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.
2014/03/16 21:15:01
Subject: Grimdark documents (formerly 40k in 40 pages)
I agree that a lot of this is going to be defined already, but I see where Lanrak is coming from. Honestly I think that's part of the reason 40k has gotten to this point: it lost its vision.
Lanrak,
Is this better:
Purpose:
-Simple game that can be learned in a few hours
-Required items: D6, tape measure, 3" blast, 5" blast, scatter die
-Balanced > themed
Scope:
-Average games between 30-100 models
-Army size looks natural on 4x6 board
-28mm scale
Setting:
-Near future science fiction
-Narrative games encouraged, but competitive possible
-Abstraction is needed (example is moving away from TLOS)
Core goals:
-Simultaneous and interactive game turns
-Balanced rules allowing diverse choices
-Simple rule set so anyone can jump in
Is that more what you're looking for?
All,
I am working on another revision to the Space Marine codex. Expect a significant jump in points to move away from GW's "buy more crap" rule trend. Space Marines will also have more stat variation (e.g. Assault marines will lose armor but cost the same number of points.) My midterm is coming up so it may not be complete for a little bit.
Some times its too easy to get caught up in the detail,and sort of lose focus on what you wanted to achive......
Rather than stand back and say, well that is good, but it is it good enough to do all I want it too?
You have some excellent core ideas in your rule set.But I felt you got a bit bogged down in the detail some what, and it went a bit 'fuzzy'.
May I suggest you start with 'bog standard human' as a reference point.As we all can relate to them . because we are bog standard humans!
IMO the balance goes wobbly when you make superhuman elites as the 'standard ' all other armies are measured against.
If you start with IG (infantry hoard,) as the base line, it also helps you keep the game size in check.
2014/03/17 18:04:37
Subject: Re:Grimdark documents (formerly 40k in 40 pages)
Lanrak wrote: @Rabid.
Yes that is the sort of thing.
Some times its too easy to get caught up in the detail,and sort of lose focus on what you wanted to achive......
Rather than stand back and say, well that is good, but it is it good enough to do all I want it too?
You have some excellent core ideas in your rule set.But I felt you got a bit bogged down in the detail some what, and it went a bit 'fuzzy'.
May I suggest you start with 'bog standard human' as a reference point.As we all can relate to them . because we are bog standard humans!
IMO the balance goes wobbly when you make superhuman elites as the 'standard ' all other armies are measured against.
If you start with IG (infantry hoard,) as the base line, it also helps you keep the game size in check.
Where the "baseline" is doesn't really matter a lot when you're trying to write stats that only matter relative to each other.
@AnomanderRake.
If you want to set the size of the game between 30 and 100 models a side.
Then getting the force with a 100 model infantry hoarde , first helps keep the rest of the forces to scale.
When 40k started making Space Marines the 'standard' army.(So they could get 100 model infantry hoard in SMs to boost minature sales.)
IG and ork foot slogging hoards became too expencive to buy and we started fighting on very crowded tables.
You can start with the uber elite armies, but its hard to project where the other forces will end up.
And we have a much better understanding of normal human capabilities, because we are human.
That way an elite units that is 8 times better than a human unit , has reference we can relate to.
Where a unit that is 0,38 the effectiveness of a Superman unit, is harder to visualize...
2014/03/18 16:07:14
Subject: Grimdark documents (formerly 40k in 40 pages)
Automatically Appended Next Post: Stealing a post from over on /tg/,
"Dropzone Commander deals with this by splitting armies into battlegroups made of more than one unit. You activate one battlegroup at a time, and each player will have the same number of battlegroups even if they contain different numbers of units.
This does potentially make it complicated though- it helps to have some visual marker of who's in what battlegroup.
Also Dropzone's factions are (at least at the moment) fairly similar in their basic units, so they won't get too different anyway. 40k is more varied."
Is anything like this being thought of? We could have Control Zones based off middling commanders (HQ Commander -> Subcommanders -> Unit Leaders).
Would work especially well with Tyranids and Synapse, where you can add some dimensionality to their tactics by altering control groups each turn based on synapse.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/03/18 16:29:18
Pit your chainsword against my chainsw- wait that's Heresy.
