Switch Theme:

Blackhilt Games: Awnslawt  [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
Fresh-Faced New User




North Carolina

Hello everyone,

I've been working on this game for a few years now and am seeking feedback from a broader range of people.

The game is called Awnslawt.

To summarize the game, each player takes control of a few miniatures to represent their warriors on a hex-grid board.

Warriors have several characteristics that determine their capabilities in the game. In addition, each warrior has unique
traits giving them an edge at particular actions in the game. Combat between warriors is determined by rolling 10-sided dice,
modified by their characteristics.

Over a series of turns, the players maneuver these warriors to strategically conquer the board, or eliminate their opponent.

A beta for the rules can be found here: https://blackhiltgames.com/awnslawt/

Any criticism is welcome, from the mechanics to even grammatical mistakes I've missed.

I look forward to future comments and thank you for your time taken to read this post and the beta rules.
[Thumb - SmallerIMG_20170429_134417.jpg]
A game of Awnslawt in progress

   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






Cheltenham, UK

So it's a medieval fantasy skirmish game? It looks like you've put a huge investment into cards and artwork and suchlike, so I'm moved to say "so what?"

What's the game's USP? Why would I choose to play this over, say, Frostgrave or A Song of Blades and Heroes, or some other fantasy skirmish offering?

   
Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User




North Carolina

What's the game's USP? Why would I choose to play this over, say, Frostgrave or A Song of Blades and Heroes, or some other fantasy skirmish offering?


That's an excellent question, thank you.

The game is a fantasy skirmish on hex-grid battle maps, designed for a single 18"x18" board or the incorporation of more boards. The miniatures in a player's warband share an action pool, but are limited in the amount of actions each can use. The actions models make can be in any order, without being restricted by phases or initiative, with only a player turn order. Characters or leadership models have customization that more basic models do not, but character models are not mandatory.

A match is not meant to take long or require many miniatures, like Frostgrave or A Song of Blades and Heroes. It is in fact a fantasy skirmish game. It has many concepts that will be familiar to avid gamers combined together to make for its own style.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






Cheltenham, UK

The 18"x18" thing interests me and is the closest thing I can see to a USP in what you say. There are other miniatures board skirmish games: Super Dungeon Explore, Silver Tower and Battle for Calth are just the three that leap most easily to mind.

What makes this one special?

For example: Super Dungeon Explore's USP is replicating the 90s arcade fantasy experience in a chibi fantasy dungeon. Silver Tower is a blend of miniatures game and CYA. Battle for Calth is... well, I guess it's basically 40k-lite: its USP was mainly that it was a cheap way to get a load of plastic HH minis and a bonus game thrown in for good measure.

Wind it back to where you started: why did you think there was enough of a market for this game to throw money at it? What were you not getting from other games that you felt compelled to make this one and, therefore, what am I going to get out of this game that I can't get anywhere else?

The 18x18" board feels like a starting place. I could throw down a board that size in a coffee shop or on a school desk, easily. But with 28-30mm minis, it also feels like my tactical parameters are going to be constricted by such a small board. So what have you done to make sure that the game feels exciting and expansive whilst still working on that tiny board?

   
Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User




North Carolina

Wind it back to where you started: why did you think there was enough of a market for this game to throw money at it? What were you not getting from other games that you felt compelled to make this one and, therefore, what am I going to get out of this game that I can't get anywhere else?


It's partial my love for games in this genre that made me want to make a game within it. I wanted a game that I could transport easily and still use miniatures. With that, I have the desire to create my own miniatures and participate in creating figures that can be used for more than this game.

The main idea is to have a game the size of chess, but with more complex pieces that behave under the influence of an action economy. The summary cards are a way to not have to bring a rulebook around and have all the rules of each model legible on a single card (similar to Warmachine or Hordes). I leave the boards borderless, as I like the idea of having larger games with more boards as an open possibility for areas like a game shop or your house where you may have the room.

The 18x18" board feels like a starting place. I could throw down a board that size in a coffee shop or on a school desk, easily. But with 28-30mm minis, it also feels like my tactical parameters are going to be constricted by such a small board. So what have you done to make sure that the game feels exciting and expansive whilst still working on that tiny board?

Yes, my goal is 28-30mm minis and so far playtesting with around a dozen models each player has not proven a problem for maneuverability on the board. Games do tend towards 2 areas of major combat, but rarely one large dog pile in the middle.

My main concern is if I've included too many status effects a player may need tokens to keep track of. I may need to rework special rules or some actions to make the game less likely to become a cluster of tokens taking up the whole board.

Are there any mechanics you'd like to see in a skirmish game of this scale? I'm not really trying to include playable cards or too many other assets that can consume table space.

If interested, I've updated the current Beta based on some advise I've received so far across a few other forums. https://blackhiltgames.com/awnslawt/
A general consensus has been I should rename the game. I plan to be running a poll of several name ideas later this week.
 Filename 1172017AWNSLAWT2.8.pdf [Disk] Download
 Description
 File size 3503 Kbytes

   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

Why can't this be spelt "Onslaught"? And doesn't "onslaught" connote something vastly larger than a handful of individual warriors duelling one another?

Anyhow, I like that it's a game, a functional one at that. I especially like that it's a pure boardgame, as we don't see many of those here.

From a completeness standpoint, it's odd there isn't a distinction between small (3 hex) and large (7 hex) monsters - you give up the ability to distinguish an Ogre from a Giant, a Troll from a Dragon.

In terms of playing the game to victory, the bookkeeping seems high, as you need to constantly track points values of models for victory. I'd streamline the victory conditions, for example 3 quarters is an automatic victory, regardless of points.

   
Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User




North Carolina

Hey John, thanks for the input!

Why can't this be spelt "Onslaught"? And doesn't "onslaught" connote something vastly larger than a handful of individual warriors duelling one another?

I tried a different route of spelling, It didn't work out. Quite a few people beyond here have been against the term "Awnslawt" and "Onslaught" is much preferred. Beyond these titles, I'll have a few others next together in a poll later this week so that I can have a community opinion on naming the game.

From a completeness standpoint, it's odd there isn't a distinction between small (3 hex) and large (7 hex) monsters - you give up the ability to distinguish an Ogre from a Giant, a Troll from a Dragon.

I hear ya. As I have it thought out I have Infantry taking up 1 hex, Cavalry taking up 2, Ogres and Trolls taking up 7 and (to me) I'd have the even larger monstrosities such as Giants or Dragons take up 14 or so hexes (effectively twice the size of Ogres and Trolls). I feel they're too large for skirmish combat. Could be fun to have a single, massive dragon fight a dozen soldiers though.

I am open to suggestions to how "big" Ogres should be hex wise compared to dragons. I may just be imagining them too large and 3 hexes may fit an Ogre just fine.

In terms of playing the game to victory, the bookkeeping seems high, as you need to constantly track points values of models for victory. I'd streamline the victory conditions, for example 3 quarters is an automatic victory, regardless of points.

Sorry the victory terms are currently very math heavy. I want to create scenarios where the objective may be to just defend a hill or capture a flag (generic examples), but the "points per kill" is a fair fall back. Making it akin to capturing 3 quarters does make it a lot simpler and forces players to pay attention to the quarters a lot more during the game. They are, in essence, the objective.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/07/05 22:21:54


 
   
Made in us
Battlefield Tourist




MN (Currently in WY)

I recommend taking a look at the scenario generation model in Rogue Stars. That one is pretty nifty and works well with skirmish games.

Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing 
   
Made in us
Incorporating Wet-Blending





Houston, TX

That's because the name is the first thing a person sees, a person who knows nothing else about the game. And Awnslawt looks ridiculous, despite the very good artwork on the logo. Onslaught is not so bad, but is associated with ferocity, aggression, and large, unstoppable forces.

On the mechanics, the 1 and 10 rules seem rather arbitrary and inflexible. For example, a model with Riposte is actually penalized if the opponent rolls a 1 compared to other models. Instead, why not just tie critical to specific skills or equipment?

ZOC seems odd for a skirmish game. really, ZOC for an individual is just their threat range/reach. They can't keep other individuals from moving unless the grapple/restrain them or incapacitate them. Surely, moving through a ZOC would be better reflected by allowing the model a potential strike unless otherwise engaged. Forcing models to test or stop seems kind of arbitrary and does not reward tactical engagement (IE send someone to tie up the foe, then slip by).
The combat seems to rely on the old D&D roll to hit, roll to see if damage. Why are their two rolls to completely negate an attack when your other rolls involve a single test?

Granting AP by quarter control means spread out forces act more frequently and consistently.

Second wind is interesting, but also means a player who is beating his opponent may find himself punished for doing well.

-James
 
   
Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User




North Carolina

I recommend taking a look at the scenario generation model in Rogue Stars. That one is pretty nifty and works well with skirmish games.

I will check them out! Glad to have the insight. Thanks Easy E!

On the mechanics, the 1 and 10 rules seem rather arbitrary and inflexible. For example, a model with Riposte is actually penalized if the opponent rolls a 1 compared to other models. Instead, why not just tie critical to specific skills or equipment?

I can see how it penalizes units that already have Riposte. I'll have to dwell on the subject for a bit and consider what I could replace the Critical with. Possibly make it similar to the 10 where you lower your opponents defense, and have a 1 lower the unit's own defense. I'll playtest with various characteristics and see if it gets to complicated if I add to it. It may just simply be a poor mechanic to have in a skirmish combat game.


ZOC seems odd for a skirmish game. really, ZOC for an individual is just their threat range/reach. They can't keep other individuals from moving unless the grapple/restrain them or incapacitate them. Surely, moving through a ZOC would be better reflected by allowing the model a potential strike unless otherwise engaged. Forcing models to test or stop seems kind of arbitrary and does not reward tactical engagement (IE send someone to tie up the foe, then slip by).

ZoC gives me a chance to explain what units can attack and their area of influence, with the exception of the ranged weapons. I was afraid of giving people free attacks as they normally must pay AP to attack. Attacking someone that passes or steps into your ZoC can also be with "Guard". A free attack, unless engaged, would replace the need for the ability to "Guard" to an extent which does simplify your choice of actions. The "Agility Test" was my answer to keeping people engaged, but also letting faster units have the opportunity to get out and counter charge or not lose effectiveness.

It may indeed be that the free attack is the answer to make people move more cautiously and it's threatening enough to not have people carelessly move between units and fully engage one at a time. There definitely does need to be a restriction or penalty to turning your back on a foe.

Granting AP by quarter control means spread out forces act more frequently and consistently.

It does. It can cause issues for units that work better side-by-side or slower moving units. The goal was to encourage people from having a "turtle" tactic and stay in a corner of the board the whole game, as the objective is the eliminate your foe and capture the board.

I may have to limit the importance of quarters to just end game rewards, or maybe make the reward lesser to an AP for holding a quarter. Like having more quarters than your opponent grants 1 bonus AP.


Second wind is interesting, but also means a player who is beating his opponent may find himself punished for doing well.

It does mean a defeat can turn on the winning side. There has been an issue where players who take too many hits find themselves struggling to compete 2 units versus 8 when they're not the heroes or monsters remaining, and just basic soldiers. This was my answer to either end the game, as the player has lost too much to win or have a better chance against his opponent and not struggle.

Thank you for the good questions jmurph! A few of them I'll have to give a few test plays to fully figure out.
   
Made in us
Incorporating Wet-Blending





Houston, TX

No problem. I always think it is important to analyze why you have mechanics and if those mechanics encourage the play/result you are striving for. It looks like you are putting a good deal of thought into the mechanics, and are open to feedback and criticism which is great!

You may also want to see if you can persuade some local people not associated with it to try it out. Just give them the rules and figures, but don't explain anything. Take note of any problems they have reading or applying the rules and then get feedback on the game. This can really help to identify problems that aren't obvious or get overlooked from the same eyes seeing it over and over.

I must say, I really like the grid approach as it simplifies movement and is easy to explain. Freeform movement in many games is just a source of confusion and argument. It also makes it much easier to have clear LOS rules.

-James
 
   
Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User




North Carolina

You may also want to see if you can persuade some local people not associated with it to try it out. Just give them the rules and figures, but don't explain anything. Take note of any problems they have reading or applying the rules and then get feedback on the game. This can really help to identify problems that aren't obvious or get overlooked from the same eyes seeing it over and over.

I've been out here and there, but it can be hard to grab people in some stores. The best event I've been to was a satellite con of the unpub that is hosted in Baltimore yearly. Tons of great feedback and really helped get the rules to the stage I brought it to the forums at. Some polish is well deserved though, there's a difference between analyzing the rules with nothing else but the rules and analyzing it with the physical game in front of you.

In person I tend to get a lot of physical feedback. Like what to do with terrain, the models, and board size/table space but forums have definitely helped with rule design more.

On another note, here's a link for a poll to name the game!

https://strawpoll.com/dd6r968c

Bare with me while I get some play-tests in for mechanics before another update. Thank you for your patience and vote!
   
Made in us
Incorporating Wet-Blending





Houston, TX

So, feedback is useful, but online polls generally aren't. Especially with something so tied to your vision of the game as the name. People voting have a very limited idea of your goals, so they are essentially just picking words they like.

FWIW, I voted Onslaught as that was your original choice and see no reason why it isn't a perfectly workable name.

-James
 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

 SirWhite wrote:
Hey John, thanks for the input!

From a completeness standpoint, it's odd there isn't a distinction between small (3 hex) and large (7 hex) monsters - you give up the ability to distinguish an Ogre from a Giant, a Troll from a Dragon.

I hear ya. As I have it thought out I have Infantry taking up 1 hex, Cavalry taking up 2, Ogres and Trolls taking up 7 and (to me) I'd have the even larger monstrosities such as Giants or Dragons take up 14 or so hexes (effectively twice the size of Ogres and Trolls). I feel they're too large for skirmish combat. Could be fun to have a single, massive dragon fight a dozen soldiers though.

I am open to suggestions to how "big" Ogres should be hex wise compared to dragons. I may just be imagining them too large and 3 hexes may fit an Ogre just fine.


Thanks for the reply.

Thinking better of it, your footprints should probably be like this:
- 1 hex human or smaller (25mm round)
- 2 hex cavalry (25x50mm oval)
- 4 hex ogre (50mm round)
- 7 hex giant (75mm round)
- 14 hex dragon (100mm round)
It actually is a minor design error not to have a 3 or 4 hex ogre / troll base, as it breaks the round base progression.

As far as how big Ogres are, D&D has them as "Large", standing ~10 feet tall. GW models Ogres and Trolls similarly, smaller than a Giant, much less a Dragon. LotR has Ogre/Troll monsters which are clearly much smaller than dragons like Smaug. That said, in you game, make them as large as you like.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 jmurph wrote:
I voted Onslaught as that was your original choice and see no reason why it isn't a perfectly workable name.


The issue with "Onslaught" is that it conjures an image of a MASSIVE HORDE rampaging forth. Not a half-dozen models per side.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/07/10 18:19:13


   
Made in us
Incorporating Wet-Blending





Houston, TX

Meh, onslaught evokes violence, ferocity or unstoppability of an attack moreso than numbers (though numbers may also be the source of said ferocity/unstoppability). The name itself has common roots with slaughter, which hearkens to a commonality of death/bloodshed. If anything, it makes me expect some sort of brutal or gory combat mechanic.

As to size that guide looks about right. If you assume 1 inch to hex, 25mm round bases occupy 1 hex, 40mm is a hex and a half across, so could sit in 3 hexes, and a 50mm is looking at 2 hexes across, so would need 4. That being said, do the base sizes have to be fixed? Perhaps just play them as they lie with those as guidelines and must end movement occupying as few hexes as possible without overlapping into solid hexes?


-James
 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

Base and model and hex size is all arbitrary. However, if you want a huge variety of individual skirmish models, then the GW de facto standard isn't a bad starting place. You are absolutely right about also considering 40mm rounds in 3 hexes.

   
 
Forum Index » Game Design
Go to: