Switch Theme:

Grimdark Future?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





West Michigan, deep in Whitebread, USA

Hell, I have even played games of Age of Fantasy: Skirmish with appropriate Lego figures. One of the other OPR rulesets, "Warstuff" is the one I will try to start my son with in a while (he's only 6).

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/02 00:33:36




"By this point I'm convinced 100% that every single race in the 40k universe have somehow tapped into the ork ability to just have their tech work because they think it should."  
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut




Lincoln, UK

 Illumini wrote:

I have several battle reports on my blog. All the games I have played have been really interesting, with plenty of cinematic moments. Alternating activation is a great mechanic compared to 40k

https://mandollies.com/2021/05/07/battle-for-vogen-relief-column/


Your blog is a great read - thank you!
   
Made in de
Terrifying Doombull






Nuremberg

Yeah, I found your blog a while ago and spent a lovely afternoon reading your reports. Really inspirational stuff!

   
Made in no
Boom! Leman Russ Commander






Oslo Norway

Thanks guys, glad you enjoyed it.

   
Made in us
Veteran Knight Baron in a Crusader





They just released a document detailing their design process through the v2.5 changes and it's interesting stuff! I think 2.5 is going to make the game a lot more interesting
   
Made in no
Boom! Leman Russ Commander






Oslo Norway

Got a link to the document? Couldn't find anything

   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





West Michigan, deep in Whitebread, USA

2.0 Changes and Theories behind them

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GBXf_2PNmvORxUVl41OCC1CQU-UBzrpM/view

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/02 18:43:55




"By this point I'm convinced 100% that every single race in the 40k universe have somehow tapped into the ork ability to just have their tech work because they think it should."  
   
Made in no
Boom! Leman Russ Commander






Oslo Norway

That looks like a good list of changes. Sceptical of reducing the range of stats to only 3+ to 5+, but they say they are adding special rules to make up for the reduced range, so that might work out well.

   
Made in de
Terrifying Doombull






Nuremberg

I'm also skeptical of reducing the stat range, perhaps they have good reasons for it, I've not got enough experience with the game to really judge.

One thing I am a bit unhappy about is the changes to squad sizes. I've been planning building and painting around the previous squad sizes. I'll probably just keep using the old sizes and adjust the points.

   
Made in no
Boom! Leman Russ Commander






Oslo Norway

Cheap infantry going to 10 men standard is a good change IMO. 5 man squads of 5+ infantry loaded with heavy weapons felt min-maxy.

Termies down to 3 is probably also good, as they just got very expensive as 5 man squads.

But as you say, it is easy to adjust anyways

   
Made in de
Terrifying Doombull






Nuremberg

Yeah I am just a bit put out as I just painted some 5 man terminator squads, and I've bought the models for 6 or 12 man guard squads. So I've either to buy more or not use some I've bought.

It's not a dealbreaker or anything.

   
Made in us
Seven Year War Afficianado






Chicago

Interesting to read about a potential new version of GDF. My group played 1-page 40k a few years back and liked it and just last night a friend of mine said his group played GDF a couple weeks ago and he enjoyed it far more than 9th40k.

This may be the ruleset to finally lure my son into the wonders of sci-fi wargaming.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/13 19:51:05


Chicago Skirmish Wargames club. Join us for some fast-play, indie gaming in the windy city.
http://chicagoskirmishwargames.com/blog/


My Project Log, mostly revolving around custom "Toybashed" terrain.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/651712.page

Visit the Chicago Valley Railroad!
https://chicagovalleyrailroad.blogspot.com 
   
Made in no
Boom! Leman Russ Commander






Oslo Norway

It really feels like a modern 40k game. Plenty of 40k feeling, but with alternating activation and much less nitty-gritty stuff that adds little to actual gameplay.

I have not played big games yet though, it seems to fit smaller games better IMO.

   
Made in us
Purposeful Hammerhead Pilot




United States

From what we have heard in the Patreon chats. The plan is to introduce some special rules on a unit by unit basis to selectively hand out 2+ and 6+ quality and defense in the vein of the TAO and Orc Good Shot/Bad Shot rules.

It may not end up working that way if it turns out to be more complex than the writer wants things to be. But it's an idea on if reducing those stat ranges turns out to be an issue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
These 2.5 changes are basically point calculation method updates for when he eventually overhalls the entire core gameplay and special rules in 3.0 sometime in the next year or two.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/17 12:20:10


 
   
Made in de
Terrifying Doombull






Nuremberg

In general I've been impressed with the design of GDF so I'm keeping my natural skepticism in check, but reducing the range seems like a weird choice to me. Having extra special rules added on seems more laborious than utilising the full range of numbers, and requires more cross checking, sort of reducing the accessibility of the game.

