good set of special rules, d6 system, no-formula: standard profiles with point cost as references: you can possibly add units after a testing quality check.

Asking for free rules development (or any free labor) is extremely unrealistic. What is the incentive of the developer to spend the time balancing and publishing? Someone *may* do it as a labor of love, but then it will be their sole vision on their time schedule. Expect such a project to never get off the ground or quit midway through. Any figure producer will only produce a ruleset to push their figures, because why encourage people to spend their money on competitors? Independants still need to pay the bills....

Without taking into account competitors, there is no real reason to develop something you do not produce and do not intent to produce, not only makes the system artifact heavy, it gives people wrong impressions/ hopes and makes streamlining/ polishing more difficult.

It is much easier to make games like Gruntz, the Song of Blades titles, and Heroes and Tomorrows War, where the main rules can encompass a huge amount of different companies' figures, with rules and stats that are purposefully generic so that each gaming group can put their own thematic spin on things without changing a single rule.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
It is much easier to make games like Gruntz, the Song of Blades titles, and Heroes and Tomorrows War, where the main rules can encompass a huge amount of different companies' figures, with rules and stats that are purposefully generic so that each gaming group can put their own thematic spin on things without changing a single rule.

I'd forgotten about Gruntz!
http://www.gruntz.biz/
http://www.wargamevault.com/product_info.php?products_id=92879
Currently it's aimed at 15mm, but it'd be a perfect candidate for upscaling to 28mm. It's also been extensively playtested, and has reportedly sold pretty well, so you're not looking at an untested system. It would easily handle the platoon-and-higher kind of engagements that the companies seem interested in. It's not open-source, but it has a unit creation mechanic.

Also, it's Profile-card method of force organization means that a company could simply sell a deck of cards anytime they want to release a new faction. It'd be a quick an easy way for multiple companies to get in on the action. Gruntz15mm has already parneted with several miniaitures companies,so clearly the author is open to colaboration.

I need to go look at my copy again.

One ideal thing about Gruntz is that each miniature producer has only to release their own cards for it, and that's the end of rules development for them. Or they could be community generated, much like how Army Builder has players creating profiles. Some sort of forum for people to submit "cards" "profiles" or what have you would be an essential piece of the puzzle, I think.

Sergio Tulkas wrote:
I just had a quick look at three proposed universal games, waiting for a deeper review:

Aetherverse
open source. the second version of the rules is a work in progress (the fist version is still available). The core without army lists is around 60 pages. There is a minimal set of special rules (5 pages). The point cost value stems from a formula. d10 system.

Point of order: the game actually has 17 pages of "special rules"; I suspect you just looked at the Army Characteristics and Unit Traits sections (which is about 5 pages) but there are also sections with special rules for weapons, armor, vehicles, and personalities that takes up significantly more space. This is also prior to adding in fluff and illustration for the abilities (which will occur in the "pretty" version of the rules) other than a couple of pictures put in to fill up dead space.

Everything else you said is true, though! Thanks for the inclusion in your overview; feel free to talk to me more directly if you'd like more information prior to doing a deeper review.

 Eilif wrote:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
It is much easier to make games like Gruntz, the Song of Blades titles, and Heroes and Tomorrows War, where the main rules can encompass a huge amount of different companies' figures, with rules and stats that are purposefully generic so that each gaming group can put their own thematic spin on things without changing a single rule.

I'd forgotten about Gruntz!
http://www.gruntz.biz/
http://www.wargamevault.com/product_info.php?products_id=92879
Currently it's aimed at 15mm, but it'd be a perfect candidate for upscaling to 28mm. It's also been extensively playtested, and has reportedly sold pretty well, so you're not looking at an untested system. It would easily handle the platoon-and-higher kind of engagements that the companies seem interested in. It's not open-source, but it has a unit creation mechanic.

Also, it's Profile-card method of force organization means that a company could simply sell a deck of cards anytime they want to release a new faction. It'd be a quick an easy way for multiple companies to get in on the action. Gruntz15mm has already parneted with several miniaitures companies,so clearly the author is open to colaboration.

I need to go look at my copy again.

I only have a basic knowledge of Gruntz. It uses a points-based army selection system, doesn't it? Also, does it scale well? As in, can the rules be used with forces that are only made of maybe two infantry units, and one or two vehicles as starting forces?

I've not played it yet, just spoken to some folks who have and it seemed cool enough that I bought the rules. I'd advise you to ask your questions directly to them at the Gruntz forum. I've heard that the creator is quite active there.

Cool. Definitely a good example of an existing open-source ruleset. Even better, it's one of the few good ones for 15mm, while tons of them are for 28mm.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Cool. Definitely a good example of an existing open-source ruleset. Even better, it's one of the few good ones for 15mm, while tons of them are for 28mm.

Indeed. Just a minor clarification though, the rules aren't open source. You have to buy them and the author controls all distribution and modification.

However, they are generic and have a unit creation mechanic so the rules can be used with virtually any sci-fi miniatures.

Erp, you caught me! Sorry, I meant more of the latter than the former. Though the price is so crazy low for what you get, balances against the fact that you can literally use any company's 15mm figures is so cool.

Yeah, the Gruntz model seems pretty nice, especially since there's a nice 15mm scifi scene that's been growing lately, and especially now with all the 3D printing available.

I've considered releasing my vehicle sculpts in 15mm scale just for people to use with Gruntz and other systems.

What's the key difference between average 28mm systems and 15mm systems? In my mind the only real difference is that having more room for models means that you're able to have more maneuver warfare and get closer to a true spread of weapon ranges (which makes balancing different) and can field more vehicles, but that you're essentially dealing with the same sort of rules.

Depends on your design perspective, if you still stick to moving individuals and keep the rules for individual figures, you have a 28mm game in a more proper battlefield space, if you decide to go for infantry bases you can shift the abstraction and make rules for formations and not individuals.

 Magc8Ball wrote:
What's the key difference between average 28mm systems and 15mm systems? In my mind the only real difference is that having more room for models means that you're able to have more maneuver warfare and get closer to a true spread of weapon ranges (which makes balancing different) and can field more vehicles, but that you're essentially dealing with the same sort of rules.

The main difference tends to be the size of the engagement that can be realistically (a relative term, but bear with me) fought on a standard sized gaming table and how the rules accommodate that. Not counting rulesets like 40k which cram a ridiculous number of 28mm units on the table.

In 15mm, you can (with some scale compression) fight with a couple platoons and a few vehicles on a 4x6. In 28mm, you can only realistically put about a platoon per side with anything more than a couple of vehicles really stretching credulity. Thus games aimed at 15 or 28mm scales are usually going to try to establish rules that best operate at those "scopes" Typically -though by no means always- a 28mm ruleset will have a bit more granularity to keep things interesting with fewer miniaitures on the table, whereas a 15mm ruleset will be a bit more abstract to accomodate more miniatures without bogging down.

This is by no means an absolute. Some rulesets like Song of Blades and Heroes have streamlined play at their core and simply provide guidelines that 15mm games be played on a smaller surface with shorter measurements. Games like Tomorrow's War (also aimed at 15 and 28mm) have a fair amount of complexity to the rules, but just assume that folks playing larger battles in smaller scales will simply take more time.

My initial lookover (have not played yet) of Gruntz 15mm is that with a standard food unit having a move of 4 inches and being played on a 4x4 table it could be played as-is with 28mm miniatures, or you could multiply all measurements by 1.5 and play on a larger 4x6 or 4x8 table.

I've some experience with this kind of thing. I used the 15mm rulset "Mech Attack!" as-is for 10mm miniatures and with doubled measurements and a double size table for 28mm games.

My 2 Cents,

A Universal Build Your Own Troops Tabletop Skirmish Game is a great idea. LIke others have pointed out, to varying degress of success, it's already been attempted.

Ganesha Games - Quick and fun, but I feel it's more of excuse to do light Role play with any particular figures you own. Something you can teach your kids, or friends, in a single night of gameplay, great for small skirmishes, but nothing really army sized.

2 Hour Wargames - I understand why the Reaction system is popular with some people, but I find it cumbersome, and not intuitive, for anything beyond All Things Zombie. Again more suited for light role playing with miniatures, and not army sized battles.

Shockforce/War Engine/GWAR by Demonblade Games/Dark Tortise Productions/Aaron Overton - Good Core Rules for tabletop battles. Designed mostly for skirmish, but handles 40K sized battles, about as well as 40K does, but it's out of print. They've had plans to re-release Warengine as a Fantasy Game, a WWII game, modern, etc... but Honestly I think they just have fun working on army rules for their own play and haven't had the energy, or funds, to push for it to be published again.
Shockforce had a minaitures line, but Diamond Distribution dropped them when they failed to reach pre-order quotas, so the game limped along for a few years by word of mouth sales. GWAR used what was essentially Shockforce 2.0 rules in a setting no one but GWAR fans cared about. Shockforce 2.0 was released briefly and then the company closed it doors. War Engine was the core rules put up on the internet to help encourage play to continue. The Wiki and rules eventually dissapeared. Honestly, I think they are hoping to turn a profit on it again, someday.
I playtested for Demonblade Games, and ran Demos for Shockforce 1st edition, so I might seem a little biased, but it's honestly my favorite of the bunch.


A universal game, without a setting will have a niche audience. The hard part would be selling miniatures makers that your game is worth them supporting, without them profiting from it some how,

Have you guys take a look to FUBAR rules? Its only one page or two and it uses D6.

FUBAR is cool, but it's abstract to the extreme.
http://thegamesshed.wordpress.com/2010/06/17/fubar-one-page-sfmodern-rules/
I don't think it has enough granularity for a company to be convinced that it would feature their models in a unique way. It's almost Panzer 8 (http://panzer8.weebly.com/) in it's simplicity.

In the Emperor's Name (by the same authors) is more granular, but it can't handle the number of units that FUBAR can. Still, both are worth trying out, as (Despite ITEN's 40k setting) they are both completely generic and flexible.

What I mean is using FUBAR as a startup for developing and extending the open source rules up to 20 pages. The guys at Theminiaturepage forum consider seven pages as a normal for a good skirmish game rules.

 Capt. Camping wrote:
What I mean is using FUBAR as a startup for developing and extending the open source rules up to 20 pages. The guys at Theminiaturepage forum consider seven pages as a normal for a good skirmish game rules.

I'm a TMP guy too and 7 pages does it for me (you could probably fit most of Song of Blades and Heroes core rules on 7 pages), but 2 pages (FUBAR) is pretty darn short to be a commercial success. It's a very elegant and simple ruleset, and that's kind of the point. I'm just not sure how it could be expanded to the size of a sellable ruleset and still be FUBAR.

Off topic a bit...

What might be cool to see is the best and most highly regarded ultra-simple homebrew or free rulesets issued in one book.

The idea is to have this for free to download and have contributions. See for example Wordpress development.

 Capt. Camping wrote:
The idea is to have this for free to download and have contributions. See for example Wordpress development.

Well, an idea is for it to be that way, yes. While that is the model that I'm using, from the thread you can see that there are plenty of other equally valid suggestions for this sort of model.

Someone did ask, though, what is in it for the designer to create and maintain such a system. For myself, it's partially just that I enjoy doing it: I love the design process and while I was in a major block for a number of years, I'm fully back in the swing and enjoying myself as much as I did when I wrote the first edition. That said, one can't really expect to do this sort of thing for free, forever... and no, I'm not expecting to do that either. However, there are a few things that I'm planning on to help in that regard. I'll share the first idea here for others who might be interested in the same.

For most designers, their goal is to make a game and then make the money off of selling miniatures. That's not my goal as I just don't have the financial wherewithal to do so and it defeats the philosophy of the game, anyways, as in my experience whenever a system has "official" miniatures, players tend towards being fixated on those being the ONLY miniatures to use. So, I'm just going to sell the rules... but they're still going to be free.

"Wha??"

There's a precedence for this sort of thing: webcomics. There are a number of very successful artists who have followed this model: they produce their content for free, as daily updates in their case (in my case it'll be monthly). After a certain amount of time has passed (usually when there's enough content to fill a book), they put together a compilation book and sell it. Fans that want to support the artist and/or want a printed copy for gifting or travel purposes buy it and have a hard copy of the work. That's what I'm going to be doing with the rules: once the Alpha Release is complete (which it will be in a couple of months), I'll be firing up a Kickstarter for the book. The initial goal will be to create a "pretty" PDF version (high quality art, professional layout, automatic updating if I can, etc) and a stretch goal will be the physical book. People that want to support the existence of a quality rules system that is independent of the whims of miniature companies can support it, as can those that enjoy the heft and convenience of a physical book versus a PDF (that is still somewhat slower to navigate than a printed copy). As I continue to create content (army lists, new rules, variations on the game to add a narrative version or to support other scales, etc) new compilations can be printed to meet whatever demand exists for those.*

There are other things that will help with keeping the motivation going, as well, such as trading miniatures for ad space on the site (I'm a hobbyist first and foremost, so more stuff to convert and paint is always welcome, and the game's main reason to exist is to support the hobby) as well as simply continuing to refine my design skills to maybe get hired on to write something for a larger publisher.

So... that's why I'm doing this: not to rake in the dough (my wife and I both work in Tech, so we're doing okay when one of us isn't laid off) but just to help put something good back into the hobby.

*: another way to view it is that after I finish the Alpha Release, the website will turn into a free version of White Dwarf Before It Sucked: lots of new rules, with periodic compilations of those rules being sold in a convenient all-in-one format.