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.

Hi there

I'm currently developing my own sci-fi battle game, Future Ops (hereafter referred to as FO). In summary it's a generic rule system for use with any 28mm models you please. It's tactic heavy, it's detailed, and it's realistic*. It uses an order placement system and a simultaneous game turn. *relatively realistic!

I'll be using this thread to post up the core rules of the game as I write up my 2nd draft. For the moment this is for the purposes of feedback and suggestions by other gamers. I aim to refine and playtest this 2nd draft into a working "beta" version within the next year. After further refinement and playtesting I plan to produce a digital rulebook, complete with comissioned illustrations for a very affordable price. If further successful I would make a hard copy available, complete with game markers, templates etc. But hey, that's way down the line.

The Idea
So after spending a long time grumbling about imbalances and silly rules in 40k, and trying to fix them, I started formulating my own rough ideas for a game system. I spent a year researching and analysing as many rule systems as I could get my hands on while I wrote the bones of FO. Initially I started this project as an alternate rule set to 40k, but as I considered the sprawling amount of material for that game and how little the mechanics had in common with what I envisaged, I decided to start with a clean slate.

Main Features:
• A D10 based game that can be played in 2-4 hours, excluding set-up time.
• Suitable for players 11+
• 2 or more players
• Authentic hit and armour system with modifiers . The system is more detailed than most battle game systems, but is logical and intuitive.
• Shared game rounds and ability for units to react to the enemy provides exciting gameplay that avoids the tedium of single player rounds.
• Balanced gameplay and units to avoid “powergaming.” Weapons provide special utility that extends their value beyond just firepower/effectiveness.
• Shooting is considerably more effective than in other games. The base chance to hit is higher as is the chance of wounding. Armour, cover and other protective bonuses are vital to avoid unacceptable losses. These bonuses are also cumulative, so conversely, a well protected unit will be considerably harder to kill than in other wargames.
• Assaults by melee-oriented units are more lethal and reliable than in other games, which counterbalances the improved shooting. Models strike simultaneously, but don’t get to do so unless they have been given an order that allows them to fight.
• Many support weapons provide very useful tactical utilities such as suppression bonuses, ability to destroy cover and ignore certain protective bonuses –this will extend their worth beyond just statistical points : effectiveness ratio vs given targets.
• Considerable Win Point bonus for wiping out an enemy unit puts an emphasis on keeping units alive and avoids suicide tactics prevalent in other games.
• Order system emphasises tactics above list building. Orders for each unit are hidden until activated, meaning each player has to anticipate the other’s tactics. Special orders provide powerful bonuses and utilities, but are less flexible and potentially riskier than general orders.
• Logical game mechanics and rules, with limited randomness to allow for planning and reliable execution of orders.
• Very fun Demolition mechanic -can set fire to and destroy structures and other cover, significantly changing the battlefield.
• Force Roster categorises units into roles. These roles give units bonuses and even special abilities, but also penalties.
• More emphasis on squads. Characters are powerful but alone are not excessively powerful or overly durable –a considerable portion of their value is in abilities that effect the squad and/or army they accompany. Vehicles and monsters offer unique strengths but are not as versatile as troops and are riskier points investments. A combined arms approach to list building and gameplay is generally more efficient.
• No model range. Designed to incorporate scenery and models from major existing ranges. Loose parameters for model representation to enable this.
• Compact and simple faction lists, but liberal customisation options for each unit entry allows for a huge variety of units, without the need for lengthy lists.

Those are feature highlights, what is the core concept of the system?

What is the scale and scope of the rules?
What sort of game play are you aiming for?

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Those are feature highlights, what is the core concept of the system?

FO is Essentially a battle game optimally played from a small to medium scale .
Ive also written out the framework for a skirmish level expansion Future Ops:Elite (FOE)

Victory is attained by earning more Victory Points over the course of a fixed or slightly varied length game. VPs awarded for reducing enemy units to half strength or less, the amount being based on unit value. If a unit is annihilated, 3 times that amount of VPs is awarded instead. Thus, there is an emphasis on keeping units alive.

Mission objectives established before the battle begins, and award a moderate to high amount of VPs, depending on the scenario, and the difficulty and number of objectives.

Semi-simultaneous turn: Hidden orders are placed on each unit, and players take turns revealing and activating orders. If one of the inactive player's units is engaged (enemy unit enters Line of Sight, Shoots or Charges) then that player may react with it if it has been given an order which allows this. However if the inactive player resolves an order, the active player retains the initiative (takes another turn).

I hope that makes the core concept clearer. I've had some late ideas so I'm still chopping and changing a lot of stuff. I'll be posting a more complete description and details of features in time.

I think we need to see more before we can comment further.

 Easy E wrote:
I think we need to see more before we can comment further.

Agreed. The ideas are OK, but the devil is in the details of writing. And even then, it's something of a bear.