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.

As the title states.

The game is a quasi-medieval game called "Warbands of the North". It is set in a fictional Germanic-like realm called Talthonia. The game is something that I would enjoy (and have enjoyed) playing.

When the first draft of the rules are done (in about 3 days time) I will need playtesters to play the game and see if there are any rules holes or anything obviously broken.

Are there any volunteers? You will earn my eternal gratitude!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If anyone has any questions about the game before volunteering their services, I will gladly answer them.

EDITION 0.1b FOR DOWNLOAD:
http://www.mediafire.com/view/?6dnipfziizwresj

Fixed points and profiles.

Bit more info would be nice. What scale is the rules based around? 15mm? 28mm? etc. Also what is it, alt activations? Skirmish? WHFB style forces?

Also what do you mean by quasi-medieval? Fantasy elements?

Ok, sorry about that . . .

It's based around 28mm models, but it is easy to scale down to 15mm.

It is a skirmish game with a turn system similar to LOTR.

I said that the game is quasi-medieval because the game world is heavily based on Dark Age Germanic kingdoms and the Byzantines in around 1200. However, it's in a completely made up world. This world does not have any magic in it. Think of Calradia from the Mount and Blade series of games but with more superstitious people. The world is described from the Talthonian perspective.

CHANGE: For playtesting purposes, I'll remove the factions and re-add them when:
a) The fluff make sense
b) The factions are developed
c) The game is sorted.

If people like the game, I'll add more factions and expansions to play larger battles, fight sieges etc. that are not currently covered in the rules.

The rules and any supplements will be released for free because currently I have no intention of running a wargaming company. As a result, I will not be producing any dedicated miniatures for the game. This may change once I grow older and if my priorities change.

Ill give it a play test bud

Thanks, I'll drop you a pm when the game mechanics are done (should be by the latest sunday)

Cool lookin forward to testing it

I'd be up for giving this a whirl. I don't have a ton of realistic looking fantasy figures but I can probably scrounge up enough 28mm dudes with swords to make a go of it.
I always find it interesting to see what other game designers are working on!

Thanks, it doesn't really matter, as long as you have nice models

The rules are very near completion, I just need to add provisional profiles and rules for terrain. Keep your eyes peeled!

I dont mind taking a looksee New gameroom opening near me is a bit deserted atm, will give me somethin quick and easy to get some interest going from randomers

I'd give this a spin as well! I should be able to make my Orcs work out.

_Tim?

Cool guys, thanks so much!

The rules are completed. Of course, there are probably imbalances and weird bits in it.

The link is here:
http://www.mediafire.com/view/?4u05577dyxd1997

Have fun with it, and tell me about any issues that you have with the rules!

Right off the bat a few things, firstly an idea of a recommended points value in relation to force size could be handy (games tend to play differently when you have 15 models on the table as opposed to 4 or 5, and tends to change the ballance a little).

Also towards the end in the proviles, "M value" and then "MV". So Move value and mellee value value? Also the soldier doesnt seem to have any base AP value in the profile at the end unless im mistaken, and the leader seems a tad overcosted for what amounts to +2HP and less than half the weapon options.

 doc1234 wrote:
Right off the bat a few things, firstly an idea of a recommended points value in relation to force size could be handy (games tend to play differently when you have 15 models on the table as opposed to 4 or 5, and tends to change the ballance a little).

Also towards the end in the proviles, "M value" and then "MV". So Move value and mellee value value? Also the soldier doesnt seem to have any base AP value in the profile at the end unless im mistaken, and the leader seems a tad overcosted for what amounts to +2HP and less than half the weapon options.

Thanks for that, I'll update the rules and post a new link in the OP. This game must be the first to go through two editions in less than than 2 days (so you know the game has longevity )!

What do you mean by the M and the MV?

Haha yeah no worries man, can play yet so thought id point out what i can with the rule booklet itself (dunno about others but when im downloading random rules, the quality of what i download tends to be a deciding factor, and the little things bug me ><

the Move and Mellee value stat. Doesnt make it harder to play, more the wording of saying Move value right after MV, resulted in a quick head scratch at the horses entry.

I'll keep that in mind for version 0.1c or 0.2, whichever comes first. Thanks for that!