I can see however that the Quality stat in particular is used for a lot of different things, and having it limited to a smaller range for most units might be useful with specific exceptions meant to represent poor morale or whatever. But I do wonder if the sacrifice in accessibility will be worth the improvement in balance. I've downloaded all the current 2e materials anyway and can continue to use that in my games if I decide I don't like the 2.5 update.

Army wise, I've also sourced three extra terminators to make my squads six strong rather than 5 by rebasing some old 2e metals. So the only unit size issue is the HDF squads. I can see the argument for increasing the minimum size on them, but it means I gotta order another bunch of minis for my army. I'm using 2e Imperial Guard metals for my dudes, so it's a bit of a pain but I suppose I'll just keep a casual eye out on ebay.

   
Made in us
Seven Year War Afficianado






Chicago

 Da Boss wrote:


I can see however that the Quality stat in particular is used for a lot of different things, and having it limited to a smaller range for most units might be useful with specific exceptions meant to represent poor morale or whatever. But I do wonder if the sacrifice in accessibility will be worth the improvement in balance. I've downloaded all the current 2e materials anyway and can continue to use that in my games if I decide I don't like the 2.5 update.


I feel the same. I've also stockpiled the current materials. I can definitely see where one Q stat is a turnoff to players of any number of other wargames. However, I've generally found a Q stat or similarly short statline to be a benefit to the sort of games I tend to enjoy. GDF, SBH (and other games in that system, Shockforce/Warengine, Panzer 8, etc.

For a game like GDF I think Q is a great feature, but we'll see complications make the game better.

Chicago Skirmish Wargames club. Join us for some fast-play, indie gaming in the windy city.
http://chicagoskirmishwargames.com/blog/


My Project Log, mostly revolving around custom "Toybashed" terrain.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/651712.page

Visit the Chicago Valley Railroad!
https://chicagovalleyrailroad.blogspot.com 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Myrtle Creek, OR

Got my answer. Thanks

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/10/27 05:26:58


 
   
Made in us
Da Head Honcho Boss Grot




New Jersey, State of Perfection

ottokill wrote:
That's awesome, I cant wait to start battling during the Unification Wars.


Battle Brothers are just Firstborn Space Marines. Rebel Guerillas are basically just traitor guard. You can already play this using 40k or Horus Heresy rules.

 Da Boss wrote:
In general I've been impressed with the design of GDF so I'm keeping my natural skepticism in check, but reducing the range seems like a weird choice to me. Having extra special rules added on seems more laborious than utilising the full range of numbers, and requires more cross checking, sort of reducing the accessibility of the game.
I can see however that the Quality stat in particular is used for a lot of different things, and having it limited to a smaller range for most units might be useful with specific exceptions meant to represent poor morale or whatever. But I do wonder if the sacrifice in accessibility will be worth the improvement in balance. I've downloaded all the current 2e materials anyway and can continue to use that in my games if I decide I don't like the 2.5 update.
Army wise, I've also sourced three extra terminators to make my squads six strong rather than 5 by rebasing some old 2e metals. So the only unit size issue is the HDF squads. I can see the argument for increasing the minimum size on them, but it means I gotta order another bunch of minis for my army. I'm using 2e Imperial Guard metals for my dudes, so it's a bit of a pain but I suppose I'll just keep a casual eye out on ebay.


Sounds a lot to me like they are repeating the same mistakes GW made going into 9th. "Streamline everything and simplify it for balance reasons... but we have to make sure things are still differentiated, so bloat the game out with a ton of special rules to add back in all the flavor that we removed as a result of streamlining"

This ain't no pansy GW Armor, son - Digital Sculpting Plog, Now with Heavy Weapon Platforms!
Sympathy for the Devil, or: The Project Log from Hell

Ma55ter_fett wrote:It reads like the ramblings of a Nigerian lobotomized Shakespeare typed into a cellphone with a very aggressive autocomplete function.
 
   
Made in de
Terrifying Doombull






Nuremberg

Yeah, that does seem to be the trend. I'm quite happy with the really stripped down version, that's what I go to OPR for, because I'm mostly teaching wargaming to newcomers. So the accessibility barrier is a really big deal for me. This would not raise it extremely high, but it would raise it, and I think that's a negative step. Game design is always a series of trade offs between different aspects, but I'm happier with how it works right now. I must remember to go and download all the Age of Fantasy stuff too, because likely they'll want to alter that after GDF.

   
Made in at
Discriminating Warrior





Austria

not sure if over-simplify the core and add more special rules for units is the way to go

yet if they want to stay close to 40k, which seams to be their goal, it works as it will be still the better working version of 40k

Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise

M41 - Alternative Rules for Battles in the 41st Millennium (40k LRB Project) 
   
 
Forum Index » Other Sci-Fi Miniatures Games
Go to: