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.

Greetings folks! Finding myself with some more free time as uni winds down for the summer, and a slowly growing collection of Fantasy miniatures with my Age of Sigmar army, I got the urge to revisit one of my old projects, a D8-based Fantasy Skirmish. I first released these rules over a year ago, but didn't get very far with the project; now, they're back, and vastly expanded and generally a lot more polished than that very early draft Coming back to it, I have a better idea of what I want from the game, more experience writing rules and mechanics and it's come together in something I'm genuinely looking forward to test out myself.

What is it?
Across The Realms is a Fantasy Skirmish game for 2 or more players, designed to be played with any collection of Fantasy miniatures. Objective-driven battles are fought between Warbands of 6-12 models, using a combat system that is simple to resolve but requires careful thought in picking your battles as armour, weapons and skills all interact to determine the result.

Fantasy Skirmish games are ten a penny these days, why should I care about this one?
Part of my inspiration for writing these rules was that none of the big skirmish games on the market really offered what I want from my warband-level skirmishes. Song of Blades and Heroes I found overly simplistic, Frostgrave and Mordheim a little too heavy on the bookkeeping and fiddliness, LotR and Dragon Rampant work best with far more models than I wanted to be playing with. All are good rulesets, but I wanted a middle ground between them, hence Across The Realms was born. There are definitely elements of other games in here, particularly Mordheim and Frostgrave, but I don't think it plays too much like any of them. It's not as abstract as SoBaH, not as granular as Mordheim, not as focused on magic and characters as Frostgrave...

So what's there to like in this ruleset?
Across The Realms is built on the ethos of depth without complexity. Actions are usually resolved with a single D8 roll, or an opposed D8 roll between players, with the effect of skills, weapons, armour and abilities represented as modifiers to this roll. These modifiers are the core of the system, and will impact on every roll. An armoured warrior struck by battleaxe is likely to be felled in one blow, the same warrior in heavy armour is much more likely to survive. Conversely, a warrior carrying a shield and wearing heavy armour will be almost impervious to arrows, but still in deadly danger from a musket shot. The key is that all these interactions are covered by the same mechanic, so you you can remember how to add numbers to a D8, you can play this game!

The missions and deployment types are designed with telling a story in mind, there is scope within the rules for daring rescues, valiant last stands, smash and grab treasure hunting, pitched battles and deadly traps. In this draft there are 8 Deployment types and 6 Missions, for a total of 48 combinations, with more Missions to come in future versions. Said updates will also include a selection of environment-based rules, allowing you to fight battles deep underground, on an icy plateau, in the midst of a thunderstorm or even in a chaotic realm of madness as terrain shifts and reality distorts itself. Put simply, the aim here it to create a system that means if you can imagine a story, you can tell it.

Another more unique apsect of the game is the role of terrain, many types having constant effects on the battle, others allowing models to interact and gain victory points, receive bonuses or alter the environment around them. As with the mission and environment rules, this list of terrain and effects will be hugely expanded over the course of development, which should allow for some highly interactive games where the board is as much a factor as the models.

In this draft, you will find:
- All the core rules for the game, including combat, terrain, magic, and equipment
- 6 missions and 8 deployment types
- Sample army lists for the Guild Warriors (human faction) and Cursed Undead.


Coming Soon...
- Expanded and new army lists... let me know which factions/archetypes you want added and I'll bump them to the front of the queue!
- More Terrain rules, environment and weather rules, more interactive elements
- Expanded Spell and Equipment lists
- Character Creation and Campaign System
- More varied and dynamic Combat
- More missions, potentially solo and co-op missions



So there you have it. The document can be found below, I would massively appreciate any feedback no matter how minor or major, and if there are any heroes out there who fancy taking a few Fantasy minis off the shelf and having a quick run through of the game, then that would be amazing. I'm also going to throw this out to yoy guys: What would you want to see in your perfect Fantasy Skirmish wargame? Is there an element of gameplay or a faction that you've always wanted to see incorporated into a ruleset? I want to make this as comprehensive as possible, so don't hesitate to let me know if you have something you'd like to see added!

Thanks for looking, and may your dice roll high!

Get a Google Drive/Box account instead of using attachments. That way you can plunk it down all over the net!

Seems functional enough. Here are my thoughts, so take them or leave them.

Things I like
The main mechanic is opposed dice rolls.
You have missions
Terrain rules

Things I Do Not Like
Why are Attack/Defence different stats?
I hate Action points as it is needless book keeping. Either each model does just one, or they can do as many as they need in a activation. AP are pointless.

