Since I have a good deal of free time, I've re-started creation of two types of games: a tabletop game and an RPG similar to Pathfinder/DnD. At the moment, however, I'm more concerned about the TT game, and I'm trying to gauge what sort of game people would play. Of course, I won't be charging money for it (unless it turns out to be a huge hit, in which case I'll kickstart that mofo), but your suggestions will help guide my hand.

So, what kind of game do you want? Skirmish level like Infinity or malifaux, or something larger like 40k? Or maybe something that can go either way, working well at both levels?

I'm open to anything and everything! I will never say no to an idea!

 McNinja wrote:
I'm open to anything and everything! I will never say no to an idea!

MLP:FiM Battle Game...

Also it doesn't matter what we like, for every poster that posts in this thread you'll get a different answer. Make something you want to make.

Scale isn't important, I can enjoy any size or scale of game . What is important for a game (in order of importance) for me is:


1 A clearly written, functional consistent rule set that supports the creation of interesting game states.
2 A company that is active in the community, proactive about updates and providing general support.
3 A setting and aesthetics I enjoy.
4 An interesting & diverse set of game pieces (models) with distinct functions.
5 Good model quality.

 McNinja wrote:
I will never say no to an idea!

It has to be a mass battle game, with about twice as much stuff as a standard game of 40K. The scale needs to be the revolutionary 43mm, and it should also be about nothing but huge mechs fighting, standard table size should be a 2x2 board.

Oh, and most importantly it should be tied in to the MacGyver IP somehow.

Good luck!

Or, just make what you want to make.

i want a modern, carefully balanced, fully updated improved version of final fantasy tactics on the tabletop.

(im only talking about game mechanics and overall feel of game play here, not the FF character, setting etc)

kb305 wrote:
i want a modern, carefully balanced, fully updated improved version of final fantasy tactics on the tabletop.

(im only talking about game mechanics and overall feel of game play here, not the FF character, setting etc)

Might I suggest Endless Fantasy Tactics then?

 Alfndrate wrote:

 McNinja wrote:
I'm open to anything and everything! I will never say no to an idea!

MLP:FiM Battle Game...

Also it doesn't matter what we like, for every poster that posts in this thread you'll get a different answer. Make something you want to make.

Sorry, Alf, this is as far as I ever got on that...

http://vfocus.com/~bcj/PPP/

 Briancj wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

 McNinja wrote:
I'm open to anything and everything! I will never say no to an idea!

MLP:FiM Battle Game...

Also it doesn't matter what we like, for every poster that posts in this thread you'll get a different answer. Make something you want to make.

Sorry, Alf, this is as far as I ever got on that...

http://vfocus.com/~bcj/PPP/

Whelp... time to shut down the internet lads, Brian's finished it, and our job here is done.

I'm thinking of a fusion of 40k and WM rules in a near future setting [about 2050].

I want clear and solid rules, a good selection of armies and a equaly wide and different playstyle, also awesome fluff helps too

I also want something original and miniatures that are good to just paint.

3 dimensional space combat, like Starfleet Battles, but with that elusive z-axis. Firestorm Armada-esque in 3 dimensions? Yes please.

Terrain making could get super fun.

D6 based rules, hot chicks, cold beers.

 kronk wrote:
D6 based rules, hot chicks, cold beers.

Like so:
http://www.ehow.com/how_12052526_play-back-alley-dice.html

Spaceship combat gaming.

2 words:

Pro Wrestling

I love you guys.

Well if I could choose a theme and a scale for a tabletopgame I would like to have a maximum relism modern combat on a regiment/battallion scale. Something like dropzone commander but with more realism and more models. I would also like to have the non combat factors which are for a pity often forgotten in tabletop games. A good example of a such thing is the weather of the battlefield (for example you could have a limited range in a blizard). Other important non combat factors could be supplies.

I want rules that allow me to use other manufacturer's figures, even if 'official' figures get made.

They should be somewhat scale agnostic, catering to the 15mm and 28/32mm crowds at least.

I prefer rules that allow a degree of uncertainty as to what a player can accomplish each turn.

I would want a set that forces the player to make decisions relevant to his role. A company commander does not tell individual soldiers what target to engage or what type of ammo to engage it with for example.

I would prefer a set that can be played on a 2x2 ft table but can also play on bigger.

As for period/genre, I would like to see a good 'mad max' type game but scaled up to where a player is controlling war bands of up to 30 or so guys and a handful of vehicles. A maneuver unit would be a squad or team of 3-10 guys. Alternately a set of rues for a semi-historical setting with pirate crews/native tribes/government forces again a level up from skirmish (which in my mind equals to the player maneuvering individuals vice teams/squads). I want the player to be able to handle up to 50 figures in units of 5 or so.

Weather is an amazing idea! I know the system will revolve around sci-fi (for starters), but trying trying to make it robust as possible possible to allow anyone to use any any sort of models with it, allowing for everything from single model rpg style games to full full-scale 40k apocalypse sized games.

A good solid rules set in my eyes that's what you need to make the game a hit. A good background and fluff.

clear and intuitive rules that are unintuitive when needed.
A miniature count of between 5 and 30 a side.
Some cool background that isn't grimdark emo patheticism.
For a background I like urban decay cyberpunk so something like shadowrun. (which i think is happening later this year )

Hey, Mc? I've been working on a system as well. Wanna join forces?

The feeling that the company that makes it isn't shoving anything up my ass.

I've always wanted a skirmish game that you can tailor according to what minis you have, be it some old Grenadier models, some Ral Patha, Reaper, whatever. It would be a basic fantasy rules set for war bands, and you assign the most fitting class (Fighter, Rogue, Magic User, etc.), "buy" levels, abilities, armor and equipment represented on cards…put up some terrain and boom! Have a go. I started making a ruleset but it was just too much brainpower and time to try and balance it all.

Plus, I'd like me a game that helps mitigate the horrendous power swings of You Go / I Go turn structures….

And most definitely this:

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
The feeling that the company that makes it isn't shoving anything up my ass.

That's the problem with taking turns in general. My main project is an actual video game. It's based in the same world, so the projects overlap. Anyway, that medium lends itself better, since you can block, Dodge, etc, as you see fit, rather than wait for your opponent to finish dealing damage to you so you can deal deal damage to them. I've got an idea that may solve it, or just make things really complicated.

you could make it a skirmish game and have a close combat system where you got one attack and one defensive move a turn, with 3 possible of each - a real rock paper scissors combo and make the mechanic practical in the form of cards the players take into their hands when the close combat round starts. I think this could help mitigate core /racial balance issues as those mechanics aren't quite as powerful as before.

Something easy to learn, fun to play, and cheap to start. That means no collectible minis, no rules expansions released with dizzying frequency that are required to play, no boosters, no twenty-two sided dice, and no game that requires twenty people to commit to playing before you can start getting meaningful games in.

Consider Fuzzy Heroes, probably one of the best non-GW mini games I know. The rules are simple enough that you can explain them to a child in under ten minutes. Most gamers (and all parents) already have access to all the minis you're going to need. You only need two people to play. Absent a game board, you can play on a coffee table, a floor, or a bed. Seriously great off-brand game.

The thing is, games are expensive, time consuming, and complex to learn. Every time I commit to a new game, I have to shoulder the onerous task of learning a new system, justify the expense of acquiring the game elements, make the time to research and absorb the game-universe, and stave off the gnawing fear that the company will collapse, leaving me with minis for a game no one wants to play, and hours and hours of wasted time. If I'm going to spend that amount of time getting involved in a new game, it needs to be an investment, something that's going to pay dividends of entertainment for years to come.

All this adds up to making me very predisposed towards not being interested in a new game. It'd take a pretty solid prospect to get me interested.

 Alfndrate wrote:

kb305 wrote:
i want a modern, carefully balanced, fully updated improved version of final fantasy tactics on the tabletop.

(im only talking about game mechanics and overall feel of game play here, not the FF character, setting etc)

Might I suggest Endless Fantasy Tactics then?

that looks interesting but squads instead of single characters. tape measure can stay instead of grid. someone should combine the best elements of all these games to make the ultimate turn based table top strategy game.

If it a'int got wombats, not interested.


I'd want a well thought out, logical, tight ruleset .... but here's the kicker. I'd like to see an innovative dice mechanic. D6 has been done to death, as has multi-d6. D10 is okay but its basically the same mechanic in most games. I'd like to see something truly innovative, elegant, and not a convoluted hot mess of a new dice mechanic.

Ideal genre would be post apocalyptic. It's a great genre and it's not well represented in the market, imho, or at least nearly as well as sci-fi / fantasy.

A game where each player controls 1-3 Mechs, where you'd be using a deck of cards to activate your shields, special rockets, off-table support and all that. Throughout the game you'd gain points that you'd use to buy additional cards and new weapons to stick on your Mech.

So a Mech wargame that's somewhat RPGish. The mechs could be about the size of a Space Marine Terminator, and be played on a rather small table, like a 2x2' board.

I'd buy.

Chongara wrote:
Scale isn't important, I can enjoy any size or scale of game . What is important for a game (in order of importance) for me is:


1 A clearly written, functional consistent rule set that supports the creation of interesting game states.
2 A company that is active in the community, proactive about updates and providing general support.
3 A setting and aesthetics I enjoy.
4 An interesting & diverse set of game pieces (models) with distinct functions.
5 Good model quality.

^ this ^This ^THis ^THIs ^THIS

Case in point: New DA book out some Saturday in Feb 2013. FAQ/Errata out the Monday after. If the orks (when done) are the same, they may be gone from my house.

Simple rules that are easy for a new player to pick up.

I dont want to have to refer to an encyclopedia size book every five minutes when I am playing the game. I just want to play.

Dont want to have to buy multiple books to be able to play a game either. Anything that requires you to buy a main book then a book for your army before you can play properly is an easy way to make me not want to bother.

If you want to expand the universe with extra books and armies after the main book then sure no problem but make sure its optional.

 jason1977 wrote:

Chongara wrote:
Scale isn't important, I can enjoy any size or scale of game . What is important for a game (in order of importance) for me is:


1 A clearly written, functional consistent rule set that supports the creation of interesting game states.
2 A company that is active in the community, proactive about updates and providing general support.
3 A setting and aesthetics I enjoy.
4 An interesting & diverse set of game pieces (models) with distinct functions.
5 Good model quality.

^ this ^This ^THis ^THIs ^THIS

Case in point: New DA book out some Saturday in Feb 2013. FAQ/Errata out the Monday after. If the orks (when done) are the same, they may be gone from my house.

I think most of the newer codices have gotten Day 1 errata or FAQs. That is definitely something I'm not going to have happen.

kb305 wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

kb305 wrote:
i want a modern, carefully balanced, fully updated improved version of final fantasy tactics on the tabletop.

(im only talking about game mechanics and overall feel of game play here, not the FF character, setting etc)

Might I suggest Endless Fantasy Tactics then?

that looks interesting but squads instead of single characters. tape measure can stay instead of grid. someone should combine the best elements of all these games to make the ultimate turn based table top strategy game.

You say you want something that captures the game mechanics of Final Fantasy tactics, and then say you don't want things that are game mechanics from FFT...

What about a system that doesn't use dice at all? Simply using stats and comparisons between stats to determine hits, misses, wounds, etc?

I would love to see a 'fleet scale' battle system that could dive into multiple-IPs not touched upon at all or....in depth.

'Star Wars' and 'Space: Above and Beyond' are ones that I'd be interested in...and I'm sure there are a lot of other video game genres where the fleet ships were amazing but barely touched.

Perhaps using the system from Silent Death as a starter? Always liked that game...

 McNinja wrote:
What about a system that doesn't use dice at all? Simply using stats and comparisons between stats to determine hits, misses, wounds, etc?

No thank you. I'd like some degree of chance in my game, or it doesn't really seem like it'd be a 'game' to me. You can wind up using a single d6 to modify the stats you compare (see Munchkin) but you need to have something above just 'high number wins.'

That's just my initial reaction, though. If someone had a concrete idea on how to do this, I'd be willing to hear them out, especially if it was a new or novel approach.

 Jimsolo wrote:

 McNinja wrote:
What about a system that doesn't use dice at all? Simply using stats and comparisons between stats to determine hits, misses, wounds, etc?

No thank you. I'd like some degree of chance in my game, or it doesn't really seem like it'd be a 'game' to me. You can wind up using a single d6 to modify the stats you compare (see Munchkin) but you need to have something above just 'high number wins.'

That's just my initial reaction, though. If someone had a concrete idea on how to do this, I'd be willing to hear them out, especially if it was a new or novel approach.

Agreed. This was my initial reaction as well. An RPG I used to play, Amber Diceless Roleplaying (based on Roger Zelazny's Chronicles of Amber novels) had the mechanic where the highest score always won. It was more of a storytelling game, though, and the characters were essentially gods. The stats were used as guides for how to tell the story, not to determine win vs. loss.

Randomization, though inherent to all wargames I've played, has to walk a line. Too much, and you might as well just play craps. Too little and I'd be concerned it would just be Rock-Paper-Scissors-Lizard-Spock. That said, I'd be very curious how a wargame with no random number generator would work.

A other idea that I got in my mind would be to use special team/squad/formation actions like supression and supportive fire. This would make a squad more than the sum of its parts by giving unique special abilities. Also for the idea about not using dice seems to be a good one but only for some parts of the game because I think a good game has to have some dice in it to make it a bit random. Athough the cards could be made a bit random by for example turning them around and then picking one, though using dice is most often just more simple.

Sienisoturi wrote:
A other idea that I got in my mind would be to use special team/squad/formation actions like supression and supportive fire. This would make a squad more than the sum of its parts by giving unique special abilities. Also for the idea about not using dice seems to be a good one but only for some parts of the game because I think a good game has to have some dice in it to make it a bit random. Athough the cards could be made a bit random by for example turning them around and then picking one, though using dice is most often just more simple.

That's definitely something I like. I have XCOM: Enemy Unknown playing in my head as I figure out squads and stuff.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jimsolo wrote:

 McNinja wrote:
What about a system that doesn't use dice at all? Simply using stats and comparisons between stats to determine hits, misses, wounds, etc?