2014/03/18 23:28:02
Subject: Grimdark documents (formerly 40k in 40 pages)
I'm in the process of doing a major rebalance and renaming of the Space Marine codex and actually have started on the Imperial Guard codex too. Here's a sneak preview of what I have in store, you can probably guess the units they're replacing:
-Three traits: Conscription, Armored Company, Air Cavalry
-Commanders: Commissar, Tank Commander, Wing Commander
-Scoring units: Concripts, Lynx transport w/ Guardsmen, Stormtroopers
-Other core units: Heavy Weapons Team, Special Weapons Team, Tiger Battle Tank, Cheetah Recon Vehicle, Pelican Transport, Hawk Fighter/Bomber
-Rare units: Psyker Battle Squad, Command Squad, Panther Stealth Tank, Lion Ordnance Vehicle, Falcon Fighter, Eagle Bomber
IG will in general move away from a wave of bodies (unless you want it) and more towards modern day forces. Space Marines will stay as hyper elite human forces.
Anomander,
I can see where Lanrak is coming from. It was a piece of advice I didn't follow when I was working to make all the codices, so it's resulted in improperly stratified stats. I'm doing the rebalance now to remedy that.
Chrisrawr,
Once the rebalance is done, we'll get a game in over a couple days. Each day we'll knock out a turn and post the battle report on here. This way even when I get crazy busy we can keep it going.
That system I think would work well in a modern day combat system. We haven't really discussed it, but I'm not sure how well it would transfer into a hugely varied universe like 40k.
Hi Rabid.
How do you feel about simplifying the stat lines a bit?
I am referring to present the info in a slightly different way to improve definition?
Maybe use symbols and combine the values in some cases?(Keep all the values , just present them differently..)
2014/04/06 18:53:52
Subject: Grimdark documents (formerly 40k in 40 pages)
Sorry it's been so long, had a lot going on that I had to take care of. Anyways...
I'm glad you all like it, and I've considered using pictures instead of text but have not had any luck finding good pictures to use. Some are easier than others, but I don't want to half-ass it and not deliver what everyone deserves.
So here's a full unit card template, and it is a full codex template to work within if anyone is feeling bold.
I'm going to spend a good portion of today knocking out an Imperial Guard codex (anticipate new named units.) The tone is going to be different than 40k's IG, in so far as guardsmen are not to be trifled with. They are going to be an average sized force, but have conscripts as a theme so you can still capture that if desired.
*Edit: Here's what I've managed to get done on the Imperial Guard Codex, lemme know what you think
I agree that a lot of this is going to be defined already, but I see where Lanrak is coming from. Honestly I think that's part of the reason 40k has gotten to this point: it lost its vision.
Lanrak,
Is this better:
Purpose:
-Simple game that can be learned in a few hours
-Required items: D6, tape measure, 3" blast, 5" blast, scatter die
-Balanced > themed
Scope:
-Average games between 30-100 models
-Army size looks natural on 4x6 board
-28mm scale
Setting:
-Near future science fiction
-Narrative games encouraged, but competitive possible
-Abstraction is needed (example is moving away from TLOS)
Core goals:
-Simultaneous and interactive game turns
-Balanced rules allowing diverse choices
-Simple rule set so anyone can jump in
Is that more what you're looking for?
All,
I am working on another revision to the Space Marine codex. Expect a significant jump in points to move away from GW's "buy more crap" rule trend. Space Marines will also have more stat variation (e.g. Assault marines will lose armor but cost the same number of points.) My midterm is coming up so it may not be complete for a little bit.
Seems good, I admire your in-wait a minute.
rabid1903 wrote: Purpose:
-Simple game that can be learned in a few hours
-Required items: D6, tape measure, 3" blast, 5" blast, scatter die
-Balanced > themed
Scope:
-Average games between 30-100 models
-Army size looks natural on 4x6 board
-28mm scale
Setting:
-Near future science fiction
-Narrative games encouraged, but competitive possible
-Abstraction is needed (example is moving away from TLOS)
Core goals:
-Simultaneous and interactive game turns
-Balanced rules allowing diverse choices
-Simple rule set so anyone can jump in
rabid1903 wrote: Setting:
-Near future science fiction-Narrative games encouraged, but competitive possible
-Abstraction is needed (example is moving away from TLOS)
Warhammer 40k Tagline wrote:IN THE GRIM DARKNESS OF THE [b]FAR FUTURE THERE IS ONLY WAR
Everything else is fine but that little goof made me do a double take.
So far what you've made seems to be good for a quick, short, pick me up company level game and I'll see about trying out what you've created.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/10 09:22:22
Midnightdeathblade wrote: Think of a daemon incursion like a fart you don't quite trust... you could either toot a little puff of air, bellow a great effluvium, or utterly sh*t your pants and cry as it floods down your leg.
2014/04/10 12:47:56
Subject: Grimdark documents (formerly 40k in 40 pages)
I think I have a much clearer picture of what you're saying now. I'm going to finish writing the guard codex, but I do think your style is going to be much more appealing and streamlined so I will adjust the codex layout for future codices.
Kain,
I assure you that was no goof and I knew what I was doing
At this point, 40k is just an inspiration for Grimdark. Futuristic sci fi is what I was going for, but I decided on a near future because I felt I could more accurately create a game in that era. I'm an engineer by trade, so to me far future seemed like extrapolating a data set out much too far to be comfortable.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/10 12:48:54
Oh boy, so I've made a ton of progress on this codex. The only thing that is left are HQ units. No way it is balanced right now, but it gets the point across and demonstrates what a full codex looks like.
Hi all.
Just to quickly mention that 'near sci fi' is how the rules work.(Eg based on modern combat but with the fluff allowing higher tec options/variants.)
So a 'far future' war setting , could revert back to ancient war,after 'modern technology' is completely lost.
Where ranged weapons are only used in a supporting role and mobility and assault are the core of the game play.
Or it could follow the natural progression of modern warfare, 1940s to the present day.
This is often called 'modern warfare', or ' near future sci fi.'
Its just how the rules deliver this type of game play.
It does not have anything much to do with the game setting.( 2085, or 39, 999.'near' or 'far future' setting.)
But what type of warfare is being represented .
@Rabid.
How do you feel about using simple symbols for the stats on the unit profiles?
(It just makes them easier to reference )
2014/04/12 16:13:59
Subject: Grimdark documents (formerly 40k in 40 pages)
I do plan to use symbols for stats, but I want to have a working codex before I make that transition. Getting it to a play-testable version is critical right now, because I can go no further without play testing again.
Just finished the HQ section of the book. This is not my best work and I want to add a lot more flavor to it, but it gets the army off the ground and into a play testable state. Chrisrawr, if you have the time in the upcoming weeks I would love to get a game in on Vassal. Just let me know when works for you and I'll adjust my schedule as best as I can.
You have re-interpreted the imperial guard a fair bit, (well, depending on regiment). Yours are very much modern military force with some changes because its the future. (As opposed to the normal 40kIG who I would say are world war one soldiers in the future). I think the re-emphasis makes sense from a game balance point of view. The rules-glut of 40k is probably largely attributable to the fact that many armies are allmost trying to play different games against one another.
to me far future seemed like extrapolating a data set out much too far to be comfortable.
He, he, he. I know what you mean. Depending on context far future war can mean all sorts of things. Sometimes it means "they basically have magic alright" (star treck/star wars/stargate/doctor who), sometimes it means "scientific knowledge hasn't been revolutionized, they have just uber-optimized their technology', and thus nanites dominate (Alistair Reynolds books).
I am really impressed at how much you managed to compress the IG codex. It seems to take up so little space, and as far as I can see the only things removed were the abhumans.
On a balance note, it seems that I could, in principle take nothing but a tank commander and lots of Tiger tanks. (Maybe throw in another unit to fill up any remaining pts). No matter how well balanced Tiger tanks are individually this is probably something to think about carefully. It is a well known problem with current 40k that take all comers armies can really struggle against some mad focus. (They basically just saturate your counter to whatever it is they focus on.
I don't really have an answer for this, its just something that has been bothering me.
2014/04/14 22:10:46
Subject: Grimdark documents (formerly 40k in 40 pages)
The main problem they would run into is having no scoring units and would nearly guaranteed lose any mission. Unfortunately we run into the same problem as 40k because who's to say they don't just wipe out the other force.
I think a good idea may be to slim down the force org chart pretty considerably. What would everyone think about halving it (4 core/2 support/1 rare?) Force org charts should fill out around 1500 as that's what I'm balancing around.
@Rabid.
It just depends how you are most comfortable with structuring armies.
Do you prefer smaller controlled chunks , to allow multiple theme options at 'normal game size'.
Or more relaxed themes that constitute a single option for 'normal game size'.
if you think 4 2 1 would get to 1500pts easily then that sounds like a good plan.
(You can always increase unit size of cheaper options , eg only allow mobs of 30 grots for example.)
2014/04/26 12:12:14
Subject: Grimdark documents (formerly 40k in 40 pages)
Sorry it's been a while, I've been really busy so finding time to hop on and chat has been difficult.
Anyways, I'm strongly leaning towards a 4-4-1 force org chart. This ends with 10 units total, where at least half are themed around a trait. The other half can then be used to balance out the army or add some unique flavor to it so there aren't so many identical armies out there.
The final for my class is in two weeks, so after that my free time will go up significantly. If anyone is up for play testing over Vassal that would be great.
I've recently been tinkering with a dual-resource force org instead of hard limits; Core troops cost regular points, while upgrades and other force orgs also draw from a secondary points pool - this lets the players pick how many non-core units they'd like to play with, within the scope of the original game.
Pit your chainsword against my chainsw- wait that's Heresy.
2014/04/27 08:26:54
Subject: Re:Grimdark documents (formerly 40k in 40 pages)
Right now "core" is determined by faction - I don't have my factions' fluff very in-depth yet so I have yet to start altering points-costs by commander, but that is an eventual goal (e.g. swarmlord making warriors cost less, parasite making rippers cost less, etc.).
A typical game would be a split of 100 normal points and 50 support points.
So for example, I've got "Regular modern humans" as a faction, with an all-purpose Infantry Unit costing 10 'normal' points. Buying special weapons or upgrades for them costs between 1 and 5 support points - so I could have a unit of snipers or artillery or veterans, etc.
From here, I'm between two schools of thought on the matter:
Do I create a "core" Infantry, Tank, Flier, Fast, etc., Unit be the 'base' that players can simply tailor through upgrades? This option is the easiest to directly compare opportunity costs, but comes with a whole boat of special rules that have to be added or replaced - unnecessary clutter.
The other is to create 2-3 units for each category and keep their options fairly linear - for instance, an artillery unit might still get access to sniper rifles, but they would cost extra on top of the small support points cost required to purchase the unit itself; a light tank might upgrade its main gun to a larger tanks' gun, but it would be less efficient (if less costly overall) than buying a larger tank.
This option is easier to implement and requires less special rules and clutter overall, but balance might be difficult to ascertain with the amount of iterating I'm doing right now.
Of course, players get to choose how many points they'd like to play with - The game is going to be 'balanced' for a range: between 50/10 (3-5 units with a few special weapons) and 500/500 (20 or more units with swagtastic loadouts). This is roughly equivalent to a 3000 points warhammer game.
I'd also like to include Support Units that cost more support points than Normal - similar to the Science Vessel or High Templar in Starcraft.
edit: sorry for slight derail rabid, I got excited :v
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/29 23:49:08
Pit your chainsword against my chainsw- wait that's Heresy.
2014/05/02 01:34:48
Subject: Grimdark documents (formerly 40k in 40 pages)
So right now I'm playtesting 50/10 games as they're really easy to pick up and only last about 20-30 minutes once the learning is out of the way.
The two factions I've got so far have 3 units each simply because I haven't made more yet; Infantry, Artillery, and Jeeps on one side, Shamans, Horde, and War Hounds on the other.
Infantry are fairly standard; they can buy a few basic upgrades (more grenades, better weapons, special training) for a few Support points.
Artillery are slow, lightly-armoured Infantry with longer-ranged weapons. I'm using "Guess" ranges for this game, as I intend to have Scouts and other units give rangefinding options. As well, players can reposition guess-range artillery by sacrificing Ranged Capability, meaning they do less damage but might actually get a hit.
Jeeps are low-cost, fast units with comparatively high armour and evasion - but if you want to put a machine gun on them, you're sacrificing a lot of support points (3 out of 10). Still, they're a good platform for it in small games, and in larger games the points cost won't be as punishing.
Shamans are the de-facto leaders of the Horde; think Orc Warlocks from Warcraft 2. Support points can buy battlefield-wide aura spells to protect your allies and demoralize enemies, but are otherwise 'human' in stats - it's important to keep them out of range and sight.