Link in the OP for version 0.1b.

What do people think of the game?

Its ok, would like to see some differences in the "mook" option, as in warrior/scout/shieldbrother/whatever. The option to kit them out with weapons to make the classes was nice, but the no limit on weapons and identicle stats means it becomes a fairly..well tarpitted i guess is the word, both sides end up with close to the same army. So maybe alter that stats and costs on different mooks to add a bit of variety and choice "do i take the archer with long bow, or would i better defend my general with sword-and-board warrior"? Just think itl add a bit of variaty, even if its just to try a limit of how many weapons can be carried

Thanks for that. I'm currently developing the different armies and I'll be sure to include your suggestions in the game.

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
Thanks for that. I'm currently developing the different armies and I'll be sure to include your suggestions in the game.

No problem, i appreciate this version is just to get the system kinks worked out so to speak, looking forward to faction updates!

In a few days time, I will put the rules for a Talthonian army up. It should be more fun than the current rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Then, a bit later, the rules for the two other armies. Following that should be fluff, and then after that rules for sieges.

Hi,

I found a couple of the ideas to be at odds with each other. Like you have stringent move/charge -> shoot -> close combat -> end phase ordering (inflexible), but then also an Action Point system (flexible). Then AP is spent for normal movement, but not for sprinting, whereas that seems like a perfect case for AP to be used.
Why not just do away with the phases and let a model choose how to spend it's AP? These are savage Northern warriors, not rank-and-file British redcoats waiting for an order to shoot

The game still reads like a massive scale combat, ie. 40k, instead of skirmish scale. I'm never a fan of having UGO-IGO turn structure, especially in a skirmish game. It just doesn't feel reactive enough at all.
Speaking of 40k, the rule of "not shooting into close combat" seems to have been carried over. Never understood that one, where melee instantly acts as a bubble of invulnerability to ranged
Also can people leave close combat voluntarily? I might have missed that.

Since you only have a dozen models a side, I'd recommend really leveraging that and bringing the level of detail up. You can have more complex turn ordering, and extra detailed combat (beyond D6 + Str > Armor = -1 HP), and the game won't bog down thanks to the scale.

Also in terms of close combat I had a question. The attacker has to spend AP to decide their number of strikes, but so does the defender, since you have it resolving simultaneously. But does that mean the defender can run out of AP before their turn? Or not have any AP left if they've gone already?

I like all the different effects for the melee weapons, I'm a big fan of having weapons behave in a unique way as I find that adds a lot of choice for the players. Similarly I like the special "shield wall" option of multiple shields.

Have you ever heard of Song of Blades and Heroes? They do a great job of a fun skirmish game that isn't unique just to be unique (a problem I often slip into).

Anyway I think the rules are a good start, but when reading them I got the feeling you kind of wanted to move away from GW mechanics, but at the same time you stayed locked in with some of them. I can understand how it's easy to stick to what you know and are comfortable with, but I just think some general tuning and review of the core logic would help.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also I forgot to say if you want more feedback here are a couple of useful forums:

The Miniatures Page Game Design section: http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/topics.mv?id=29
The Forge (indie games): http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forge/index.php?board=76.0
Subreddit for tabletop design: http://www.reddit.com/r/tabletopgamedesign/

Alternatively they are just fun to read to see various ideas and prototypes people have.

Thanks for that, sorry for not responding earlier!

Just to let you guys know, I'm working on the 0.2 edition.

Some of the major changes include:
- Removal of the IGOUGO structure and it's being replaced with an initiative value (roll a D6 and use modifiers)
- Re-working combat (now 1 AP = one strike with a weapon. You can block the strike and things.)
- Picking up and dropping weapons
- Re-working how cavalry does stuff

Also being added are the three factions with a bit of story. A major change to the world: instead of being a changed Earth, there will be extra fauna such as trolls and other things that aren't called trolls and other things because that's boring. The focus will still be on the people of Talthonia and the invasions by the Yleysan Empire and the Hordes of Epu-Hallus.

Just in case you guys missed this!

Just a quick question:
- Would you want 5 factions that are quite similar but still quite different (think CSM to vanilla Marines), or 3 that are each incredibly different (think Orks to vanilla Marines)?