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.

Edit: apology received, no need for this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And, answer as requested by PM:

What makes good games succeed is that they have a solid foundation. The designer knows exactly what they're trying to do before any rules are written, so everything fits into the framework. And if there's any question about whether or not a rule idea is good they can consult that initial concept and ask "does this accomplish the goals we outlined earlier". So you have consistency in design, with all your individual rules working to create a coherent whole. Failure to do this is a major reason why 40k is a terrible game. The rule authors make everything up as they go along, so you get awkward contradictions like caring a lot about the difference between a sword and an axe for a sergeant's power weapon in the same game as massive LoW units that can delete the sergeant's entire unit with a single shot. They keep adding more and more rules to the bloated mess, but it never converges on any kind of final vision for what 40k should be.

Your problem is that you're clearly skipping over this initial design process if this is your day one work. You're worrying about the details of what number you have to roll to hit or exactly how many inches a unit can move when you should be asking yourself questions like "how long should an average game take" or "where do I want my game to be on the simulation vs. abstraction scale". IOW, you're worrying about what the rules for tanks should be when you haven't even answered the question of whether you want tanks in your game in the first place! The thing you need to do, before you start worrying about specific rules, is to outline your vision for what the game should be like. Answer this simple question:

I am a potential customer. In one sentence, then in one short paragraph, why should I be interested in your game instead of the countless alternatives on the market?

There's way more to it once you outline the basics, of course. Between the very high-level concepts and the specific rules you'll answer questions like "what are the strengths and weaknesses, in general strategic terms, of tanks" as you start to build the structure of what your rules are going to need accomplish. But I could write an entire textbook on this, and your best bet is to start reading everything you can find on general game design principles.

Interspace Assault is a game unlike other wargammming experiences on the market today, simple to pick up and fun to play, it will be a great place to start wargaming or for an existing Wargamer to pick up for hours of fun gameplay.
(Also I know that's more of a hook than your question, and I'm sure I have something written down for this somewhere I'm just too tired to look)
so for a new player it could take up to 30 minutes to make a list and about an hour-hour and a half tops to finish the playing. I do want tanks, mainly because they are fun to play but also because they are very simple in the way I've set them up. As for simulation vs. Abstaraction scale, its a bit in the middle but leaning more towards the abstaraction side of things, or at least that's what our team is trying for. As for balance, there will be absolutely no way I'm letting something as far down the broken train as Magnus the Red(I know that's who your talking about) into my game, the most "OP" thing in the game was 'The Reaper but I'm my dev version of the army book he had already been heavily nerfed after just a few play sessions and I've reworked entire weapons because of their effectiveness, I want this game to be in an even playing field with everyone getting a chance to play their style of army. That why things in the dev book like "a model had to allocate all of its shots to one model and f that model is destroyed the rest of the shots do not carry over" are a thing, to stop me from getting a quad-fusion pulsar and completely wiping your horde army before they can even shoot.

 Xjax1 wrote:
XYZis a game unlike other wargammming experiences on the market today, simple to pick up and fun to play, it will be a great place to start wargaming or for an existing Wargamer to pick up for hours of fun gameplay.

A lot of games say that sort of thing, but there is a lot of work in boiling a ruleset down to an AoS-like 4 pages or similar quickstart. At least, if you're serious about "simple to pick up" and "a great place to start".

 Xjax1 wrote:
Interspace Assault is a game unlike other wargammming experiences on the market today, simple to pick up and fun to play, it will be a great place to start wargaming or for an existing Wargamer to pick up for hours of fun gameplay.

That's marketing fluff, not an answer to my question. EVERY game claims to be fun, but what makes yours special? Don't tell me that your game is "unlike other experiences" unless you can back it up with specific examples of what is so unique (and, looking at your rules so far, there is nothing unique). And are you sincere about making the game great for newbies, or are you just throwing that out there as marketing hype? Are you willing to make design decisions that favor simplicity and accessibility to people who have never played a wargame before over feature-heavy mechanics that appeal to more experienced players?

As for the rest, you're kind of missing the point there. Those were just examples of the kind of things you need to be thinking about, not specific questions I wanted an answer to. But I'll address a couple of the answers in detail:

I do want tanks, mainly because they are fun to play but also because they are very simple in the way I've set them up.

Again, think at a higher conceptual level. What role do tanks play in your game? Obviously "tanks are cool" is a thing, but are they really adding to your game in a constructive way? Remember that you have two goals that are conflicting with the idea of adding tanks: you want simple rules that are accessible to complete newbies (which means cutting out luxury items and focusing on the core of the game), and you want a short game (which often implies a smaller model/unit count, where tanks tend to work best in larger-scale games).

