Switch Theme:

FRONTIER: Future Wars  [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
Hurr! Ogryn Bone 'Ead!





Drook

Some of you may have read my posts about making a game called GRIMMDARK. Well, I've scrapped the name so that I can really make this my own. It is now going to be known as FRONTIER: Future Wars.

More details will come later, but some of my innovations and ideas are as follows:

*Unit statlines that are arranged in the order you are most likely to use the Stat.
*A d10 system that makes full use of stat values 1-10
*Each unit will have an "Action Rating"(1-10)--a number that determines when they perform their move/shoot/charge phase. players roll off before the game starts to determine who goes first in each action phase for the entire game. Most units must act during their designated phase. Some units can "hold off" and act at a later phase. Fewer still can "force" friendly units to "act out of phase".
*A unit that still has it's action token and gets charged gets to fire at the charging opponent.
*Models that charge get a bonus attack right off the bat. Models with counter-charge retaliate with one attack.
*Each model will also have an "agility" stat that determines when it strikes during the melee phase (the melee phase begins once all charges have been completed).
*You will be able to use existing 1/48 scale miniatures in your collection
*Pistols can be fired in melee, once per melee phase. That's right. They might actually become useful.

Just a few ideas for starters. I'll keep y'all updated. In the mean time, tell me what you think!



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Factions that are INCLUDED at the back of the BRB:
Galactic Army: commandos, platoons of basic infantry and lots of vehicular support.
Void Marines: elite shock troops that fight boarding actions and assist the Army with planetary campaigns.
Mutillids: swarms of insectoid beasts that ravage human settlements.
Vespids: Mutillids with wings!

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/04/19 12:30:35


FRONTIER: Future Wars
An engaging sci-fi skirmish game!
 
   
Made in gb
Evasive Eshin Assassin






preston

Ooohhh, ill be happy to help. Point and click me!

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/581001.page#6570095don't click this link...
8th of the Keepers of the PDF of that RPG which shall not be named. Look not into that which defies decency.
 Crimson Devil wrote:
7th edition 40k is a lot like BDSM these days. Only play with people you know and develop a safe word for when things get too intense. And It doesn't hurt to be a sadist or masochist as well.

DR:90-S++G+++M++B++I+Pww205++D++A+++/sWD146R++T(T)D+
 
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Infiltrating Prowler





Portland, OR

From the sounds of it, it sounds like a IGOUGO activation. One player activates and completes their actions (act) during their phase. They can hold off, but then the other player then activates and completes their actions? Or am I reading that incorrectly.

1/48 can mean different things to players, since games like WH40K techincally don't have a scale... although people associate the scale as "28mm heroic scale". If you are dealing with vehicles/mecha then 1/48 is recognizable but for wargamers it comes down to are you 28-32mm, 35mm, is it heroic scale (larger limbs or more true scale). I'd recommend figure out if its 10mm, 15mm, 28-32mm, 35mm, heroic scale and stick with that. If you start saying 1/48 scale, it can confuse people.

What size gaming table is the game looking to be played on? It sounds like squad/infantry based combat with vehicles, so not a skirmish game. I'm guessing 4'x6' as a minimum but probably sounds closer to needing a 6'x6'.

Other than that, it is a good start. Just need to determine the size of your game, which then leads you into how deployment is done, activation are resolved and terrain for the tables.

 
   
Made in us
Hurr! Ogryn Bone 'Ead!





Drook

 master of ordinance wrote:
Ooohhh, ill be happy to help. Point and click me!


I'll keep you updated!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Dark Severance wrote:
From the sounds of it, it sounds like a IGOUGO activation. One player activates and completes their actions (act) during their phase. They can hold off, but then the other player then activates and completes their actions? Or am I reading that incorrectly.

1/48 can mean different things to players, since games like WH40K techincally don't have a scale... although people associate the scale as "28mm heroic scale". If you are dealing with vehicles/mecha then 1/48 is recognizable but for wargamers it comes down to are you 28-32mm, 35mm, is it heroic scale (larger limbs or more true scale). I'd recommend figure out if its 10mm, 15mm, 28-32mm, 35mm, heroic scale and stick with that. If you start saying 1/48 scale, it can confuse people.