No thank you. I'd like some degree of chance in my game, or it doesn't really seem like it'd be a 'game' to me. You can wind up using a single d6 to modify the stats you compare (see Munchkin) but you need to have something above just 'high number wins.'

That's just my initial reaction, though. If someone had a concrete idea on how to do this, I'd be willing to hear them out, especially if it was a new or novel approach.

Gymnogyps wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:

 McNinja wrote:
What about a system that doesn't use dice at all? Simply using stats and comparisons between stats to determine hits, misses, wounds, etc?

No thank you. I'd like some degree of chance in my game, or it doesn't really seem like it'd be a 'game' to me. You can wind up using a single d6 to modify the stats you compare (see Munchkin) but you need to have something above just 'high number wins.'

That's just my initial reaction, though. If someone had a concrete idea on how to do this, I'd be willing to hear them out, especially if it was a new or novel approach.

Agreed. This was my initial reaction as well. An RPG I used to play, Amber Diceless Roleplaying (based on Roger Zelazny's Chronicles of Amber novels) had the mechanic where the highest score always won. It was more of a storytelling game, though, and the characters were essentially gods. The stats were used as guides for how to tell the story, not to determine win vs. loss.

Randomization, though inherent to all wargames I've played, has to walk a line. Too much, and you might as well just play craps. Too little and I'd be concerned it would just be Rock-Paper-Scissors-Lizard-Spock. That said, I'd be very curious how a wargame with no random number generator would work.

Though what I have in mind does, at a basic level, come out to "bigger number wins," that's not the full extent of it. This is still a very rough concept that I'll have to test out. Instead of simply pointing at a model and saying "my BS score is 12 and his evasion score is 9, I hit him," you would declare your shot, letting your opponent know of any modifiers, like going prone, staying still, being really close, etc. Then, your opponent could not only be behind cover to raise evasion/armor, but throw down points to try to dodge the shot or activate armor, or something along those lines. I may end up using dice, we will see.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
In that situation, a Space Marine Terminator against an Eldar Dire Avenger might not be able to evade much of anything the Dire Avenger does, but he does have some great armor and entering a more defensive stance would allow him to live.

 McNinja wrote:

Sienisoturi wrote:
A other idea that I got in my mind would be to use special team/squad/formation actions like supression and supportive fire. This would make a squad more than the sum of its parts by giving unique special abilities. Also for the idea about not using dice seems to be a good one but only for some parts of the game because I think a good game has to have some dice in it to make it a bit random. Athough the cards could be made a bit random by for example turning them around and then picking one, though using dice is most often just more simple.

That's definitely something I like. I have XCOM: Enemy Unknown playing in my head as I figure out squads and stuff.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jimsolo wrote:

 McNinja wrote:
What about a system that doesn't use dice at all? Simply using stats and comparisons between stats to determine hits, misses, wounds, etc?

No thank you. I'd like some degree of chance in my game, or it doesn't really seem like it'd be a 'game' to me. You can wind up using a single d6 to modify the stats you compare (see Munchkin) but you need to have something above just 'high number wins.'

That's just my initial reaction, though. If someone had a concrete idea on how to do this, I'd be willing to hear them out, especially if it was a new or novel approach.

Gymnogyps wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:

 McNinja wrote:
What about a system that doesn't use dice at all? Simply using stats and comparisons between stats to determine hits, misses, wounds, etc?

No thank you. I'd like some degree of chance in my game, or it doesn't really seem like it'd be a 'game' to me. You can wind up using a single d6 to modify the stats you compare (see Munchkin) but you need to have something above just 'high number wins.'

That's just my initial reaction, though. If someone had a concrete idea on how to do this, I'd be willing to hear them out, especially if it was a new or novel approach.

Agreed. This was my initial reaction as well. An RPG I used to play, Amber Diceless Roleplaying (based on Roger Zelazny's Chronicles of Amber novels) had the mechanic where the highest score always won. It was more of a storytelling game, though, and the characters were essentially gods. The stats were used as guides for how to tell the story, not to determine win vs. loss.

Randomization, though inherent to all wargames I've played, has to walk a line. Too much, and you might as well just play craps. Too little and I'd be concerned it would just be Rock-Paper-Scissors-Lizard-Spock. That said, I'd be very curious how a wargame with no random number generator would work.

Though what I have in mind does, at a basic level, come out to "bigger number wins," that's not the full extent of it. This is still a very rough concept that I'll have to test out. Instead of simply pointing at a model and saying "my BS score is 12 and his evasion score is 9, I hit him," you would declare your shot, letting your opponent know of any modifiers, like going prone, staying still, being really close, etc. Then, your opponent could not only be behind cover to raise evasion/armor, but throw down points to try to dodge the shot or activate armor, or something along those lines. I may end up using dice, we will see.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
In that situation, a Space Marine Terminator against an Eldar Dire Avenger might not be able to evade much of anything the Dire Avenger does, but he does have some great armor and entering a more defensive stance would allow him to live.

What if they had some kind of points that were secretly bid? You add the evasion points or precision points that you secretly bid, and high number wins. But your whole army only gets X number of points to spend per turn. That might work.

That could work, or at the very least a system like like that. It would also scale nicely.

 McNinja wrote:
What about a system that doesn't use dice at all? Simply using stats and comparisons between stats to determine hits, misses, wounds, etc?

Easier said than done. You can do diceless systems a la malifaux, but there MUST be some random integer modifier system in a game. If it is all static statistic based, then the game becomes rock paper scissors to some extent of min maxing. Random probability, even if just a d6 system (yawn, btw), keeps things random, interesting, and adds in those moments of incredible victory from certain defeat, and defeat from certain victory.

Okay, I just finished reading through the Malifaux rules. Funnily enough, their system is almost identical to the one I had envisioned, and it looks really good. I'm wondering how it will scale up, though, I'll have to think about that.

I'd like a clear and concisely written ruleset that isn't tied to a particular figure range, so the game has to be good on it's own merits and isn't used to drive figure sales or reliant on good figures.

 Haight wrote:
If it a'int got wombats, not interested.


I'd want a well thought out, logical, tight ruleset .... but here's the kicker. I'd like to see an innovative dice mechanic. D6 has been done to death, as has multi-d6. D10 is okay but its basically the same mechanic in most games. I'd like to see something truly innovative, elegant, and not a convoluted hot mess of a new dice mechanic.

Ideal genre would be post apocalyptic. It's a great genre and it's not well represented in the market, imho, or at least nearly as well as sci-fi / fantasy.

I say try out Infinity, as it does something very different, but well done in my opinion, with a d20 dice mechanic. For the most part, the ruleset is pretty logical as well as thought out, but some of it is ambiguous and slightly loose (weather it is due to being translated from a foreign language or how the authors wrote it, I am not sure), and it kind of has a lot of special rules to it although the main rules are easy to get down. Also, it is Sci-fi, not Post-apocalyptic, but I thought I throw that suggestion out there for you.

Might I recommend you have Chuck Norris?

Something that would be cool would be a game where the stats of the units are based on the models themselves, and you can bring whatever minis you want to the table. (Not to beat a dead horse, but Fuzzy Heroes did that, and it was great, although you wouldn't want to use wargaming minis in Fuzzy Heroes...) Something that not only allowed models from different companies and game systems, but even ENCOURAGED it, would be awesome!

 Jimsolo wrote:
Something that would be cool would be a game where the stats of the units are based on the models themselves, and you can bring whatever minis you want to the table. (Not to beat a dead horse, but Fuzzy Heroes did that, and it was great, although you wouldn't want to use wargaming minis in Fuzzy Heroes...) Something that not only allowed models from different companies and game systems, but even ENCOURAGED it, would be awesome!

*Cough cough* Song of Blades and Heroes *Cough cough*

I'm not going to try to suggest specific ideas since a "poll the forum" game concept is almost certainly doomed. Instead I'll give you three general things I want to see in a game:

1) Rules that work. Everything should be clear and straightforward. If a rule is supposed to do X it should say X, I shouldn't have to interpret an ambiguous rule using the same assumptions as you ("casual" play/fluff/etc) to see how it could mean X. If I actually have to use the "4+ it" resolution as more than a very rare last resort then your rules are terrible. If I as a new player can't read your rulebook and immediately understand the game, with no questions that can't be answered by pointing to the appropriate part of the rulebook, then why would I want to play your game?

2) A clear identity for the game. You should know what your game is trying to do, and your rules should accomplish that goal without any extra stuff. Consider X-Wing vs. 40k. X-Wing has a clear identity as a small-scale dogfighting game with an emphasis on board game style streamlining and accessibility to new players (even non-gamers). And the rules reflect that identity. The rulebook is short and efficient, gameplay moves quickly, and you never feel that something is out of place. 40k, on the other hand, has no idea what kind of game it wants to be. Is it an infantry skirmish game with an emphasis on heroic characters, or a game of epic battles full of tanks/aircraft/etc? Is it a detailed simulation of "real" battles in the 40k universe, or an approximation that favors simplicity and ease of play over flawless realism? Nobody knows, and the rules reflect this uncertainty. They're a bloated mess with every random idea someone at GW had just shoved onto the pile without any real thought about whether it's moving the game in the right direction or not.

3) "Out of the box" playability. The game should be balanced and interesting without having to make up house rules or "play casually" or whatever to fix the balance problems. I should be able to play whatever I want, and as long as I have a coherent strategy in mind I should have a fair chance of winning. List building (or your game's equivalent) should be about choosing which tools you want to have in your toolbox, not about identifying the most overpowered things and taking as many of them as I can. And those choices should feel "fluffy", even if I don't make a deliberate attempt to take "fluffy" options. If I need tons of house rules like "don't take more than one of unit X" or "Y% of your army should be troops" to make these things happen then you need to playtest more and fix your broken game.

Thank you peregrine. The challenge I've encountered thus far is what sort of randomization tool to use. Malifaux has a great card system, but straight up copying their system is poor creativity at best. i want to keep it very simple, because even though I like 40k, 120 pages of rules is just too much.

I'd like to add, in addition to Peregrine's excellent post, at least some small aspect in which the players directly compete against one another. Like in old Epic placing order tokens was based on reading (or predicting) your opponent rather than simply making a unit do what they do (a great failing of IGUG systems). It doesn't have to be that mechanic specifically but something where *I* can outplay my opponent *without* directly utilising models. Where they can go 'Well played!' before I've rolled a dice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and as an addition, I think if you're working on a small scale you should keep things on the unlikely side of working. The more expected results you have the more mathhammer a game gets.

 fishy bob wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
Something that would be cool would be a game where the stats of the units are based on the models themselves, and you can bring whatever minis you want to the table. (Not to beat a dead horse, but Fuzzy Heroes did that, and it was great, although you wouldn't want to use wargaming minis in Fuzzy Heroes...) Something that not only allowed models from different companies and game systems, but even ENCOURAGED it, would be awesome!

*Cough cough* Song of Blades and Heroes *Cough cough*

Huh. Never heard of it before. Have to check that out. Are the rules free to download? I know that's a big thing right now...



Meanwhile, McNinja, I had a question. Sorry if I missed it when you said it, but why don't you just use d6s for randomization? Their simplicity and availability make them darn near the perfect choice.

 Jimsolo wrote:

 fishy bob wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
Something that would be cool would be a game where the stats of the units are based on the models themselves, and you can bring whatever minis you want to the table. (Not to beat a dead horse, but Fuzzy Heroes did that, and it was great, although you wouldn't want to use wargaming minis in Fuzzy Heroes...) Something that not only allowed models from different companies and game systems, but even ENCOURAGED it, would be awesome!

*Cough cough* Song of Blades and Heroes *Cough cough*

Huh. Never heard of it before. Have to check that out. Are the rules free to download? I know that's a big thing right now...

Do check it out. It's one of my favorite rulesets

It's a skirmish game (somewhat meant for fantasy, but I don't think it's genre specific) where you use any models you want. You can also stat them up yourself with an online army builder. It's a lot of fun. It's not free, but very cheap. Five dollars I seem to remember.

 Jimsolo wrote:
Meanwhile, McNinja, I had a question. Sorry if I missed it when you said it, but why don't you just use d6s for randomization? Their simplicity and availability make them darn near the perfect choice.

But they also have a major drawback: they only have six numbers. You see this in 40k with things like tactical squads (basic troops that are average at everything) having the same BS as sternguard (the veteran elite of the elite shooting specialists) because a D6 only has six sides and you can't give the tactical squad BS 3.5 to properly represent the fact that they're a step down from the best. Granted, part of this is due to GW's refusal to use the full range of the scale instead of just making the default stat line all 4s and only having the occasional 3 or 5 with 1-2 and 6 almost nonexistent, but you just get a lot more flexibility if you have more sides on the dice. If you had a D10 system you could make IG veterans BS 6, tactical squads BS 7, sternguard BS 8, and still have room to save BS 9-10 for exceptional characters.

(And sure, you can do things like rolling 2D6 instead of single dice, but that gets really awkward when you have more than a very small number of rolls to make.)

 Kojiro wrote:
Oh and as an addition, I think if you're working on a small scale you should keep things on the unlikely side of working. The more expected results you have the more mathhammer a game gets.

Math is a good thing. It means that your game is predictable enough that it's worth trying to plan ahead based on the expected outcome of your choices. If the game is too random to make effective math predictions then you have a very "swingy" game where big results with the dice matter more than player decisions. This can be very frustrating and unrealistic (troops sitting out in the open 6" apart and desperately hoping to roll 6s to finally hit something), and can easily produce really one-sided games if one player gets a streak of really good/bad luck.

One thing I would add in general--be very, VERY careful with abilities or traits that debuff the enemy, or prevent them from acting, and even more careful if you want a faction or list to be built around such tactics. Nothing at all, even losing, is more soul-sucking and enthusiasm-killing than a game where you don't get to do anything. There's a difference between an "Well played, I'll get you next time!" loss and a "Why did I even show up to the table?" loss. By the same token, it should be hard or impossible to kill models on the first turn; nobody likes to put down their new cool model and then lift it off again before it even gets to move.

Make special rules easy to reference; reprint them in the model profiles and maybe have reference cards for models or units that describe everything they do at a glance. Rooting through the books in the middle of a game to see what this vaguely worded ability does kills momentum.

Create timing charts for things like attacking and damaging something--areas where special rules tend to pile up, and arguments can start about what would happen first if, say, you've got something that rams away what it hits vs something that can counter-attack when hit.

Also, playtest, playtest, playtest. Get the most rules-savvy players you can find, order them to break the game, and then fix what they've broken and repeat. Heck, have a public beta. The more people who are looking at the game, the more game-breakers or dud pieces get caught.

I would like a game that has 28mm maybe they're 32mm miniatures, Some in resin, some in plastic, and metal. A set of rules that I have to search through to find what I need, and maybe several other books in the $50 price range that I have to have to play my army. Maybe 50 different factions of one army type, that have similar vehicles, and flyers, yet different rule books for each, some factions unable to use the same vehicles, and flyers...

 Peregrine wrote:

 Kojiro wrote:
Oh and as an addition, I think if you're working on a small scale you should keep things on the unlikely side of working. The more expected results you have the more mathhammer a game gets.

Math is a good thing. It means that your game is predictable enough that it's worth trying to plan ahead based on the expected outcome of your choices. If the game is too random to make effective math predictions then you have a very "swingy" game where big results with the dice matter more than player decisions. This can be very frustrating and unrealistic (troops sitting out in the open 6" apart and desperately hoping to roll 6s to finally hit something), and can easily produce really one-sided games if one player gets a streak of really good/bad luck.

You have to be careful of going the other way too, though. If your game is TOO predictable (Axis & Allies) then you wind up with a dull as dishwater game with only one 'best' way to play, and the same tedious game playing itself out every time.

Jimsolo wrote:
Meanwhile, McNinja, I had a question. Sorry if I missed it when you said it, but why don't you just use d6s for randomization? Their simplicity and availability make them darn near the perfect choice.

While they are very available, peregrine does make some good points. If I incorporate dice, they may be D10s, but we'll see.

Jimsolo wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Kojiro wrote:
Oh and as an addition, I think if you're working on a small scale you should keep things on the unlikely side of working. The more expected results you have the more mathhammer a game gets.

Math is a good thing. It means that your game is predictable enough that it's worth trying to plan ahead based on the expected outcome of your choices. If the game is too random to make effective math predictions then you have a very "swingy" game where big results with the dice matter more than player decisions. This can be very frustrating and unrealistic (troops sitting out in the open 6" apart and desperately hoping to roll 6s to finally hit something), and can easily produce really one-sided games if one player gets a streak of really good/bad luck.

You have to be careful of going the other way too, though. If your game is TOO predictable (Axis & Allies) then you wind up with a dull as dishwater game with only one 'best' way to play, and the same tedious game playing itself out every time.

There will always be that element of chance, but if a certain model is a sniper, there's a rather good chance he'll hit what he's trying to shoot.

 Peregrine wrote:
I'm not going to try to suggest specific ideas since a "poll the forum" game concept is almost certainly doomed. Instead I'll give you three general things I want to see in a game:

1) Rules that work. Everything should be clear and straightforward. If a rule is supposed to do X it should say X, I shouldn't have to interpret an ambiguous rule using the same assumptions as you ("casual" play/fluff/etc) to see how it could mean X. If I actually have to use the "4+ it" resolution as more than a very rare last resort then your rules are terrible. If I as a new player can't read your rulebook and immediately understand the game, with no questions that can't be answered by pointing to the appropriate part of the rulebook, then why would I want to play your game?

2) A clear identity for the game. You should know what your game is trying to do, and your rules should accomplish that goal without any extra stuff. Consider X-Wing vs. 40k. X-Wing has a clear identity as a small-scale dogfighting game with an emphasis on board game style streamlining and accessibility to new players (even non-gamers). And the rules reflect that identity. The rulebook is short and efficient, gameplay moves quickly, and you never feel that something is out of place. 40k, on the other hand, has no idea what kind of game it wants to be. Is it an infantry skirmish game with an emphasis on heroic characters, or a game of epic battles full of tanks/aircraft/etc? Is it a detailed simulation of "real" battles in the 40k universe, or an approximation that favors simplicity and ease of play over flawless realism? Nobody knows, and the rules reflect this uncertainty. They're a bloated mess with every random idea someone at GW had just shoved onto the pile without any real thought about whether it's moving the game in the right direction or not.

3) "Out of the box" playability. The game should be balanced and interesting without having to make up house rules or "play casually" or whatever to fix the balance problems. I should be able to play whatever I want, and as long as I have a coherent strategy in mind I should have a fair chance of winning. List building (or your game's equivalent) should be about choosing which tools you want to have in your toolbox, not about identifying the most overpowered things and taking as many of them as I can. And those choices should feel "fluffy", even if I don't make a deliberate attempt to take "fluffy" options. If I need tons of house rules like "don't take more than one of unit X" or "Y% of your army should be troops" to make these things happen then you need to playtest more and fix your broken game.

Quoted for truth. I think Peregrine has hit the three biggest points right here. For point 1, I would suggest building a "Gameplay Dictionary"- have clearly defined terms for different effects, and stick to it. Look at Warmachine- you have boxed vs. dead, and models may advance, or be placed or slammed or pushed, each functioning differently in-game. Also, do not be afraid to have different terms which function identically, but interact with other rules differently. For example, let us pretend that 40k has Deepstrike (Teleport), Deepstrike (Parachutist), and Deepstrike (Tunneler). All three would function the exact same, however (Parachutist) would be susceptible to being shot at by weapons with the interceptor rule, (Teleport) would be susceptible to Warp Quake, etc.. They wouldn't need new rules, they simply function as different keywords for other special rules to interact with.

 Tanakosyke22 wrote:

 Haight wrote:
If it a'int got wombats, not interested.


I'd want a well thought out, logical, tight ruleset .... but here's the kicker. I'd like to see an innovative dice mechanic. D6 has been done to death, as has multi-d6. D10 is okay but its basically the same mechanic in most games. I'd like to see something truly innovative, elegant, and not a convoluted hot mess of a new dice mechanic.

Ideal genre would be post apocalyptic. It's a great genre and it's not well represented in the market, imho, or at least nearly as well as sci-fi / fantasy.

I say try out Infinity, as it does something very different, but well done in my opinion, with a d20 dice mechanic. For the most part, the ruleset is pretty logical as well as thought out, but some of it is ambiguous and slightly loose (weather it is due to being translated from a foreign language or how the authors wrote it, I am not sure), and it kind of has a lot of special rules to it although the main rules are easy to get down. Also, it is Sci-fi, not Post-apocalyptic, but I thought I throw that suggestion out there for you.

I have tried Infinity, though i played a few years back when less had been done about the state of balance of tags, etc. I have a good gaming friend that I played the game with back then who is very hot into Infinity, again, now. Might give it a whirl again this summer. One cumbersome aspect of infinity is the sheer amount of goddamn terrain you need to keep the game interesting.

The orders system is brilliant, however, always loved that. It is probably the single most innovative wargame technique i've seen in a long time, right up there with Malifaux's "card deck instead of dice" mechanic (also brilliant). If the balance is where the game needs to be, then i'll probably pick it up, but i'm just a touch gunshy having tried the game a long time ago and having found balance being an issue.

-----------


Back on topic.... another thing i like about games - granularity and scalability. Both are important. I want a game system that works at a level where i can get a game in for an hour on a small scale, or one that can ramp up and work at the level that would take all day / afternoon to play.

Granularity is important too. I like customization. It's a fine line to walk, because customization is inherently more difficult to balance, but its so much more interesting than just "This piece is Bob. Bob does X. There is no way that Bob does anything else".

Its much more interesting if Bob can come to the table with this loadout, that loadout, or a mix betwixt the two.

 Peregrine wrote:
Math is a good thing. It means that your game is predictable enough that it's worth trying to plan ahead based on the expected outcome of your choices. If the game is too random to make effective math predictions then you have a very "swingy" game where big results with the dice matter more than player decisions. This can be very frustrating and unrealistic (troops sitting out in the open 6" apart and desperately hoping to roll 6s to finally hit something), and can easily produce really one-sided games if one player gets a streak of really good/bad luck.

I think I should clarify this point somewhat. Math is indeed good, but I'm talking about individual instances (specifically I suppose in higher model count games) where you want improbability. It should be something that can be overcome with commitment of immediate, battlefield resources. Single models that can be relied upon to do exactly what you want are tactical no brainers and it simply becomes a matter of selecting the most resource efficient one.

I suppose what I'm looking for is the difference between bringing something that should mathematically work as is and something that, with proper use and support on the battlefield should work.

I'd like to see a game with spring loaded exploding bunkers and bridges like MARX used to make.
That being said, make it fun and unpredictable, so that even a small squad has a chance to hold off the tanks for awhile. Just get it away from listhammer and you'll be halfway there.

Obviously, I'd love to see a tight/well written set of rules... preferably ones that dont take a week for me to get through a rule book for.

But, reading through the comments here, here's a few things that came into my mind:

Perhaps use a combination of dice and deck of cards. IF this is a skirmish sized game, where players have individual models targeting individual models, not unit to unit, they could roll an action on a d6, d10, d20, whatever you decide to use. On a positive result (so a hit for shooting or CC, etc) the player then uses their deck of cards, flip the top card of the deck to determine damage. This easily simulate someone using a pistol, hits their target but flips badly on their damage merely "wings" their target, however, if they flip very high, could be like a "headshot" and instant kill. This way, ALL hits have the greatest possibility to do damage, but the damage is still variable enough that you'd have to weigh your options in who you attack.


Also, using similar stats to RPGs and other games, have the entire game turn based not on I go/U go.. but rather each unit gets an "initiative" or a "speed" rating. In the event that 2 or more units have the same initiative (if they are on the same side, the controlling player chooses their order of precedence), then the 2 players, at the beginning of each turn roll or flip for determining the order of what unit goes in which order.

Balanced factions that are not overpowered or weak, and easy to use rules that do not sacrifice complexity and depth to achieve this.

Mainly I just want to have fun with it, fighting over rules or unit stats takes away from the fun.

I also want my toys to be a bit cheaper!

Rules and unit stats will be very clear. I'm not one for ambiguity or making it "cinematic."

How should I go about whole "I go, you go" thing? I have haves couple ideas:
1, movement phases are are simultaneous, and combats are figured out via initiative.
2, more like infinity where one player has the turn but but the opponent can still react in it.
3, something else.

 McNinja wrote:
Rules and unit stats will be very clear. I'm not one for ambiguity or making it "cinematic."

How should I go about whole "I go, you go" thing? I have haves couple ideas:
1, movement phases are are simultaneous, and combats are figured out via initiative.
2, more like infinity where one player has the turn but but the opponent can still react in it.
3, something else.

One I'm currently kicking around is something like this:

1) Each unit receives two actions a turn, or one "sustained" action.
2) Players secretly note the order in which their units will activate. Designate the different actions to take place in different places in the order (for example, a unit may activate first, and then wait until the end of the turn to take its second action.
3) Alternating activation of unit in the order designated.
4) May alter the order mid-turn by using command points

I also like the idea of a number of actions per turn, with orders dictating how those actions can be spent:

Charge order: 2x move/2x Melee or any combination
Advance:1x Move, 1x Shoot, 2x Melee
Fire:2x Shoot, 2x Melee

That's an ultra simplified version of the system I was working on. Note in this system a unit got to perform one action at a time before moving on to the next unit, which is why being locked into what your orders were mattered. You can't decide on the fly you need more firepower if you've ordered a squad to move out or expect them to rapidly redeploy if you've told them to hunker down and fire. It's more complex than some people might want however and has some book keeping.

 Kojiro wrote:
I also like the idea of a number of actions per turn, with orders dictating how those actions can be spent:

Charge order: 2x move/2x Melee or any combination
Advance:1x Move, 1x Shoot, 2x Melee
Fire:2x Shoot, 2x Melee

That's an ultra simplified version of the system I was working on. Note in this system a unit got to perform one action at a time before moving on to the next unit, which is why being locked into what your orders were mattered. You can't decide on the fly you need more firepower if you've ordered a squad to move out or expect them to rapidly redeploy if you've told them to hunker down and fire. It's more complex than some people might want however and has some book keeping.

What about a DnD 4.0 sort of system, where each action is divided into Major, Minor, and Move. Each unit can do any combination of the 3, however certain combos "cost" something a little extra.

I'm not familiar with that system. The idea of multiple cost actions is in there but it's yet more bookkeeping. What I really like is that there's a chance to interrupt someone- within the limits of your orders- if you've correctly anticipated and dedicated your resources. You still get to react to your opponent and quickly but how well precisely is up to how well you you planned your own moves, anticipated your enemy and adapt to your in turn losses.

 Kojiro wrote:
I'm not familiar with that system. The idea of multiple cost actions is in there but it's yet more bookkeeping. What I really like is that there's a chance to interrupt someone- within the limits of your orders- if you've correctly anticipated and dedicated your resources. You still get to react to your opponent and quickly but how well precisely is up to how well you you planned your own moves, anticipated your enemy and adapt to your in turn losses.

IIRC, with the DnD system you can move+minor+major. or move+minor+minor. Major+major. As it's really only 3 categories of actions, one could easily say, "this unit is moving here, and 'readies an action'" yet, you dont have to reveal that action, until it may come to fruitiion (say your action is to ready a specialy type attack, since it is "ready" as soon as an enemy unit/model enters that attacks range, it goes off, and you resolve it prior to anything else going on)

So I've been working on the Skirmish level and I've come up with a means of how to allow models actions during the game. Each model starts with 3 action points, which they can spend on moving, shooting, assualting, or if they want, they can use their points to add direct +1 bonuses to certain stats (mainly to-hit rolls or Dexterity modifiers). Each action, (moving, shooting, assaulting), costs 1 action point, and you can perform them in any order, so you can shoot, move, then assault, move twice then assault, or move three times. Movement is the only action that can be performed more than once.

Thoughts? I've also toyed with the idea of giving them 5 points, with movement costing 2 so you don't have models with MOV 8 (meaning they can move 8") covering the entire map in one turn.

A few questions McNinja-

1) Does each model activate independently or on a small squad level? If each model activates independently is there an order to it or a simple free for all?

2) Does a model resolve all three of it's actions without interruption? If the chain is unbroken (barring special circumstances) you're better off simplifying the rules to be more like solos in Warmachine rather than the book keeping of three actions.

3)Is assault any different to a move order? This is a tricky one because you don't want an assault to be a move and attack- that makes it twice the value of a move/attack action. It needs to be differentiated in some way.

4)What action do units already engaged perform? Is it assault? Bear in mind the idea that one side makes all it's swings then the other side does so in their turn is an artefact of UGOIGO.

 Kojiro wrote:
A few questions McNinja-

1) Does each model activate independently or on a small squad level? If each model activates independently is there an order to it or a simple free for all?

2) Does a model resolve all three of it's actions without interruption? If the chain is unbroken (barring special circumstances) you're better off simplifying the rules to be more like solos in Warmachine rather than the book keeping of three actions.

3)Is assault any different to a move order? This is a tricky one because you don't want an assault to be a move and attack- that makes it twice the value of a move/attack action. It needs to be differentiated in some way.

4)What action do units already engaged perform? Is it assault? Bear in mind the idea that one side makes all it's swings then the other side does so in their turn is an artefact of UGOIGO.

1) It would be independently. Order will be determined by either the model's dexterity or something else that is so far undefined (though I'm leaning towards Dexterity so that faster models go first).
2) I'll have to read up on Solos, but right now it's all at once, barring enemy actions.
3) Right now it is essentially move+attack. One thing I didn't mention is that once you've engaged an enemy model you can't simply attack then walk away, you're in the fight until one of you is killed or you have an ability to break off. So you could shoot + charge, move + charge, but you can't charge first and do another action in the same turn. if you charge first you lose out on both movement and shooting, which isn't bad for melee units but could be bad for shooty units.
4) If a model is engaged they stay engaged unless they have something allows them to disengage before their opponent is killed. And no, Dexterity determines the order of swings.

Once I have the basics all covered I'll post them here for further scrutiny! I love the questions and suggestions so far. My intent with this game is for it to be easy to learn and play using whatever models you want in whatever setting you want, though it will have a defined world that most of the action happens on.

 McNinja wrote:

1) It would be independently. Order will be determined by either the model's dexterity or something else that is so far undefined (though I'm leaning towards Dexterity so that faster models go first).
2) I'll have to read up on Solos, but right now it's all at once, barring enemy actions.
3) Right now it is essentially move+attack. One thing I didn't mention is that once you've engaged an enemy model you can't simply attack then walk away, you're in the fight until one of you is killed or you have an ability to break off. So you could shoot + charge, move + charge, but you can't charge first and do another action in the same turn. if you charge first you lose out on both movement and shooting, which isn't bad for melee units but could be bad for shooty units.
4) If a model is engaged they stay engaged unless they have something allows them to disengage before their opponent is killed. And no, Dexterity determines the order of swings.

I'm a little worried you're making Dexterity into a god-stat. If it determines (an uninterrupted) order of activation, order of attacks and I'm guessing accuracy of said attacks you're starting to make it the only stat worth having. This is assuming it plays no role in defense either.
Solos act like anyone else except independently. The idea though was that if the chain is uninterrupted there's little difference between having two actions to spend on move/shoot/fight and having Run, Advance and Charge except that the later encapsulate their own rules and meanings while the former will need special exceptions. For example if you want a charge bonus it will have to be an addendum to a combat action made after a move action- and another if you want charge moves to be faster or similar.
Ah now we get interesting. Are you locked into the move attack only? Can you attack- become unengaged- then move/shoot? There's no point having generic actions if you have to spend them in a particular fashion.
Being locked into combat is a good idea, and a bad one. No Guardsman would want to turn his back on a marine- his already slim chances would become even worse. Conversely a terminator should be ignoring that grot furiously chewing on his greaves. Likewise a said terminator would have an extremely hard time forcing a howling banshee to fight on his terms- if she wants to stay outside of thunderhammer range she probably can and she's too deadly- even for a terminator- to simply turn his back on and walk away. But just because she can dance away from him doesn't mean she's fast enough to get away from a DE wytch.

 McNinja wrote:
Once I have the basics all covered I'll post them here for further scrutiny! I love the questions and suggestions so far. My intent with this game is for it to be easy to learn and play using whatever models you want in whatever setting you want, though it will have a defined world that most of the action happens on.

I'm not trying to be overly critical or disparaging- I've put in more than a little time on this kind of project myself and my criticisism is meant as constructive. I hope it helps!

Dexterity isn't going to be a god-stat, as you put it. It functions a lot like initiative in 40k, but it doesn't affect close combat hits. I'll have to see if I want it to play play a role in defense, I haven't quite gotten there yet.

Once a model is in combat, they're there until the enemy model is slain, so if they're slain in the turn they initiate combat, they could then move and shoot. If you're in combat with a far weaker opponent, chances are that you put yourself there to kill that model.

 McNinja wrote:
Dexterity isn't going to be a god-stat, as you put it. It functions a lot like initiative in 40k, but it doesn't affect close combat hits. I'll have to see if I want it to play play a role in defense, I haven't quite gotten there yet.

I would recommend tieing a few things as possible to as few stats, without spiraling into too many stats.

 McNinja wrote:
Once a model is in combat, they're there until the enemy model is slain, so if they're slain in the turn they initiate combat, they could then move and shoot. If you're in combat with a far weaker opponent, chances are that you put yourself there to kill that model.

Well.. maybe. If I can jam a 40pt model with a 2pt grot you can bet I'll do that, especially if it keeps them off the objective.

Is your plan for melee then to be like Warmachine where only the acting model makes attacks or a more 'merged' combat where everyone fights at their Dex/Init level?

 McNinja wrote:
Rules and unit stats will be very clear. I'm not one for ambiguity or making it "cinematic."

How should I go about whole "I go, you go" thing? I have haves couple ideas:
1, movement phases are are simultaneous, and combats are figured out via initiative.
2, more like infinity where one player has the turn but but the opponent can still react in it.
3, something else.

I'm going to go with #3.

Something no one has seen yet. Be creative, do your homework, think about what you DON'T like about existing game turn sequences, and how you'd change it up - then find a non-cumbersome, non-record keeping intensive, unique, and elegant way to do that.

Fit it with a good genre, and you're on to something.


... this is of course, the hard part.


If you're going to go with the tried and true "knowns", I like Infinity's approach the best, with close second being alternating activations, distant 3rd UGOIGO.

Be careful about copying anyone's rule mechanics - they are copyrighted. It's okay to take inspiration from them, but you can't plagiarize them wholesale (or even rebrand them) - it's illegal. No one owns UGOIGO, but if you use the Reactive Order system and just call it something else, i'd expect a legal letter from Corvus Belli.

Take inspiration from something, but find a way to make it unique and elegant.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 McNinja wrote:

Once a model is in combat, they're there until the enemy model is slain, so if they're slain in the turn they initiate combat, they could then move and shoot. If you're in combat with a far weaker opponent, chances are that you put yourself there to kill that model.

Don't do this. There should be a method of getting oneself clear of a melee that one doesn't want to be in, even if that is (and should be) inherently risky to do so.

Don't ever railroad your players. Don't ever create a situation that can easily be gamed. Don't paint yourself into a corner. Don't underestimate players abilities to manipulate the rules to unintended advantage. I used to be an Infernal for Privateer Press, and it astounded me how people would twist rule interactions for the smallest or biggest amount of gain. By saying "chances are if you engaged a model , you meant to kill that model" underestimates people's use of the rules in unintentional methods to gain in-game advantage.

Saying "once your in melee, you're there until slain" is both counterintuitive (people can run from a combat), and opens potential for abusive, anti-thematic shenanigans (i run dudes into melee just to tie them up, etc etc... hard to put into words as your game is not fleshed out, but this absolute stance opens the door for abuse).

Your game should have a method of leaving combat, and it should be risky for a model to do so, but possible. Otherwise you have a situation where everything you design you'll have to think "can someone get advantage from this on the basis that i've made it impossible in my ruleset to leave melee". You will also REALLY have to watch the melee power of your models. A single unbalanced power-wise model in melee combat could throw the entire balance of your game off kilter.

Be careful doing stuff like this if you're serious about designing this game. I would figure out the probability mechanic you are going to run with first, and your statistic system's mechanics before you begin fleshing out phase of game strictures and stipulations like this.

Just some friendly advice from someone who has worked on professional game design in the past.

 Haight wrote:

Don't do this. There should be a method of getting oneself clear of a melee that one doesn't want to be in, even if that is (and should be) inherently risky to do so.

I would also strongly echo this. PP uses a 'free strike' method where a model can attempt to leave combat but risks getting hit in the back. The strike is both easier to land than normal and does more damage so it's usually done in desperation but two things that always irked me were a) your melee skill had no bearing on your ability to disengage b) a model could strike as many people as it liked under any circumstances. A) is partly the fault of PP using a single DEF stat for ranged and melee- a Stormguard, elite knight of the Cygnar army should be harder to hit with a sword than he is to shoot. B) is usually not an issue is 1:1 fights but it gets silly when while under threat from six pikemen a guy finds the time to hit that 7th pikeman that wandered too close going for a different target.

I'd recommend a skill check of some sort.

Seriously mate, I'd strongly suggest you take a look at the DnD combat system, as it sounds fairly close to what you are wanting to do.

There are no "god stats", once in melee, a character CAN leave it, though it does have some risks, if done wrong. There are points where ranged and melee characters stand out, etc.

The folks posted previously have pretty much hit on what I like to see in a tabletop game.

Specifically on personal preferences I want a solid rule set first of all that isn’t so ambiguous you end up getting into heated arguments just to interpret the damn thing mainly due to some a-hole wanting to skew it to their favor.

Secondly I like a turn method that will rid old and tired IGOUGO style games for good. This turn order to move, shoot and assault is obsolete and uncreative to say the least. I like to see something of a hybrid between Dropzone Commander and Infinity to alternate between groups and have reactions to move things along.

Lastly I want fluff that isn’t some overused grim dark future BS. We get enough of that garbage from GW. Throw some Steampunk in or maybe a Cold War-esque game in the 1980s. Anything that isn’t WWII, Post-Apocalyptic or Warhammer related.

Hi all.
I agree that the rule set should be written with CLARITY , BREVITY, and elegance.

The most complex game play can be achieved with straightforward rules using the most appropriate game mechanics and resolution methods.

In fact I my perfect game rule set would be ANTI 6th ed 40k.

Swap the complication for complexity, confusion for clarity, and rules bloat for brevity.

When people are talking about interaction , whether to use cards or multiple dice.
Why not cover the bulk of the in game action using the unit stats?

Compare stats to find the Dice score required to succeed, or use the stat directly as a base score to succeed with modifiers.
EG Armour Value 3 Armour Piercing 7, need '5+ to save.' (AV + D6 to beat AP of weapon hit.)

Stealth value 5+, the attacker needs to roll 5+ to hit this model with ranged weapons.(Modified by cover ,range, equipment etc.)

If you put these values on a unit card along with any special abilities , it makes game play a lot faster, due to NOT having to look things up as you try to play the game...
Using cards for missions and events in a strategic way works excellently IMO.

List building that is easy and not dependent on units, so theirs no difference between a fluffy and competitive list, list building grinds my gears

 mitch_rifle wrote:
List building that is easy and not dependent on units, so theirs no difference between a fluffy and competitive list, list building grinds my gears

I actually enjoy list building, but, especially in 40k, there are just so many units that are simply not close to competative (that one guy who runs all Chosen and Warp Talons won't be winning anything soon), so that's definitely something I want to fix.

 McNinja wrote:

 mitch_rifle wrote:
List building that is easy and not dependent on units, so theirs no difference between a fluffy and competitive list, list building grinds my gears

I actually enjoy list building, but, especially in 40k, there are just so many units that are simply not close to competative (that one guy who runs all Chosen and Warp Talons won't be winning anything soon), so that's definitely something I want to fix.

I find GWs list building pointless and prone to abusive, lists are a functioning machine and as with every machine the less components the better and more efficient, Infinity, warmachine and why not the deathwing expansion of the original space hulk have got it right, you should not give the player the ability to tweak every single aspect of everything, nor supply a huge pile of components, its impossible to make them balanced with each other (many "parts" are left to misuse just by reading them, so why include them) and after few reads the optimal configurations are discovered anyway, so the vast amount of choices is an illusion anyway, the second part of the issue is the more choices you give to the player the more difficult is the game to balance, giving your player a variety of fixed choices to chose from is an ideal mix of keeping player choice restricted enough to have a meaningful chance to balance your game and enough choice to keep your player base interested.

Meaningful choices are in the works

I've gotten the first four races down, though only in draft form. I'm taking a large codex I wrote for 40k and turning it into the first four army books for my game.

As soon as you have a playable beta get it out there. You'll be stunned how quickly a new set of eyes can break what seem like perfectly sound rules to the writer.

 Kojiro wrote:
As soon as you have a playable beta get it out there. You'll be stunned how quickly a new set of eyes can break what seem like perfectly sound rules to the writer.

Seconded.


Anyone who knows anything about professional playtesting knows that the moment you release your game to the public, you have several order of magnitudes more people looking at it than you can possibly hope to have with Playtest.

Put a beta out with a call to arms to "Break this game!". They will. Trust me.

It should probably also be said that when they do break your game- and they will- to take it in stride. Any problem can be fixed and the point of a playtest is to find them. When you put out a beta be sure to mention to the playtesters that in addition to wanting them to find flaws you're happy to accept suggested fixes. Even if you don't use them the different way of looking at the problem is very helpful.

Also excellent points. Think of it as extra, free, sets of eyes that are objective. They will find things you've never imagined.

Take it all in stride, take it all as constructive criticism. Every break they find and you fix makes your game stronger.




... Kojiro... you ever been in professional game design or playtest ? Your posts strike me that you have. You seem to "get it" on a lot of levels that only professional designers or PT'ers would get.

I've done a little playtesting for companies over the years and I've made a few systems up but nothing professional. I will however thank you for the very flattering compliment. If I get the pain of creation it's because my group is mercilessly exploitative but at the same time supporting of my efforts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If you check my sig, you can see a quick bit of 40k to WM/PP I knocked up. It's not balanced (by PP standards) but it has fewer rules issues than 40k simply because I didn't create anything new but stats (and it's hard to break RAT).