As for balance, there will be absolutely no way I'm letting something as far down the broken train as Magnus the Red(I know that's who your talking about) into my game

No, Magnus is NOT what I'm talking about, not at all. Remember, we're dealing with higher-level concepts here. Magnus has a problem with point costs and unit-specific rules*, something we shouldn't even be thinking about at this point. What I'm talking about is stuff like the strengths and weaknesses of broad archetypes. For example, what should be the strengths and weaknesses of tanks? We might want tanks to have great firepower and durability, but an inherent balancing factor in being poor at scoring objectives. So a tank-heavy army will be great at shooting you to death, but have a major weakness to exploit in objective-heavy missions. Or consider faction archetypes: your not-marines might be defined as "ok at everything, great at nothing", while your not-Tau might be defined as "great at shooting, terrible at melee". The rules that turn these general concepts into their specific executions come later.

*Some people also dislike Magnus for the "too many big LoW units" reasons, but that's about preference in game style rather than balance.

the most "OP" thing in the game was 'The Reaper but I'm my dev version of the army book he had already been heavily nerfed after just a few play sessions and I've reworked entire weapons because of their effectiveness

This is what I mean about making stuff up as you go along. You shouldn't even be thinking about unit-specific rules/point costs right now, the goal should be to establish the high-level concepts for your game, and then the core mechanics. Unit-specific rules and overpowered units are the last thing you worry about, once the foundation for your game is finished.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Xjax1 wrote:
Interspace Assault is a game unlike other wargammming experiences on the market today, simple to pick up and fun to play, it will be a great place to start wargaming or for an existing Wargamer to pick up for hours of fun gameplay.

That's marketing fluff, not an answer to my question. EVERY game claims to be fun, but what makes yours special? Don't tell me that your game is "unlike other experiences" unless you can back it up with specific examples of what is so unique (and, looking at your rules so far, there is nothing unique). And are you sincere about making the game great for newbies, or are you just throwing that out there as marketing hype? Are you willing to make design decisions that favor simplicity and accessibility to people who have never played a wargame before over feature-heavy mechanics that appeal to more experienced players?

As for the rest, you're kind of missing the point there. Those were just examples of the kind of things you need to be thinking about, not specific questions I wanted an answer to. But I'll address a couple of the answers in detail:

I do want tanks, mainly because they are fun to play but also because they are very simple in the way I've set them up.

Again, think at a higher conceptual level. What role do tanks play in your game? Obviously "tanks are cool" is a thing, but are they really adding to your game in a constructive way? Remember that you have two goals that are conflicting with the idea of adding tanks: you want simple rules that are accessible to complete newbies (which means cutting out luxury items and focusing on the core of the game), and you want a short game (which often implies a smaller model/unit count, where tanks tend to work best in larger-scale games).

As for balance, there will be absolutely no way I'm letting something as far down the broken train as Magnus the Red(I know that's who your talking about) into my game

No, Magnus is NOT what I'm talking about, not at all. Remember, we're dealing with higher-level concepts here. Magnus has a problem with point costs and unit-specific rules*, something we shouldn't even be thinking about at this point. What I'm talking about is stuff like the strengths and weaknesses of broad archetypes. For example, what should be the strengths and weaknesses of tanks? We might want tanks to have great firepower and durability, but an inherent balancing factor in being poor at scoring objectives. So a tank-heavy army will be great at shooting you to death, but have a major weakness to exploit in objective-heavy missions. Or consider faction archetypes: your not-marines might be defined as "ok at everything, great at nothing", while your not-Tau might be defined as "great at shooting, terrible at melee". The rules that turn these general concepts into their specific executions come later.

*Some people also dislike Magnus for the "too many big LoW units" reasons, but that's about preference in game style rather than balance.

the most "OP" thing in the game was 'The Reaper but I'm my dev version of the army book he had already been heavily nerfed after just a few play sessions and I've reworked entire weapons because of their effectiveness

This is what I mean about making stuff up as you go along. You shouldn't even be thinking about unit-specific rules/point costs right now, the goal should be to establish the high-level concepts for your game, and then the core mechanics. Unit-specific rules and overpowered units are the last thing you worry about, once the foundation for your game is finished.

thanks for the input, ill try to work on that but for now I'm just having fun if this doesn't work, so what, I had fun doing it and I learned stuff.