Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

weeble1000 wrote:

 The Shadow wrote:
Good point, Weeble, though I don't think the system is that complicated. Yes it's more work than picking up a certain die and rolling, but, at the end of the day, it's only simple addition/subtraction, and, as I said, there'll rarely be more than two modifiers on the roll.

We'll flesh it out a bit and have some test games, see if it does do our heads in or not!

You'd be surprised what a difference a few seemingly minuscule steps makes. Bear in mind that I am not saying a system with target number modifiers is unplayable or non-functional. But for me personally, reducing those steps to the barest minimum necessary to sustain the game is always a goal.

Okay, I'll bear that in mind. As I say, we'll develop it a bit more then play it and see how it pans out. Maybe, like you say, we'll have to have a few beers first and then see if we can still play...

 The Shadow wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:

 The Shadow wrote:
Good point, Weeble, though I don't think the system is that complicated. Yes it's more work than picking up a certain die and rolling, but, at the end of the day, it's only simple addition/subtraction, and, as I said, there'll rarely be more than two modifiers on the roll.

We'll flesh it out a bit and have some test games, see if it does do our heads in or not!

You'd be surprised what a difference a few seemingly minuscule steps makes. Bear in mind that I am not saying a system with target number modifiers is unplayable or non-functional. But for me personally, reducing those steps to the barest minimum necessary to sustain the game is always a goal.

Okay, I'll bear that in mind. As I say, we'll develop it a bit more then play it and see how it pans out. Maybe, like you say, we'll have to have a few beers first and then see if we can still play...

Also, if you are looking to make a really solid system, don't be bashful about play testing with people who know basically nothing about wargames. It is very helpful to see how complete novices interpret the rules and play the game.

As part of the design process, I'd recommend learning and playing at least 10 new games to see how differently things can be done.

Don't take this the wrong way, but so far if I were to guess, I'd guess you have only ever played one miniature game (40k) and now you want to make "my 40k, but with ten sided dice!" without really having been exposed to what's possible in game design.

Infinity is free. As is In The Emperor's Name. FUBAR would be another good pick. Swordplay and Chain Reaction from Two Hour Wargames are both free and have a very different approach. And there's a couple hundred more at http://www.freewargamesrules.co.uk/

 frozenwastes wrote:
As part of the design process, I'd recommend learning and playing at least 10 new games to see how differently things can be done.

Don't take this the wrong way, but so far if I were to guess, I'd guess you have only ever played one miniature game (40k) and now you want to make "my 40k, but with ten sided dice!" without really having been exposed to what's possible in game design.

Infinity is free. As is In The Emperor's Name. FUBAR would be another good pick. Swordplay and Chain Reaction from Two Hour Wargames are both free and have a very different approach. And there's a couple hundred more at http://www.freewargamesrules.co.uk/

I play 40k, WHFB, LotR and Malifaux and, although I only ever borrow models for the latter, play all fairly regularly. I'll have a look at those games you've mentioned though (never so no to free stuff, I always say) so thanks a lot for the tips

Any good alternative wargames that use D10s and whose rules are free?

 The Shadow wrote:
Any good alternative wargames that use D10s and whose rules are free?

Brushfire's Quickstart rules are free:
http://www.wargamevault.com/product/87241/Brushfire--Quick-Start-Rules?manufacturers_id=2597

Full digest book is only $7 though:
http://www.wargamevault.com/product/118531/Brushfire--Second-Edition-Digest?manufacturers_id=2597

 The Shadow wrote:

I play 40k, WHFB, LotR and Malifaux and, although I only ever borrow models for the latter, play all fairly regularly.

Is it a general appreciation of 40k, but wishing it was a bit better with a lower model count that drives this project? if so, that's totally understandable.

Any good alternative wargames that use D10s and whose rules are free?

People are really enamoured with d6s aren't they?

Someone made a d10 variant of Company Commander. It's a WW2 to near future skirmish game where you go until you fail, then it's the other person's turn. Like you keep activating and moving and shooting until you trigger an end of turn with a failed action. Like firing at the enemy and not dropping any of your targets. Or moving and having opportunity/reaction fire down one of your guys. When playing it, some local guys who fought in Afghanistan said it was too much like the real thing for their tastes. Having your guys go down and not being sure exactly what happened to them (you check for wounds only after you attempt to use that squad again) or what was going to happen next is definitely part of the game.

Unfortunately I think you need a yahoo account to get the rules:

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/Company_Commander/

The d10 conversion is basically just a transfer of the normal d6 odds with a bit more possibility for tweaking subtle differences in skill, troop quality and modifiers (as you have a range of 1-10 rather than 1-6). So the d10 conversion doesn't actually involve a rules re-write, just a different set of play aids.

I've played a lot of games with various dice. My preferences for games with d10's are similar to many folks.

1-Keep them out of "Dice bucket" games.
If you're rolling a ton of dice, D10's are just a lot to keep track of. Also the fact that it's easier to tip a D10 when picking up the dice next to it than it is a d6, means that D10's are best suited to situations where fewer dice are being rolled.

2-There should be a reason for them beyond just increased granularity in the rules.
I'm not a fan of overly complicated rules. If d10's work well for the system, then that's great, but always ask yourself if the game needs more granularity or if the play experience would be just as much fun with d6's or d8's.

3-Leave Percentile Dice in RPG's
Enough said.

I would offer up "Mech Attack!" as a game that makes excellent use of D10's. It's a battletech-lite style of game where the d10 is the basis for the damage grid system. The designer then ported the use of d10's into the rest of the game where it provides just enough differentiation between weapons systems, sizes of mechs, etc, but doesn't bog down in unnecessary details. Most rolls are a single d10, which is even more streamlined and yet with a straighter probability curve than the 2d6 used in the original Battletech game.

My only beef is that there are a few rare instances (certain critical rolls) where a player might roll up to 10 d10's,However this is a fairly rare occurrence with 5 being the maximum rolled in most circumstances, a number that is definitely manageable.

 frozenwastes wrote:

 The Shadow wrote:

I play 40k, WHFB, LotR and Malifaux and, although I only ever borrow models for the latter, play all fairly regularly.

Is it a general appreciation of 40k, but wishing it was a bit better with a lower model count that drives this project? if so, that's totally understandable.

I guess it's probably most similar to 40k (but with a lower model count), but many of the games core mechanics are more similar to the LotR rules. It also features a core mechanic (basically the objective of most games) which is very different to anything GW, and, as far as I'm aware, fairly unique.

 The Shadow wrote:

 frozenwastes wrote:

 The Shadow wrote:

I play 40k, WHFB, LotR and Malifaux and, although I only ever borrow models for the latter, play all fairly regularly.

Is it a general appreciation of 40k, but wishing it was a bit better with a lower model count that drives this project? if so, that's totally understandable.

I guess it's probably most similar to 40k (but with a lower model count), but many of the games core mechanics are more similar to the LotR rules. It also features a core mechanic (basically the objective of most games) which is very different to anything GW, and, as far as I'm aware, fairly unique.

Sounds cool. I always thought LOTR was a good foundation to build things on and it's a shame GW only ever built one extra game on it (Legends of the Old West in 2004).

Definitely keep us posted and if you get to the point that you have a document other people can try out, let me know and I will. At my club meetings we have a standing "new rules" time slot that we use for various play testing people might be involved in, trying out new games and stuff like that.

 frozenwastes wrote:

 The Shadow wrote:

 frozenwastes wrote:

 The Shadow wrote:

I play 40k, WHFB, LotR and Malifaux and, although I only ever borrow models for the latter, play all fairly regularly.

Is it a general appreciation of 40k, but wishing it was a bit better with a lower model count that drives this project? if so, that's totally understandable.

I guess it's probably most similar to 40k (but with a lower model count), but many of the games core mechanics are more similar to the LotR rules. It also features a core mechanic (basically the objective of most games) which is very different to anything GW, and, as far as I'm aware, fairly unique.

Sounds cool. I always thought LOTR was a good foundation to build things on and it's a shame GW only ever built one extra game on it (Legends of the Old West in 2004).

Definitely keep us posted and if you get to the point that you have a document other people can try out, let me know and I will. At my club meetings we have a standing "new rules" time slot that we use for various play testing people might be involved in, trying out new games and stuff like that.

Awesome, I will do, thanks for the support!

Urban War not been mentioned yet? Sounds like it's similar to what you're trying to do:

http://www.urbanwarthegame.com/downloads/Quickstart_rules.pdf

Also probably massively proxyable with 40K figures as well if you wanted to try it. Faction profiles (probably) found along all this lot:

http://www.urbanwarthegame.com/support-downloads-english.php

I personally don't like D10s, both how they feel (maybe not being a platonic solid), roll, and the general focus on percentages when used.

Everyone is different though, so if you think D10 would meet the goals of your game then use them. It sounds like you're creating something just to play with friends, so at that point it probably doesn't matter what the rest of the world thinks?

Also I second the advice to play a bunch of games to see alternative approaches to a lot of cliche 40k rules. For example why have Move, Shoot, Combat instead of two interchangeable actions, or merging shooting and combat, or having move in any order, or having a reaction system, etc.

 bosky wrote:
. For example why have Move, Shoot, Combat instead of two interchangeable actions, or merging shooting and combat, or having move in any order, or having a reaction system, etc.

We did think of this, especially about using the LotR move, move, shoot, shoot, fight sequence but we felt it wasn't right. I certainly prefer it turn based (It's probabaly a selfish thing really, maybe because I play a lot of turn based games - and not just wargames). You have your turn and do the best you can, then you leave the opponent to do his thing whilst you nervously wait to see how well you can hang on in there!

 The Shadow wrote:
We did think of this, especially about using the LotR move, move, shoot, shoot, fight sequence but we felt it wasn't right. I certainly prefer it turn based (It's probabaly a selfish thing really, maybe because I play a lot of turn based games - and not just wargames). You have your turn and do the best you can, then you leave the opponent to do his thing whilst you nervously wait to see how well you can hang on in there!

Sounds good. Again I think it comes down to personal preference. I think for a smaller scale / skirmish game having full turn UGO-IGO isn't a good fit, since it's nice to have more detail since fewer models are involved, as well as more fluid back-and-forth combat. But if you like it and find it a good fit for your vision of your game, go for it.