What size gaming table is the game looking to be played on? It sounds like squad/infantry based combat with vehicles, so not a skirmish game. I'm guessing 4'x6' as a minimum but probably sounds closer to needing a 6'x6'.

Other than that, it is a good start. Just need to determine the size of your game, which then leads you into how deployment is done, activation are resolved and terrain for the tables.


Good point. In every unit's profile, appropriate base sizes will be stated (which will be 25mm for most basic infantry), as well as appropriate dimensions for the model in question (most likely height of 28mm for the average trooper). As long as a model fits within the listed parameters, it works (there will be a window, for example: 25-31mm tall). I will most likely need to write a designer's note about kneeling/prone models since they wouldn't "technically" meet height requirements. The difference between "heroic" and "fine" scale shouldn't matter, since that is basically like the difference between FW DKOK and GW Cadians, which play perfectly fine together. Correct me if I'm wrong though. Do you think that kind of specificity in profiles will create an appropriate/adequate guideline for players to follow?

Standard table size is 4'x6', though it could be smaller or larger depending on the scenario or what both players agree to.

And yes, you are correct that this is Squad based combat with vehicles and large creatures. If skirmish is the wrong term, I don't know what else to call that in a concise manner.

Thanks again for the input!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
A more in-depth description of unit activation:

The game will most likely consist of 6 game turns, but that number is subject to change after some play testing.
Each game turn is divided up into two phases: the "Tactical Phase" where you Move/Shoot/Charge and the "Melee" Phase where you determine the result of any close quarters combat.
The Tactical Phase will be further divided into Ten "Action-Phases". A model with an "Action Rating" of 10 (AR10) will go first, followed by AR9, AR8 and so on.
Before the first Game Turn, players roll off to decide who has "Taken the Initiative", which may be ceded if the winner so chooses. The player who "Takes the Initiative" will conduct their actions first during each "Action Phase" for the remainder of the Game. So if both players have two units with an AR of 10, the one who "Took the Initiative" activates both of their units first, then the opponent who "Lost the Initiative" activates theirs. If "Taking the Initiative" proves to be too much of a tactical advantage, I will consider methods of balancing the effect of this single die roll. That being said, I am operating under the assumption that a UgoIgo alternating method will mitigate this advantage somewhat.
Each unit needs an Action Marker of some sort. A unit may move, shoot and/or charge during its Action Phase in the Tactical Phase. When a Unit performs at least one action (Move, Shoot and/or Charge) the Action Marker is removed and returned upon the beginning of the next Game Turn. As I said previously, a unit that has not been activated that gets charged may make a shooting attack against the charging unit (or counter-charge if they are Close Quarters-oriented). The Action Marker is then removed if they choose to do so.
Models must be activated during their designated phase, unless they have a special rule permitting them to operate otherwise. This means that a unit *normally* cannot activate later if you forget!
The model with the highest AR in a unit "gives" its rating to the rest. If this model dies or leaves the squad, they revert to the next highest AR.
Human units have the following rules:
Many Squad Leaders will have the "Tactician" rule, which allows them to Activate at a later Action Phase of their choice.
Many Officers will have the ability to order Units to Activate at a later Action Phase (or perhaps even an earlier one!). Officers will likely have a High AR.
Mutillid units will operate with the following rules:
Some of their Creatures will have the "Tactician" rule as well, but they will tend to be large, individual creatures rather than Squad Leaders.
Most of these same Creatures will have the "Mind Control" rule, which means you can activate X (number varies based on creature in question) number of units during the Controller's Action Phase or any subsequent phase.
After Phases 10-1 are complete (Although, thus far I haven't created a unit above AR9 or below AR3), The Melee Phase begins. Units that performed charges and were charged move toward the fray. Attacks are resolved at each Agility Level, with 10 going first and so on down the ladder. Units with the same Agility Level strike simultaneously. Once every Melee is resolved, the game turn ends and the next game turn begins.
Does that make it clearer?

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/04/19 22:18:11


FRONTIER: Future Wars
An engaging sci-fi skirmish game!
 
   
Made in us
Gargantuan Gargant




MN

Interesting concept to Initiative. I would like to see it in action to make sure I fully understand.

I also really liked the idea tha tthe stat line is in order of stats based on how often you will most likely use it. Suchh a simple and clever idea.

Do you like Free Wargames?
http://bloodandspectacles.blogspot.com/ 
   
Made in us
Slicing Orb of Xandros






SoCal, USA!

At a very high level, this sounds like a 40k game (which is totally OK). What makes your version better? What are you attempting to accomplish by rewriting 40k?

As an aside, I think it would be good for you to organize your thoughts using some sort of rules skeleton or template. In my case, I used AoS as my basic template, but you could probably use any of the 40k quickstarts as your starting point.

-- 9k Craftworld Tian-Bing Eldar
-- 7k Ragnarok 1st "Einherjar" Imperial Guard
-- 4k Knights Sovereign SM
-- 2k Pale Templars CSM
-- 2k Ordo Lucifer =I=
-- 1k Sisters SoB
-- 4k Solland's Ghosts WFB Dogs of War 
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Infiltrating Prowler





Portland, OR

I would suggest not using the term 'Action-Phases'. You've already set that a "Phase" are parts of a turn that you do certain things, with a "Tactical Phase" and a "Melee Phase". Then you introduce 'Action-Phases' which is an Initiative Track. I would suggest either calling it an Initiative Track or simply saying that the Phases are broken into 10 Rounds with Initiative determining what round the unit moves or something like that.

It sounds interesting, would need to see it played out more. Be sure to do lots of game testing, make sure the game flow's well from each phase, move, action, etc.

I'm being nitpicky so don't mind me. It comes from being a MtG and WoW TCG Judge. "The Action Marker is then removed if they choose to do so." That tells me I can do an action, but then I can choose to remove the action marker if I want... not because I did an action. It sounds like it can be 'cluttered with a lot of removal, adding tokens. It is typically easier to "add" a token next to a unit that activated than it is to remove. The reason being is because at the start of the turn, players have to put action markers by all their units. Then through the course of gameplay, they remove them to mark they've acted. That can technically be done in one action, by adding an action marker it shows they've already acted. Unless I'm missing something which could be.

I know a bit early in the process to be completely nitpicky. I've been redoing rules and terminology a lot lately for my games which has had me listening to a lot of podcasts and seminars. I would highly suggest watching:

Designing Game Rules -


Ten Rules for Writing Rules by Mike Selinker's -


 
   
Made in us
Hurr! Ogryn Bone 'Ead!





Drook

 Easy E wrote:
Interesting concept to Initiative. I would like to see it in action to make sure I fully understand.

I also really liked the idea tha tthe stat line is in order of stats based on how often you will most likely use it. Suchh a simple and clever idea.


Thanks! In the future I will try to make the Tactical Phase more clear. But for now, you brought up something else I would like to elaborate on: Statlines.
The unfortunate issue is that (to avoid any kind of legal trouble) I had to rename practically every Stat I am familiar with using. In addition to this, I added a few, which means that One and Two letter abbreviations that we are so often familiar with no longer work. There are a couple cases where I had to abbreviate to three letters to avoid confusion. Statlines for infantry look as follows:

Model Name | Act Mv Acc | Ag Stk MS Fc Pn | Dur Arm HP Dis |

Points, base size, nominal dimensions, special rules and wargear will be noted under the statline. Note the |Vertical Lines|. Those will be present to separate stats based on the phase they are most likely to be used. The first three are stats used during the Tactical Phase. The next five are for the Melee Phase. The last four denote a model's resiliency when attacked.

*Note for dice rolls: my game uses d10s (0-9). The zero face will be used as a zero.

TACTICAL STATS:
Act: ACTION RATING. numbered 10 through 1. Helps determine when your model can be activated during the Action Phase.

Mv: MOVEMENT. Tells you how far a model can move. Typical movement is 5-7" This may or may not serve a dual purpose as the Charge range. As of now, they are rolled into the same stat.

Acc: ACCURACY. Tells you how accurate a model is with ranged weapons. 1-10. Acc 1 needs a roll of 9; Acc 2 needs 8+; Acc 3 needs 7+ and so on. Acc 9 is 2+ and Acc10 is 2+/5+reroll.

MELEE STATS:
Ag: AGILITY. Numbered 1-10. Tells you when a model deals blows relative to those in hand to hand around it. 10s naturally go first and so on.

Stk: STRIKES. The number of blows (before applicable modifiers) a model deals in the Melee Phase. This stat is listed second so you know right away how many dice you need to grab Sidenote: Unlike a certain other game, pistols do not give your sword another blow, but get to USE THEIR OWN STATLINE (omg! what a concept!) once per melee phase.

MS: MELEE SKILL. Numbered 1-10. Determines how likely you are to land a blow relative to the Skill of the Enemy Combatant next to you. I have developed an improved Melee Skill result chart that allows for more than three different dice rolls to hit. What this means is that high MS will actually mean something. More on that later!

Fc: FORCE. Numbered 1-10. Blows that are landed move on to this next step, which tells how powerful your blow is. Compare FORCE to DURABILITY of the opponent and consult the Damage Chart for the needed dice rolls!

Pn: PENETRATION. Numbered (-) - 6. or 10? Haven't finalized the range yet. Playtesting is needed to determine what works. Penetration modifies your opponent's Armor Rolls in negative (for them) fashion. Positive for you, because you add the Pn value to their Armor Roll to get their new Armor Roll. 1+ armor (get used to seeing that--as weird as it looks!) hit by a Pn2 weapon becomes treated as 3+ armor for that attack. Most human units will have no natural Pn value (and will be listed Pn - ), but some large alien creatures have a natural Penetration value.

RESILIENCY STATS:
Dur: DURABILITY. 1-10. Compared to the Force of the attack to determine if a model is hurt.

Arm: ARMOR. 1+ through 9. 0 is always a failed Armor Roll. The Armor Roll can be modified by nearby cover as well as an attack's Penetration value.

HP: HIT POINTS. This is the number of failed Armor Rolls you can sustain before you are out of the game!

Dis: DISCIPLINE. Still working this one out, but it determines how likely a unit is to stay and fight or flee for its life when the hits the fan!

Tell me what ya'll think so far!

FRONTIER: Future Wars
An engaging sci-fi skirmish game!
 
   
Made in us
Slicing Orb of Xandros






SoCal, USA!

I'm going to read this as I1 M BS I2 A WS S AP T Sv W Ld, so...

Is there a reason why a unit has different Initiative stats for move/shoot vs fight?
Why is move bundled with shoot?
Why is AP bundled into the model, rather than a weapon?
Does shoot not have S / AP??
Why d10 vs d6 / d20?

-- 9k Craftworld Tian-Bing Eldar
-- 7k Ragnarok 1st "Einherjar" Imperial Guard
-- 4k Knights Sovereign SM
-- 2k Pale Templars CSM
-- 2k Ordo Lucifer =I=
-- 1k Sisters SoB
-- 4k Solland's Ghosts WFB Dogs of War 
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Infiltrating Prowler





Portland, OR

CplPunishment wrote:
The unfortunate issue is that (to avoid any kind of legal trouble) I had to rename practically every Stat I am familiar with using.
That is technically a fallacy. You can't trademark common terms. Ballistic is a common word, just like Weapon, Strength, Toughness, Attacks, Initiative, Leadership, Save, and Wound none of which are trademarked. You won't be in legal trouble for using common terminology. Now you can get into legal trouble if you start using things like Lightsaber or Eldar but you wouldn't if you used the term lightspeed. You could get in trouble for using Space Marines but not necessarily if you had marines that are space marines, descriptions aren't "Names". You don't have to rename common terminology. You can't "Tap a card" but you can "exhaust a card" or "turn a card sideways".

I haven't had a chance to go over the rest. I'm out of time for the day but just wanted to at least comment on the "legal concerns".

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/20 01:45:44


 
   
Made in us
Hurr! Ogryn Bone 'Ead!





Drook

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I'm going to read this as I1 M BS I2 A WS S AP T Sv W Ld, so...

Is there a reason why a unit has different Initiative stats for move/shoot vs fight?
Why is move bundled with shoot?
Why is AP bundled into the model, rather than a weapon?
Does shoot not have S / AP??
Why d10 vs d6 / d20?


All questions and criticism welcome and appreciated!

I understand why it might help to translate my statlines into 40k terminologies

At first I had one Action or "Initiative" stat for move/shoot and melee. It worked fine for Void Marines and Mutillids. Then I made statlines for the Regular Army, and realized that I had two choices: A. Give them a realistic but low "Initiative" stat and majorly cripple them in the shooting phase as well as the melee phase. B. Give some of their units unrealistically a high Action/
"Initiative" value in close combat, where they are not intended to shine, so that they can have a higher Action/"Initiative" ranking when they are shooting. Then I realized there was a third option: C. Make two separate Action/"Initiative" values so that a unit could be quick with a gun but slow with a knife or vice-versa. I've thought about it and at present see no reason to turn away from this change I've made.

Movement is bundled with shooting for two reasons: 1. to speed up game play. 2. Because movement will affect a model's ability to fire his weapon, and this helps you keep track in larger games. The question now is when Charging should be resolved. I might opt to NOT bundle it with moving and shooting but make it into a sort of "Subphase" of its own. Something I shall have to ponder...

AP, or Penetration in the case of my game, is included as a stat for those models who naturally have an armor penetration value due to razor sharp talons, brute strength or a combination thereof. Humans come with a natural Pn of -. It does NOT mean that weapons wielded by your warriors do not have their own stat lines. They do, and I will get to weapon stats later. This leads into your next question...

Ranged weapons will often vary from one squad member to the next. I suppose I *could* include the stat of their basic weapon. Maybe I will. But currently Weapon statlines are being kept separate from model statlines.

Finally, the reason why I like D10 over D6 is because D6 forces you to use a more limited range of stats and there is a smaller range of outcomes. It also forces/allows me to make statlines that aren't a copy-paste of 40k humans statlines. D20 is technically even more precise, but I opted against D20 for several reasons(all reasons assuming that a d20 is 0-19 not 1-20 for sake of clarity). 1. they seem to be harder to come by in bulk than d10s (which are admittedly harder to buy in bulk than d6s, yet not impossible. I bought a set of 10 d10s the other day at my FLGS) 2. They almost allow for too much variety/precision. D10s gave me the freedom to use a broader spectrum of stats that remain within a range I'm familiar with, but d20s take things a step further. Take armor rolls for example: a 3+ on d6(66.7%) translates roughly to a 3+ on d10(70%) or a 7+ on d20 (65%); a 2+ on d6 (86.7%) becomes a 1+(90%) or 2+(80%) on d10 (depending on what you want to represent) or a 3+ on D20 (85%). D20 is clearly more precise here, but it also leaves more gaps between standard armor types. this is a problem because I want to create distinct armor names for all rolls 1+ through 9. It was difficult but I did it: Heavy Void Armor 1+, Relic Void Armor 2+ Void Armor 3+ Full body Armor 4+ Partial Body Armor 5+ Plate Armor 6+ Ballistic Jacket 7+ Ballistic Vest 8+ Crude Armor 9. It's a lot harder to think of 19 armor types. Long story short, d6 felt like too little and d20 felt like too much.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Dark Severance wrote:
CplPunishment wrote:
The unfortunate issue is that (to avoid any kind of legal trouble) I had to rename practically every Stat I am familiar with using.
That is technically a fallacy. You can't trademark common terms. Ballistic is a common word, just like Weapon, Strength, Toughness, Attacks, Initiative, Leadership, Save, and Wound none of which are trademarked. You won't be in legal trouble for using common terminology. Now you can get into legal trouble if you start using things like Lightsaber or Eldar but you wouldn't if you used the term lightspeed. You could get in trouble for using Space Marines but not necessarily if you had marines that are space marines, descriptions aren't "Names". You don't have to rename common terminology. You can't "Tap a card" but you can "exhaust a card" or "turn a card sideways".

I haven't had a chance to go over the rest. I'm out of time for the day but just wanted to at least comment on the "legal concerns".


Thank you for the advice. I am being cautious because 1. If I put this much work into writing rules, I want there to be a possibility that I can make money from it. 2. If I do make any money, I'm not counting on it being enough to buy a good lawyer in a possible frivolous lawsuit from a big bad games manufacturer. I might just use more familiar terminologies in the final draft, but for now I'm trying to think of my own ways of describing things. I just have no Idea what GW has trademarks on. Obviously terms like "shotgun" or "pistol" are not, but when it comes to naming an abstraction, I'm trying to think of my own ways of wording things. This might be an aspect I need to learn more about.

As for your other post, I will look forward to reading that and watching the videos tomorrow. Thanks again!