Hordes consist of Chieftains and Berzerkers - Stronger and meatier than regular humans, but with less armour. The basic Unit costs the same as an Infantry squad, but additional models can be added - Chieftains cost 3 support points. Without chieftains, the unit falls to morale quite quickly; chieftains gain power by absorbing the souls of fallen enemy units. In this way, the unit is fairly dynamic based not only on how it's set up and deployed, but on what opportunities are presented to it throughout a game.
War wolves are a powerful fast-attack Unit that costs support points in upkeep - support points can be gained throughout the game by capturing objectives and destroying enemy units. Not paying it, or not being able to pay it, causes them to flee - attacking any units in their path.
The first step to use this kind of system in Grimdark would be to remove all FOC restrictions and rebuild some units (Non-unique commanders etc) around the idea that more can be bought if the support availability is there for it.
Then would be the re-costing of each Unit, based on what it has WITHOUT any upgrades. Some units, like Crisis Suits and Gaunts, may need to be given a default weapon and costed with it in mind.
Finally comes assigning a secondary cost to each unit, and to each option or upgrade. As I'm familiar with Tau, using a 1500/500 'base' (arbitrary example) you could do something like
"Commander: 100 P / 100 SP - 2 burst cannons
Can have 2 bodyguards, 50/20 each
Everyone can upgrade BC to (gun options) for (gun points), and buy (drone options) for (drone points)."
Want 4 tricked-out commanders? Great, you still have points left over for fire warriors that have no upgrades.
Pit your chainsword against my chainsw- wait that's Heresy.
2014/05/08 08:18:09
Subject: Re:Grimdark documents (formerly 40k in 40 pages)
Hi chisrawar.
My only concern with your system is the use of points for determining army composition.
Are these going to be in addition to the 'standard point values of units ' , or replace them?
I am not a fan of a 'single point value set' as the only control of army composition.As a single level restriction using costings has to be very 'mutable' to cover synergistic composition.
(If you have to 'fudge/fiddle' point values to arrive at balance at higher levels to allow for synergistic bonuses.What is the point of allocating accurate point values in the primary costings?)
I would prefer the standard PV to determine in game effectiveness as accurately as possible.
And the method of force organization to limit the frequency and combination the units can be used in.(Based on theme availability.)
You appear to be costing based on in game effectiveness , which is great.
However, I am not sure the way you want to use the point values would give enough control to counter synergistic bonuses.
I am looking forward to see how your idea develops with great interest.
2014/05/09 00:58:28
Subject: Grimdark documents (formerly 40k in 40 pages)
In my case, the only other differentiation between units is how many points they can score on objectives each turn - this is how I'm addressing the lack of hard limits on synergistic strengths.
Normal points are fairly indicative of a Units' straight stats - health and damage output per turn. In a 150 point game, each side will have 8-12 units with overall numbers within an order of magnitude of each other.
Units that are normally considered 'core' - regular infantry, small fast attack craft, most commanders - tend to score more points on objectives each turn; they make up for a lack of synergy by improving your teams' overall score. Since they cost less Support points, your army may even start off far in the lead with regards to score (as the secondary points are, again, used to keep track of scoring as well!)
This means that, although a more synergystic army should be able to contain and pin your army, whiping it out completely is still about as difficult as it would be to win through any other way - which is how it should be.
Pit your chainsword against my chainsw- wait that's Heresy.
2014/05/09 07:06:00
Subject: Re:Grimdark documents (formerly 40k in 40 pages)
When you talk about 'objectives', I assume you mean physical objectives on the playing area?
I am happy with a less 'finite and fiddly pv allocation'.
But a more direct restriction on composition , in the form of proportional control (4,4,2 for example)might be needed?.
I was also thinking another way to allow less granularity in composition would be to make a wide and varied range of game types.
EG 6 attacker missions and 6 defender missions , and 3 table set ups.These are all randomly generated to arrive at 108 possible 'scenario' combinations.
I am not sure if you can get this level of diversity just from on table objective driven games.But I could be wrong...
I am just trying to offer some ideas and concepts that may be useful to you.
Just using PV may not prove adaptable enough , and so its worth looking at other supporting concepts that could be used in conjunction with them if needed IMO.
![[Disk]](/dakkaforum/templates/default/images/icon_disk.gif){kind=icon}