Meh and Other Uncertainties
Too many modifiers + Special Rules+ tables! Oh my!
There is no morale system
It is unclear who starts a Turn and how a turn progresses. I understand players choose to do actions with their models, but are they simultaneous, I-GO-U-GO, Alternating? etc.
It is unclear what happens when a model reaches 0 Health Points
Missions are VP only win conditions
Why D8?

Final Thoughts
Right now you have the basic ideas down for a functional game.

However, I think you will want to spend some time thinking about what you are actually trying to accomplish instead of just cobbling together bits and pieces form different games that you like. For example LOTR is a system designed for big heroes to be able to do big things, and the mechanics work that way. Frostgrave is about Wizards so the mechanics emphasize magic. Dragon rampant emphasizes customization of units. What is your game trying to bring to the table? If the answer is be generic, than you should stop right now because no one wants to play something that is generic.

Once you know what your game is trying to accomplish then you can fit together and build the mechanics that make the most sense. For example, let's say you decide that you want a low-fantasy world. Then melee and combat mechanics for individuals are important. If is high-fantasy you want your heroes to stick out so maybe they can do more in a turn than other lesser mortals? Perhaps it is about battling mind-bending horrors in a fantasy world where morale and sanity are valued. Then, you can start to build the game around the unique themes of your game and world.

Then always remember to cover the basics of:
-Move
-Melee
-Missile
-Morale
-Missions

You have most of these in place so just build in the chrome now.

Good shout, here's a Google Drive link if that's easier for anyone.

I added some thoughts above.

Thanks for the thorough breakdown! Definitely some instant things that leap out as needing changing, but this is why I'm putting the draft up after all!

Things I Do Not Like
Why are Attack/Defence different stats?
I hate Action points as it is needless book keeping. Either each model does just one, or they can do as many as they need in a activation. AP are pointless.

Attack and Defence are different stats to facilitate specialists in one or the other, and because I do find a combined 'skill' value like Song of Blades uses too simple. For example, take the Dire Hound unit. It's a feral zombie dog, if it starts attacking someone it's going to be lethal, but it's not really able or wanting to defend itself. Meanwhile, a Dwarf Warrior trained in defensive fighting might have an above-average Defence stat but only an average Attack stat.

The Action Points are there as I want there to be options in how things are done. Rather than having move/shoot/fight phases, I want someone to be able to fire off an arrow then move back into cover, or fight an enemy then cast a spell ect. There's no bookkeeping involved as models do all their actions consecutively (though I can't recall if I clarified this) so it boils down to 'you can do 2 of these Actions in a turn'. It's not like you need to keep track of what's been spent, you just pick a model it does two things and you move onto the next.

Meh and Other Uncertainties
Too many modifiers + Special Rules+ tables! Oh my!

It does look like a lot, I'll give you that! There will only typically be 2 at most in play on a roll (eg D8+Attack, or D8+Weapon-Armour), so in theory that shouldn't be too complicated. Maybe it's the 40k in me (or more likely the Batman Miniatures Game, with its 232 separate Special Traits... yeah, that is a bit too many! ), but I actually thought the Special Rules need expanding. I'm all for stats providing variety, but they can only go so far, and I do think in a game of this size, the more variation the better. The big list of Special Rules is simply to consolidate them in one place, like the Modifiers for weapons and armour, in practice there's only ever going to be 2 or 3 at most affecting a model.

The tables are just a layout thing, most of them are again just reference sheets that can be cut down once you look at specific models, or in the case of the 6 VP tables for the Missions sections they're just the easiest way to organise them for now. That will definitely be looked at in updates, once I know exactly how many tables and charts there are I will cut them from the main body and consolidate them into a Reference section and avoid duplication.

There is no morale system

This is deliberate, I think at this level it's just not that necessary. It's vital in larger battles, when things like unit cohesion and orders are important, but when you've got about a dozen models in play, it's every man for himself, I think. It's another stat and another level of complexity that I just don't see as needed.

It is unclear who starts a Turn and how a turn progresses. I understand players choose to do actions with their models, but are they simultaneous, I-GO-U-GO, Alternating? etc.

Definitely need to clean this up, thanks for pointing it out!

It is unclear what happens when a model reaches 0 Health Points

As above, kind of took that one for granted that 0HP=dead but it does need spelling out.

Missions are VP only win conditions

Not sure what you mean here? Do you mean there should be other ways of winning missions or something? Wipeouts do guarantee victory, everything else is covered by the kinds of VP available. Eg. rather than a Mission saying 'Player A needs to get X models off the enemy Board Edge' I can just list 'Escape: 1VP'.

Why D8?

Basically I just like them! More granular than a D6 which I feel at a skirmish level is not enough, but less so than a D20 which I don't like to see outside of RPGs (one of my many problems with Infinity). D8 gives me a good range of variables, and interacts better with my Modifier system (+4 on a makes the roll pretty much unneccesary, ona D8 it just significantly improves the odds)

Final Thoughts
Right now you have the basic ideas down for a functional game.

However, I think you will want to spend some time thinking about what you are actually trying to accomplish instead of just cobbling together bits and pieces form different games that you like. For example LOTR is a system designed for big heroes to be able to do big things, and the mechanics work that way. Frostgrave is about Wizards so the mechanics emphasize magic. Dragon rampant emphasizes customization of units. What is your game trying to bring to the table? If the answer is be generic, than you should stop right now because no one wants to play something that is generic.

Once you know what your game is trying to accomplish then you can fit together and build the mechanics that make the most sense. For example, let's say you decide that you want a low-fantasy world. Then melee and combat mechanics for individuals are important. If is high-fantasy you want your heroes to stick out so maybe they can do more in a turn than other lesser mortals? Perhaps it is about battling mind-bending horrors in a fantasy world where morale and sanity are valued. Then, you can start to build the game around the unique themes of your game and world.

Then always remember to cover the basics of:
-Move
-Melee
-Missile
-Morale
-Missions

You have most of these in place so just build in the chrome now.

Ok, what I want to achieve with this game:

- Fast and simple gameplay (I think this one is pretty much sorted with the Opposed Single D8 core)

- Narrative-driven (starting to come through in the Missions and Deployments, will be more obvious once I get to the character system).

- Setting is a tough one, because ultimately I do want this one to be quite adaptable. I'll be primarily using it for the AoSverse, but I want it to function just as well in a D&D or WFB or LotR setting. I guess I'm hoping this one ultimately works irrespective of setting on the strength of the mechanics, so really it's setting-neutral, unique and effective gameplay as the 'selling point'.

- In terms of heroes vs mooks, I do want there to be an element of heroism in there, and I plan to expand the Leader rules to that end, again this is something that'll come with the campaign/creation stuff. At the same time, I don't want the regular warriors to just be set dressing or pawns for the heroes; I want every model playing with the same amount of depth, with the hero being set apart just by being more capable than their followers, with better stats and gear, rather than being governed by additional/different rules. Wizards likewise I don't want to be any different mechanically, just functioning in a different role by handing out buffs/debuffs.



Thanks again for the feedback, definitely given me some food for thought!

I shall sub if only to peruse at leisure

Something to consider as a player. Only 2 Modifiers come into play at anyone time, but as a player you need to know all of them that COULD apply to your model, and that is more than two.

I think Mr. Rick Priestley even commented that younger players like all this differentiation, while older players prefer interesting choices to make in game. So, think about your games audience and decide how you want to approach this issue further.

Otherwise, I think you are on the right track.

 Easy E wrote:
Something to consider as a player. Only 2 Modifiers come into play at anyone time, but as a player you need to know all of them that COULD apply to your model, and that is more than two.

I can definitely see what you're saying there. I suppose I think of it like 40k; if I have a Tactical Squad, I can easily memorise their one statline and the weapon profiles for Bolters, Bolt Pistols, a Plasma Gun and the Sergeant's Power Sword. Likewise, with this, If I have a model with a Greatsword and Heavy Armour, and I cast a Spell that gives him +1 Damage, all I need to remember are 3 Modifiers, one for the weapon (+3 to Damage), one for the armour (-2 to Damage), and one for the Spell. Across 6-10 models, I personally don't think that's too much of an ask, especially when most are designed to be quite intuitive (Great Weapons are better than Axes which are better than Swords which are better than Daggers, Heavy Armour is better than Light Armour which is better than No Armour ect).

I'll see how it works in practice, but on paper it doesn't seem too much of a problem to me (but as I say, that might be because I'm used to games that go very heavy on the special and unique rules).

I think Mr. Rick Priestley even commented that younger players like all this differentiation, while older players prefer interesting choices to make in game. So, think about your games audience and decide how you want to approach this issue further.

Otherwise, I think you are on the right track.

That is not something I've come across, definitely interesting though. I must admit I don't really have much experience of games before 2005 or so (the exception being LotR, which I played from the start, other than that my first wargame was 40k 5th ed.), from what I read they do seem to have a lot more abstraction but also a lot more 'going on' as it were. Might be something I ought to look into more at some point, just from the perspective of game design as a whole even if it doesn't end up being that useful to this project.

 Easy E wrote:
Then always remember to cover the basics of:
-Move
-Melee
-Missile
-Morale
-Missions

Note that games can do without some of them to some extent, but their omission needs to be carefully considered.