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/20 03:51:23


FRONTIER: Future Wars
An engaging sci-fi skirmish game!
 
   
Made in us
Slicing Orb of Xandros






SoCal, USA!

Thanks!

Given that your game looks like not-40k, 40k stats terminology was natural to understand what you were doing. I think you probably need to standardize natural / additional weaponry.

Note that it's entirely possible to say "this unit gets +1I for movement/shooting." In fact, it's possible to bundle multiple bonuses to something even more specialized, such as "this unit gets +1I and +1S if it charged this turn"... That's a really good rule, BTW. You should probably use for on kill-crazy melee fighters.

I think you should revisit weapons in general, with natural weapons being a special case. Many Tyranids have bio-plasma and Psykers have mind lances - if you are including natural melee weapons in the basic profile, don't you need to include bio-plasma and psychic attacks as part of the profile?

I find it odd that you assumes d20 might be 0-19 vs the standard 1-20. Also, needing to have a unique name for a particular stat level is unnecessary when 40k does fine with Heavy Aspect Armor and Power Armor both conferring Sv3+.

-- 9k Craftworld Tian-Bing Eldar
-- 7k Ragnarok 1st "Einherjar" Imperial Guard
-- 4k Knights Sovereign SM
-- 2k Pale Templars CSM
-- 2k Ordo Lucifer =I=
-- 1k Sisters SoB
-- 4k Solland's Ghosts WFB Dogs of War 
   
Made in us
Hurr! Ogryn Bone 'Ead!





Drook

 Dark Severance wrote:
I would suggest not using the term 'Action-Phases'. You've already set that a "Phase" are parts of a turn that you do certain things, with a "Tactical Phase" and a "Melee Phase". Then you introduce 'Action-Phases' which is an Initiative Track. I would suggest either calling it an Initiative Track or simply saying that the Phases are broken into 10 Rounds with Initiative determining what round the unit moves or something like that.

It sounds interesting, would need to see it played out more. Be sure to do lots of game testing, make sure the game flow's well from each phase, move, action, etc.

I'm being nitpicky so don't mind me. It comes from being a MtG and WoW TCG Judge. "The Action Marker is then removed if they choose to do so." That tells me I can do an action, but then I can choose to remove the action marker if I want... not because I did an action. It sounds like it can be 'cluttered with a lot of removal, adding tokens. It is typically easier to "add" a token next to a unit that activated than it is to remove. The reason being is because at the start of the turn, players have to put action markers by all their units. Then through the course of gameplay, they remove them to mark they've acted. That can technically be done in one action, by adding an action marker it shows they've already acted. Unless I'm missing something which could be.

I know a bit early in the process to be completely nitpicky. I've been redoing rules and terminology a lot lately for my games which has had me listening to a lot of podcasts and seminars. I would highly suggest watching:


I'm glad you brought up the over-usage of "phase". I probably will rename it to "Action Sequences" or perhaps "track" or "round" would work as well.

Don't worry about being nitpicky. As they say, the "devil is in the details" and THAT GUY is going to find any and all poor wording that exists if somebody else doesn't find the ambiguities first. I might just have action tokens be placed next to the unit once they are done with their "Action Sequence". It sounds more streamlined and streamlined is good.

The videos were informative, even if they focused on card/board games.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Thanks!

Given that your game looks like not-40k, 40k stats terminology was natural to understand what you were doing. I think you probably need to standardize natural / additional weaponry.

Note that it's entirely possible to say "this unit gets +1I for movement/shooting." In fact, it's possible to bundle multiple bonuses to something even more specialized, such as "this unit gets +1I and +1S if it charged this turn"... That's a really good rule, BTW. You should probably use for on kill-crazy melee fighters.

I think you should revisit weapons in general, with natural weapons being a special case. Many Tyranids have bio-plasma and Psykers have mind lances - if you are including natural melee weapons in the basic profile, don't you need to include bio-plasma and psychic attacks as part of the profile?

I find it odd that you assumes d20 might be 0-19 vs the standard 1-20. Also, needing to have a unique name for a particular stat level is unnecessary when 40k does fine with Heavy Aspect Armor and Power Armor both conferring Sv3+.


While it is true that this project stems from my dissatisfaction with the "Astra Militarum" codex, and was originally going to be a Fandex rewrite for the Imperial Guard, it wasn't long before I heard rumors of an impending 8th edition 40k. When it became clear that it was going to be "HEROHAMMER 40K", I decided that a new IG fandex would be worthless with a new set of main rules. I decided that I didn't want to have anything to do with Herohammer 40K, and that is when I decided to scrap all projects and make my own table top wargame. I decided early on to create my own universe with units that would APPEAL to 40k players, but I feel like I must make it explicitly clear that it will not be the 40k universe with my rules. It is a universe I devised years ago with factions that borrow from the same Sci-Fi tropes that Games Workshop has "borrowed" from itself, such as Marines in SPACE and average-joe troopers battling hordes of humongous Alien "bugs". None of the tropes I'm using are original, and I will not claim that they are. That being said, GW cannot claim they were the first to do just about anything they have published. All they do is make a given trope more grimdark .

I might switch to stat names and abbreviations that are familiar to the crowd I'm marketing to, but ONLY if it is legal to do so. Dark Severance seems confident that it is not an issue, but I hope he will forgive me for being cautious about this

I agree that "Ferocious Charge" should be a thing that improves certain melee stats

Fear not when it comes to weapon stats! I have written some out and I will flesh that out more in the future.

As far as the d20 goes, I've never rolled one! I just assumed it was like the d10 and had a 0 face instead of a 20. That being said, adjust my numbers accordingly and the relative percentages still apply. Sure, I could make the d20 work but they are more uncommon than d10s. The d10 has worked thus far and until it stops working I'm gonna stick with it. Besides, if I had picked the d20, you just might be asking "why not d10s?"

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/21 00:08:34


FRONTIER: Future Wars
An engaging sci-fi skirmish game!
 
   
Made in us
Slicing Orb of Xandros






SoCal, USA!

@OP - I really wish you had shared the above in your first post, as that kind of mission statement / problem statement is very helpful in clarifying what you're trying to do. A game about the humble Imperial Guardsman, and how he's outclassed by all sorts of horrors in the universe is a compelling underdog concept that inverts the 40k focus on superhuman superheroes.

Of all the things that you are working on, naming is one of the lower priorities - you can always rename things, and it rarely affects the actual game itself. Unless, of course, the name carries connotations or expectations that your game fails to deliver one.

A lot of not-40k games end up being d10 40k simply because a d10 is not a d6. It's a little overdone, and I always like to challenge designers on it. If the core game is good, then it should work with a d6 just as well as a d10, and the difference won't pop up until you start playing and finding that you need slightly finer gradations, but not extremely fine gradations. There are other dice mechanics besides mass roll, and you may find that opposed successes or totals or some other mechanic works better. That said, there's nothing wrong with a d10 game, either.

-- 9k Craftworld Tian-Bing Eldar
-- 7k Ragnarok 1st "Einherjar" Imperial Guard
-- 4k Knights Sovereign SM
-- 2k Pale Templars CSM
-- 2k Ordo Lucifer =I=
-- 1k Sisters SoB
-- 4k Solland's Ghosts WFB Dogs of War 
   
Made in us
Hurr! Ogryn Bone 'Ead!





Drook

DEVELOPMENT:
I have considered the "Activation Sequences" and "Action Tokens" and have decided they might operate as such:

An action token can be anything you can write on with two sides like a plastic chip or a small piece of paper. One side must be blank. On the other side, write the Unit's Action Rating. If there are multiple ratings, write them all from highest to lowest and separate the numbers with dashes. If at least one member of the unit has the Tactician rule, write "T".

First, Player 1 may Activate any unit they wish that has Action Rating 10. When they are finished, Player 2 Activates any unit they wish that has Action Rating 10. If no units are present on the board with the current Action Rating, move on to the next highest rating on the board. In every Action Sequence, Player 1 will Activate all of their units first and Player 2 will activate theirs second.

During each Action Sequence, Players select one unit at a time. First they may move that unit up to each model's maximum Movement distance. They may also choose not to move. Second, they may shoot at any enemy targets within range.

After you are done performing all actions you wish to do with an activated unit, you must flip the activated unit's Action Token so that the blank side is facing up before moving on to the next Activation of the game.

I know it needs some tweaking, but that's what I have so far


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Looking back, this definitely needs some re-wording and elaboration. But for now I hope it serves to give you a better idea about the basic order of things.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2017/04/21 12:47:13


FRONTIER: Future Wars
An engaging sci-fi skirmish game!
 
   
Made in us
Hurr! Ogryn Bone 'Ead!





Drook

Trying to copy/paste excel charts with no success.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/04/22 02:46:39


FRONTIER: Future Wars
An engaging sci-fi skirmish game!
 
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Infiltrating Prowler





Portland, OR

CplPunishment wrote:
Trying to copy/paste excel charts with no success.
They won't format well in a forum environment that didn't code for it. Your best bets are to put it up on Google Drive, share those with view access. Or you can export it to a PDF and attach it to a post. The other option is make it an image, either make the table within Photoshop (which reads a lot better once converted to an image) or put it on your monitor, then screenshot and make an image from that. When converting something with a lot of text to an image it is best to use a *.png format instead of a *.jpg (most of the time).

 
   
Made in us
Slicing Orb of Xandros






SoCal, USA!

I recommend making a PDF, which you can host on Google Drive, or attach directly.

-- 9k Craftworld Tian-Bing Eldar
-- 7k Ragnarok 1st "Einherjar" Imperial Guard
-- 4k Knights Sovereign SM
-- 2k Pale Templars CSM
-- 2k Ordo Lucifer =I=
-- 1k Sisters SoB
-- 4k Solland's Ghosts WFB Dogs of War 
   
Made in us
Hurr! Ogryn Bone 'Ead!





Drook

UPDATE

Thanks for the advice on posting spreadsheads. I might just try it however...

This game will be on hold momentarily until I see what happens with Warhammer 40k. From what GW has released so far, it seems like they are set on a different course than I am ruleswise, which is good. That being said, it might be hard to compete with free/cheap and streamlined rules... Unless my rules are free as well. And I don't have the time to perfect a rules for a game if it has zero potential for income. GW is my biggest competitor and I was counting on them publishing another failure of a ruleset, but with their new ethos, we will see where this goes. This could end up becoming free fanrules that get posted a couple years from now.

FRONTIER: Future Wars
An engaging sci-fi skirmish game!
 
   
Made in us
Slicing Orb of Xandros






SoCal, USA!

Based on my experience with Heavy Gear and Super Dungeon Explore, it is not worth waiting on the Pod, SPM, or GW to publish a "good" ruleset. I wasted quite some time hoping that they would somehow take their terrible rules, and, with the magic of a new edition, suddenly be presented with good rules. That just hasn't happened.

If you feel strongly about wanting to play with particular models, then it is far better that you just go ahead and write the rules that you want to play. Or, perhaps consider fixing that last 1% / 5% / 10% that really needs fixing.

Good luck!

-- 9k Craftworld Tian-Bing Eldar
-- 7k Ragnarok 1st "Einherjar" Imperial Guard
-- 4k Knights Sovereign SM
-- 2k Pale Templars CSM
-- 2k Ordo Lucifer =I=
-- 1k Sisters SoB
-- 4k Solland's Ghosts WFB Dogs of War 
   
Made in us
Drone without a Controller





Michigan

CplPunishment wrote:
UPDATE

Thanks for the advice on posting spreadsheads. I might just try it however...

This game will be on hold momentarily until I see what happens with Warhammer 40k. From what GW has released so far, it seems like they are set on a different course than I am ruleswise, which is good. That being said, it might be hard to compete with free/cheap and streamlined rules... Unless my rules are free as well. And I don't have the time to perfect a rules for a game if it has zero potential for income. GW is my biggest competitor and I was counting on them publishing another failure of a ruleset, but with their new ethos, we will see where this goes. This could end up becoming free fanrules that get posted a couple years from now.



I would say don't worry about what GW does and continue working on your game. One thing I have learned after seven years of tabletop game marketing is that there is no such thing as a "Perfect Ruleset". Everyone has different tastes for they want out of a game and you are never going to make everyone happy. In the end, the goal is to give players a fun experience and if you do that, you will sell some copies. Even if Warhammer 40K 8th edition is an enjoyable set of rules, you can still create a different, but still fun experience for players.


Creator of the Kalidasia Universe - http://www.kalidasia.com/ 
   
 
Forum Index » Game Design
Go to: