Switch Theme:

BattleMage  [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 gb
[SWAP SHOP MOD]
Killer Klaivex







I've been toying with an idea for a skirmish game for a while now. We always see in various fantasy tropes practitioners of magic/psychic powers/various arcana two empowered individuals fighting with each other; but it's rarely something that I've seen done on the table top (although that might be because I just haven't played such a game).

So I'm chewing over a way to represent that which is quick, easy, fun;and handy to play on the tabletop. Cue Battlemage (because I'm not great at naming things).

The essential concept is that you spend your points pre-match kitting out your wizards (mages, magisters, casters, whatever). One to three on each side. You put in points to buy them spells and equipment (could be done with cards, ala X-Wing). Then plonk 'em on the tabletop to play. Everyone's got a few wizard models knocking around; making it easy to trial a game or two.

Table is 3x3 (or 3x2?) and can be made up of whatever scenery you like; the kicker is that a lot of the spells will have physical on battlefield effects. Printable card representation for the cheapskates; plastic/resin for extra dramatic effect. So your wizard summons a ring of fire, you stick a fire ring the size of a small blast marker around him. Wizard throws a water attack, it leaves a three inch puddle wherever it hit. Wizard starts with menhirs in a ring around him to feed him extra power; but they can be knocked/destroyed. You get the idea. All terrain/effects are interactive; and spells can create/destroy terrain and area effects.

Wizard Health/mana is simple: represented by a single spinner wheel marked from 0-100. Since there's only a max of three casters on each side; that should be completely feasible. Damage is taken on the wheel, energy is expended from the wheel, healing happens on the wheel. When all your casters wheels are 0, you lose. Basic premise of the game. Alongside the wheel is your wizards profile (built up by spending points pre-game). Lists their specialisations (which dictates what spells can be cast and how much it drains them to do so), & purchased spells/gear. (again, cards might be the way to go there - not sure)


Game is kept simple. Turn based. You roll for priority at start of each turn (like Lord of the Rings). Highest roll wins priority and goes first at each stages. Stages are Movement, Casting, Combat. What happens in each is pretty self-explanatory. Movement is what it says on the tin; standard move of 5" for human models.

Casting works quite easily. Similar to the chaining system you used to get in Yu-Gi-Oh. Any wizard can cast once per turn. Each spell has a profile; example:

Fireball
A fireball
Type:- Offensive, Direct
Power:- 10
Cast Speed:- Medium
Cost:- 3
Range:- 18"


Fireball has a power of 10; meaning if it hits an enemy with no consequences/deflection, they lose 10 off their mage's health/mana wheel. Eats three points off your own in casting. There are levels of cast speed (slow, medium, fast). One enemy wizard can cast a counterspell immediately after you (it can be the same model doing multiple countercasts in a turn; but only once per opposing cast). Trick is that the counterspell has to be of equal or higher speed. So your wizard chucks a fireball, my wizard countercasts, for example:-

Earth Wall
You raise a weak barrier of earth to shield you
Type:- Defensive, Self/Other
Armour:- 5
Cast Speed:- Medium
Cost:- 1
Range:- 6"


So you chuck your fireball, my wizard can countercast something of equal or higher speed; they're both medium so I cast earth wall. Your fireball has Power 10 to my Armour of 5 however, so it tears right through it (meaning nothing added to the battlefield) losing 5 power en route (10 - 5 = 5). My wizard thus loses 5 (fireball) + 1 (cost of earth wall) = 6 health off his wheel in total. Simple arithmetic.


Combat is a similar affair. Weapons/summons have a Power value. Person with priority picks order of combats and splits them up (LOTR style). Both parties attack simultaneously with whatever weapons they have; you deduct Armour from Power strength and any excess is deducted from your health wheel.

Summons (since I know someone will ask this) will be a regular feature. Undead, golems, nature constructs, whatever. All have a power and an armour value but no wheel (keeps it simple). When they take any damage their armour can't absorb, they die. The goal of the game is to defeat the casters; ancillary combatants are nothing more than distractions (albeit ones that can do damage if ignored).


I've worked out several fields/areas of magic. All sorts of room to play with different spells, different equipments, different area effects, and so on. You can be a necomancer who tries to swarm the enemy with undead, a mage who takes a magic sword and augments themselves to try and get in close for the kill, a more static 'sit and rain destruction from afair', a teleporter who overwhelms with rapid light spells, etcetc. Lots of scope for expansion. Thought I'd put the basic core mechanic concepts up for people to play with though.

This message was edited 11 times. Last update was at 2018/10/18 17:52:59



 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

All of this is fine, although I suspect that you are overcomplicating things. For example, 100 points of life is too many, when Magic does just fine with 20 on a Spindown die.

You have a lot of moving parts, and that may be kinda klunky. A few strong core elements using a single core mechanic are better than a variety of tangentially-related items each with a different mechanic.

Main thing is to play it a few times to refine it, focus on the cool parts, and cut the boring stuff.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/10/18 18:47:13


   
Made in gb
[SWAP SHOP MOD]
Killer Klaivex







I suppose you could take the health down to 50 or so; but any further and it would start to eat into the core gameplay (nobody's going to want to cast a spell that takes 2/3 of their health unless it either guarantees a match win, or restoration becomes a central and regular mechanic for all players instead of a specialised build).

The klunkiest bit would probably be the fully interactive terrain. I'm not sure how far I'll take it as an idea; as the game can work without it. I'd need to do some playtesting first.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/10/18 18:56:59



 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

You can scale damage however you choose. Why can't there be a 100% attack? 200% attack? It's magic

   
Made in gb
[SWAP SHOP MOD]
Killer Klaivex







 JohnHwangDD wrote:
You can scale damage however you choose. Why can't there be a 100% attack? 200% attack? It's magic


Erm...I'm afraid I don't quite understand. There aren't any percentages. Let me try going over it along with some of my reasoning.

If you're going for a combined health/magic pool (keeps things nice and simple), you can't do the standard Warhammer 2-5 wounds. Doesn't offer sufficient flexibility. The problem from a design point of view, is that once you go over a sum you can record on a D6 or two balanced on the base; it gets hard to keep track of. Wound Trackers just don't go high enough. The standard option is pen and paper, but that involves a lot of writing and rubbing out. Which I suspect might turn people off. Sure, they could use a calculator or phone; but that's not really something you can include in the box.

The solution that I came up with was to use a plastic spinner wheel that locks into place on each numerical value. I originally went with a hundred as a nice round figure; but you could easily have less. Heck, you could even have different sums to represent different caster levels (50 for an apprentice, 60 for a journeyman, 80 for a master, etc); but then that gets complicated. People will need wheels with different markings. Different strengths will require different numbers of teeth on the spinner. And so on. I came to the conclusion that it would be easier to treat caster capability differently on the spell cards if I decided to go that route.

Given that I want a decent range of spells, the game to last an hour or so, and my casters to be able to take a few hits and experiment a little on board (feeling each other out with weaker attacks, adopting different strategies, etc) , a low hp/mana isn't really an option. If my caster has 8 hp/mana, and a fireball drains even just 2 hp/mana out of him; that'll be a pretty short game!

I suppose I could strip out the need for spells to drain hp/mana when cast; but that's really a core part of what I'm trying to represent. Two guys chucking spells at each other and getting more and more exhausted as they go along, trying to trick the other into using more energy than them, feinting with varied attacks, trying to probe for a hole in the other guys's defence , etc. It's a key part of the strategising. If I make all spells free I suppose I could have less hp/mana per side and drop it down to 20/25 minimum. It would streamline things; but it would also detract from the gameplay.


EDIT:- I just found these babies. Go up to a 99. They'd do the trick better than a spin wheel, I think.
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Pyrkol-Wound-Tracker-Dials-for-Warhammer-40k-Space-Marines-Terrain-Tau-Dice-Alt-/112573744714

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/10/18 21:55:23



 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

I used percentages because scale is abitrary, whereas percentage is clearer:
* 100% is 100/100 or 20/20 or 2/2.
* 200% is 200/100, 40/20, or 4/2.
You can set damage to whatever you want it to be. You don't have to use those 100-spot spinners.

You absolutely can make the game work with 2-5 wounds, just as you could with 20-50 or 40-100. It's just a question of whether you want to split hairs at 1/20 (5%), or 1/100 (1%)

That said, your game is fundamentally a miniatures version of Magic: the Gathering, but with more bells and whistles.

As I said, anything can be made to work, but the question is whether 1% granularity is good.

   
Made in gb
[SWAP SHOP MOD]
Killer Klaivex







As someone who has honestly never played Magic in his life and knows nothing about it beyond its popularity; I'll take that as a compliment!


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

As someone who played a lot of Magic and it's not really a compliment per se. It's simply noting that your basic premise has already been implemented.

From a conceptual standpoint, your game is fine. The trick is getting it to a playable, complete state

   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






I can see the appeal. Personally, I would stick to your guns on the 100 (or 99) health - it's not a complex system provided the means to track it is supplied in the box. The dual wheel things are quite nifty and could be used for a great variety of things, I feel!

One recommendation to enhance the game would be a means of combining spells with similar elements. The card game "Epic Spell Wars of the Battle Wizards" is quite neat in that you build your spells from up to 3 cards, and combining cards of the same element boosts the strength of the final attack (by adding dice).

One thought, if you were looking to simulate wizards tiring and struggling, would be a variable expenditure on spells. So the amount it costs depends on how much you have left. As such, a wizard might be able to cast a powerful spell early in the game for minimal cost, as his defences are enough to mitigate the spells damage to himself, but when he's nearly dead, it would be too expensive to cast. a simple system on the card like:

Fireball
A fireball
Type:- Offensive, Direct
Power:- 10
Cast Speed:- Medium
Range:- 18"
cost (depends on health):
100: 0
80-99: 1
60-79: 2
40-59: 3
20-39: 5
1-19: 8

This way some cards will be less powerful, but will be more useful in the late-game, as strong attacks become untenable to use unless you're desperate. you have to trade off between raw power and how much of the game you can use it in.

That said, this is probably already covered by the mana/health cost system you have in place.

I think having elements being hard counters to one another would be a good way to enhance the game you're making, eg fire is countered with water, water is countered by electric, etc. even incorporating your lingering puddles & fireballs into this, so a wizard stood in a puddle will be susceptible to lightning.

12,300 points of Orks
9th W/D/L with Orks, 4/0/2
I am Thoruk, the Barbarian, Slayer of Ducks, and This is my blog!

I'm Selling Infinity, 40k, dystopian wars, UK based!

I also make designs for t-shirts and mugs and such on Redbubble! 
   
Made in gb
[SWAP SHOP MOD]
Killer Klaivex







 some bloke wrote:
I can see the appeal. Personally, I would stick to your guns on the 100 (or 99) health - it's not a complex system provided the means to track it is supplied in the box. The dual wheel things are quite nifty and could be used for a great variety of things, I feel!
I know right? I'm quite pleased with having found them; it gives me a quick practical way of dealing with the health/mana pool which in turn allows flexibility in other things.

One recommendation to enhance the game would be a means of combining spells with similar elements. The card game "Epic Spell Wars of the Battle Wizards" is quite neat in that you build your spells from up to 3 cards, and combining cards of the same element boosts the strength of the final attack (by adding dice).
That would definitely be a possibility. Might be something to reserve for the players who take multiple weaker wizards though? Allowing them to combine to make a more powerful attack or suchlike? There's definitely something in there to play with in later development.

One thought, if you were looking to simulate wizards tiring and struggling, would be a variable expenditure on spells. So the amount it costs depends on how much you have left. As such, a wizard might be able to cast a powerful spell early in the game for minimal cost, as his defences are enough to mitigate the spells damage to himself, but when he's nearly dead, it would be too expensive to cast. a simple system on the card like:
This way some cards will be less powerful, but will be more useful in the late-game, as strong attacks become untenable to use unless you're desperate. you have to trade off between raw power and how much of the game you can use it in.
I like this idea; my only fear would be that it overly complicates the game. From a mechanics point of view, the simpler the better. I'm not dismissing it as an idea, frankly I think I'd personally prefer it. I think that if you were already going to be adding different costs potentially depending on caster level/experience, adding another factor to the cost would be taking it too far. Something to toy with though, certainly.

I think having elements being hard counters to one another would be a good way to enhance the game you're making, eg fire is countered with water, water is countered by electric, etc. even incorporating your lingering puddles & fireballs into this, so a wizard stood in a puddle will be susceptible to lightning.
That was already in my head to an extent. A fire shield won't do much against electricity, but it will water. Especially if you're accumulating battlefield effects. Making it overly complex will be something to watch out for though; especially given that 'Elemental magic' is just one branch of specialisation.

The others were:-

-Runic/sygaldry
-Soul
-Organic
-Illusion
-Divine

Reasonably self explanatory. Elemental is the standard forces of wind, earth, fire, water, lightning along with elemental summons, Runic involves more magical weapons/equipment and Golems, Soul (open to a better name) is necromancy with a twist of dark magic, Organic is transformative/augmentative powers (on yourself and other creatures), Illusive is about things which affect your opponent and spells cloaked as other spells, and Divine is raw destruction/demon summoning. The idea is that pre-game you purchase 'Levels' in whatever discipline for your wizard, and that then allows you to purchase spells from that discipline's pool at that level. Say as an example:-

Spoiler:
40 point game wrote:
Melchior the Wise
Top Wizard Dude

Spells:

Level 1 Elemental Practitioner - 5 points
Fireball - 3 points
Wind Shield - 2 points

Level 2 Elemental Practitioner - 10 points
Water Blast - 5 points

Level 1 Illusive Practioner - 5 points
Body Double - 4 points

Equipment
Chainmail vest -Armour (4) - 4 points
Magic Pendant - 2 points
You get the idea. Like I said, you could use cards to represent spells and gear. I'm toying with the idea of different wizard types too; Neverwinter Nights style (so wizards can only cast each spell once, sorcerors can cast multiple times but spells are more expensive, etc).

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2018/10/19 08:38:15



 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






I think that multiple wizards combining their efforts would be an option, but I also think that having a single wizard gain benefits from his attacks would be good too.

You could have effects which are applied, and are removed by subsequent spells. so, for example, water powers apply a "soaked" counter, fire powers apply a "Burning" counter, etc. Then have electrical powers have extra effect on models with a "soaked" counter, fire have extra effect on "burning" models, and then have any water effect (be it in attack or defence) remove burning tokens, have fire remove soaked tokens, that sort of thing. You could come up with lingering effects for all of your classes of magic, with summoning obviously being the ability to build up an army.

I would also like to see power levels for each spell, potentially with apprentice wizards having access to less - so fireball might have 3 power levels, allowing you to tone it down late game to avoid killing yourself. high power spells would not tone down as effectively, so you would have to select your spells carefully to not be crippled in the end-game. This would be easier than the power dependant on health idea.

Had you considered a "programmed" system, perhaps, to encourage players to use their full range of spells? so you can place, say, 5 cards in order and then reveal them one at a time, like in Roborally. You could have defensive barriers last until they are destroyed, so spells with attack(5) vs a barrier of defence(6) would do nothing, but would cost the defending wizard mana(1) to hold the barrier. Then if an attack(20) spell comes in, it destroys the barrier but still only costs the wizard mana(1).

you could have the speed define who goes first with each card, so the barrier could be slower than an attack, meaning the attack gets through.

so if wizard A plays the barrier in his first card, in each subsequent card he can either maintain the barrier or drop it to attack. so if he played:

barrier(6), fireball(5), fireball(5), fireball(5), fireball(5)

and the other wizard played:

fireball(5), fireball(5), fireball(5), regen(2), fireball(5)

then the turn would go:

1: barrier goes up and the first fireball is blocked (assuming barrier is faster) or goes through (if barrier is slower).
2: wizard A keeps barrier up, second fireball is blocked
3: wizard A keeps barrier up, third fireball is blocked
4: wizard A drops the barrier to go on the attack, wizard B takes a fireball to the face
5: both wizards take fireballs to the face.

You could actually do a rolling card system, so you put 5 down at the start of the game, and each turn you flip the rightmost and add a new one of your choice to the other end. More skilled wizards would have a shorter queue of cards, allowing them to react quicker. This would also prevent spam, unless the wizard bought 5 of the same spell, and would improve the more powerful wizards "recharge rate" for spells - if they have a queue of 3 instead of 5, they can use the same card every 4 turns rather than every 6! This might struggle slightly with groups of wizards instead of 1v1, however.




12,300 points of Orks
9th W/D/L with Orks, 4/0/2
I am Thoruk, the Barbarian, Slayer of Ducks, and This is my blog!

I'm Selling Infinity, 40k, dystopian wars, UK based!

I also make designs for t-shirts and mugs and such on Redbubble! 
   
Made in gb
[SWAP SHOP MOD]
Killer Klaivex







Hmmm...

Upon reflection, I think avoiding things like counters and keeping the terrain/physical effect aspect instead is actually quite crucial. Why? Because this is a tabletop game. Strip out the physical 'on field' effects; and a game with only a handful of models per side, some counters, and a bunch of cards becomes one that you could just as easily represent with just a card game. If the goal here is to make a 'miniatures' game; it needs to take full advantage of the 3D aspect. Else, what's the point?

I do like the idea of having different levels of casting for the same spell in some instances:- that's a good way of adding a little bit more representation to the fatigue ( you use weaker spells later in the game because you're low on steam) whilst representing how a better wizard can make a bigger fireball.

Not mad keen on the 'randomised cards' system I'm afraid. The current goal is for the cards to be more supplementary information, like in X-wing; rather than a key function in the core mechanics. That might change later, but I'd like to leave it as it is for the moment.

Please do keep the feedback coming though! I might cobble together a very basic rule and basic spell set for playtesting sometime this week. I figure that before jumping into all the more excessive and interesting ways of playing around with the effects; it's more important to hammer down the core mechanics.


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

Ignoring the stat inflation that you're enamored of, if you were to just play a tiny game of AoS with a Wizard and his retinue of 2-4, how close would that be to what you want in terms of gameplay?

It has terrain, and physical markers for barriers, etc. Lots of models you can summon. Cards for all of the spells. etc. Is that basically what you want to do? Why not start there?

   
Made in gb
[SWAP SHOP MOD]
Killer Klaivex







 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Ignoring the stat inflation that you're enamored of, if you were to just play a tiny game of AoS with a Wizard and his retinue of 2-4, how close would that be to what you want in terms of gameplay?
It has terrain, and physical markers for barriers, etc. Lots of models you can summon. Cards for all of the spells. etc. Is that basically what you want to do? Why not start there?


Never played AOS in my life. My interest in Warhammer Fantasy died with the Old World. Given that from what little I know of the new system, all the models still have extended 40kish statlines, people are still plonking large numbers of models on the table, it's a D6 based game, etcetc. Beyond the fact that there are cards, spells, and miniatures; I'm not really entirely sure what it has in common with mine. Certainly I'd be extremely surprised if it has the same mechanical dynamics I'm after going off those basic differences named above, even if you just restricted it to a few wizards.

With regards to the apparent stat inflation; I'm afraid I just couldn't quite grasp what you were talking about for the most part. Given I've a reasonably solid education under my belt, I don't think I'm entirely stupid; but until we figure out a way to communicate more effectively, I thought it best to just leave it there.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/10/19 18:05:40



 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

Dude, you don't have a game, you have ideas.

AoS is a good game, and not being in the Old World doesn't matter because you're not set there, either. I didn't say to play armies of AoS. I said to play a Wizard duel mini-game using the AoS engine and components, because GW has already done the heavy lifting of making ALL of the things that support a game like what you are proposing. If you are rejecting AoS out if blind ignorance or past slights, then you do yourself a disservice by not trying AoS as I suggested, because you're not gathering information, and not understanding where your largest potential player base would be coming from.

Stat inflation is exactly what it is: using bigger numbers for the sake of using bigger numbers. A prime example is your fixation on 100 wounds / HP, when there appears to be no validated gameplay need for this. If you're going to be doing damage in increments of 5 or 10, then you're back to 20, which has been demonstrated to work just fine. OTOH, if you need 1% granularity because splitting hairs is core to how your game works, that's fine, too.

Given what you've shared about where you are, I think that you should be far more open to trying different things (e.g. Magic & AoS) that would improve your game. However, if you think that we don't communicate well, I will simply stop.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/10/19 18:43:08


   
Made in gb
[SWAP SHOP MOD]
Killer Klaivex







AoS is a good game, and not being in the Old World doesn't matter because you're not set there, either. I didn't say to play armies of AoS. I said to play a Wizard duel mini-game using the AoS engine and components, because GW has already done the heavy lifting of making ALL of the things that support a game like what you are proposing. If you are rejecting AoS out if blind ignorance or past slights, then you do yourself a disservice by not trying AoS as I suggested, because you're not gathering information, and not understanding where your largest potential player base would be coming from.

Errr...what?

I didn't reject anything. I said I'd never played it, due to not playing Warhammer since the background/ruleset change. Which I haven't. I then listed what core mechanics I do know though, referencing that they're very different to what I'm aiming at in terms of mechanics and functionality. Which is the direct answer to your question in your previous post 'Why not just play AOS with some wizards'. If it doesn't work like that and I'm wrong about how the game plays/operates, I'm quite happy for someone to tell me how it does work, and what bits emulate what I'm trying to achieve.

Going on about 'blind ignorance' kind of makes it look like you're not actually reading I'm writing and just going off on one. Can we keep the AOS vs Warhammer conflict elsewhere?

Stat inflation is exactly what it is: using bigger numbers for the sake of using bigger numbers. A prime example is your fixation on 100 wounds / HP, when there appears to be no validated gameplay need for this. If you're going to be doing damage in increments of 5 or 10, then you're back to 20, which has been demonstrated to work just fine. OTOH, if you need 1% granularity because splitting hairs is core to how your game works, that's fine, too.

I did actually respond to that earlier. Namely, the answer was that if it only takes one turn/spell to kill your opponent; it's a very short game. Hence the need for some leeway between health/mana and damage done. I also think that if spells are going to be draining minor-medium amounts here and there; it's far harder to represent that when each character only has a small handful of points of health/mana. Cuts the game off too quick after one or two bad choices.

Given what you've shared about where you are, I think that you should be far more open to trying different things that would improve your game. However, if you think that we don't communicate well, I will simply stop.


.....mate.

I've literally been chatting with the other bloke who's chipping in with all kinds of mechanics; many of which I'm unfamiliar with, and considering them. Some of them I quite like. Having a blast! You, on the other hand, have dropped a few opaque comments about percentages and then gotten snotty because I pointed out (very politely) that I couldn't comprehend the point you were trying to make.

Communication is a two way street guv. Being overly abrasive doesn't help anybody.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2018/10/19 19:10:08



 
   
Made in ca
Junior Officer with Laspistol





London, Ontario

@ OP: you can use “00” to represent 100 on the double wheel counter, allowing you to start at 100 if you’re so inclined.

Have you played WMH before? You can accomplish a somewhat similar idea by playing multiple battle groups (essentially, multiple 0 point detachments). If you like playing with wizards and smashy robots, you’d likely enjoy it! Or wizards and beasts. I’m not here to judge.

I looked briefly at your proposed mechanics, and it seems like there would usually be a most-efficient attack and most-efficient defence in many cases. For example, it would always make sense to throw up an earth wall to defend, as your net loss would always be less.

I think it would be more interesting to have separate health / mana scores to have a reason to choose. Or add some degree of randomness to the attack or defence.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

Dude, I'm sorry I'm not able to help you.

   
Made in gb
[SWAP SHOP MOD]
Killer Klaivex







 greatbigtree wrote:
@ OP: you can use “00” to represent 100 on the double wheel counter, allowing you to start at 100 if you’re so inclined.

That's a nifty way of doing it.

Have you played WMH before? You can accomplish a somewhat similar idea by playing multiple battle groups (essentially, multiple 0 point detachments). If you like playing with wizards and smashy robots, you’d likely enjoy it! Or wizards and beasts. I’m not here to judge.

I'm afraid I haven't actually. Is there a mechanic in particular you think would be useful? My experience of card/wargaming is essentially 40K over four editions, Yu-Gi-Oh, Lord of the Rings, Infinity, X-Wing, Warhammer Fantasy, and a few odd historicals. So if there's a mechanic or feature you think would work well, please do say so; I'm very aware that there's doubtless a lot of good ideas I haven't come across!

I looked briefly at your proposed mechanics, and it seems like there would usually be a most-efficient attack and most-efficient defence in many cases. For example, it would always make sense to throw up an earth wall to defend, as your net loss would always be less.

Certainly there'd be a 'most efficient defence'; but that would change depending on your build, and what the other guy was throwing at you. Up above I invented some on the spot spells to demonstrate the mechanics. But to seize an alternate example, if some bloke has got a magic sword and teleported across the board; his attack may well be too quick for an earth wall to block him. Your water shield might have a minimum range, so you use a displacement spell of your own. Or somesuch.

The style of gameplay that I'm hoping for is that both players essentially build their casters, hold the cards in their hand of what they bought spell/equipment;and then gradually try and figure out what the other caster can do and what his weakspot is to win. If you throw a level 2 fireball and he plays a (for description sake) level 1 earth wall; then you know he spent some points in elemental magic. You might then try and decide if you want to risk a bigger fireball or not; because if he specialised intensively in elemental magic, he may well be able to block your big fireball with a much cheaper earth/water wall. The result being you'd take more damage casting than he would blocking. Then again, he might decide to eat the fireball, or use a less good blocking spell to try and lure you into overcommitting yourself; knowing that he specialised in healing and can take the damage if it makes you misplay later.

Don't get me wrong, I know it'll take some fairly fine balancing. But that's the sort of thing I'm after here.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/10/19 19:45:15



 
   
Made in us
Infiltrating Prowler





Portland, OR

 Ketara wrote:
I did actually respond to that earlier. Namely, the answer was that if it only takes one turn/spell to kill your opponent; it's a very short game. Hence the need for some leeway between health/mana and damage done. I also think that if spells are going to be draining minor-medium amounts here and there; it's far harder to represent that when each character only has a small handful of points of health/mana. Cuts the game off too quick after one or two bad choices.
I will say, large numbers are a bad thing and usually unnecessary. It is all about scale. If you change the health, then you would obviously have to change the damage something does as well as the costs to cast.

A different way to ask the question is why do you think a spell needs to be 20 damage instead of 2 or 1? Why does the health need to be 100 instead of 10?

You've created a belief that low health = fast game but without mechanics define, properly tested to determine if that is accurate. If the only reason to keep inflated numbers is 'to make a game longer' then at the core of the design there is an issue.

As an example 100 health, base spell costs 10 mana and does 20 damage (these numbers are arbitrary). That is the same thing as 10 health, base spell cost 1 mana and does 2 damage. They are mathematically the same thing. Now depending on game mechanics, it could take the same amount of time for a person to play and die. A mana pool also doesn't even have to be a number. It could be X amount of spells or actions, which scale better and then you are only dealing with health and damage.

Using your example earlier of:

barrier(6), fireball(5), fireball(5), fireball(5), fireball(5)
and the other wizard played:
fireball(5), fireball(5), fireball(5), regen(2), fireball(5)

That is the exact same thing as:
barrier(2), fireball(1), fireball(1), fireball(1), fireball(1)
and the other wizard played:
fireball(1), fireball(1), fireball(1), regen(1), fireball(1)
   
Made in ca
Junior Officer with Laspistol





London, Ontario

@ Ketara:

Not so much that WMH has particular mechanics, although I do like that their damage resolution is basically Str + RNG - Armour = damage. So if you roll high, you do more damage than if you barely exceed your target.

Mostly what I was suggesting is that all generals are like SM librarians. They all get “mana” that they can use to cast their spells or boost their combat abilities. They each have a unique spell list, though some spells are common to multiple casters.

Everything in WMH dies fairly easily, but most casters can take two or three strong hits. Some more, some less. Some buff their armies, some cripple their opponents, some are killers in close combat, some are a mixed bag.

A caster has battlegroup points that can only be spent on their retinue. In general, you can only have one caster in your army, so a “0” point game is actually the caster plus BG points. Typically 25 to 30 points depending on the caster, which usually buys a Heavy jack and two light jacks. It just sounds like the scale you’re looking to play at.
   
Made in gb
[SWAP SHOP MOD]
Killer Klaivex







 Dark Severance wrote:
I will say, large numbers are a bad thing and usually unnecessary. It is all about scale. If you change the health, then you would obviously have to change the damage something does as well as the costs to cast.

A different way to ask the question is why do you think a spell needs to be 20 damage instead of 2 or 1? Why does the health need to be 100 instead of 10?

You've created a belief that low health = fast game but without mechanics define, properly tested to determine if that is accurate. If the only reason to keep inflated numbers is 'to make a game longer' then at the core of the design there is an issue.

As an example 100 health, base spell costs 10 mana and does 20 damage (these numbers are arbitrary). That is the same thing as 10 health, base spell cost 1 mana and does 2 damage. They are mathematically the same thing. Now depending on game mechanics, it could take the same amount of time for a person to play and die. A mana pool also doesn't even have to be a number. It could be X amount of spells or actions, which scale better and then you are only dealing with health and damage.

Using your example earlier of:

barrier(6), fireball(5), fireball(5), fireball(5), fireball(5)
and the other wizard played:
fireball(5), fireball(5), fireball(5), regen(2), fireball(5)

That is the exact same thing as:
barrier(2), fireball(1), fireball(1), fireball(1), fireball(1)
and the other wizard played:
fireball(1), fireball(1), fireball(1), regen(1), fireball(1)


This example works perfectly within the data given; so I can't fault the reasoning! And I do actually agree with the conclusion on that basis. Except for possibly one nitpick; namely the attribution of it being an issue to design a game with a set average play time in mind (I think every game does that to an extent).

My answer however, would be twofold.

One, that this is primarily the low key stuff we're working with in the examples given above. The sorts of spells you should be able to splash out half a dozen of within the course of a game without severely prejudicing your chance to win. If I'm going to get (for argument's sake), four levels of magic; I'd like to have the option to vary the damage/cost levels more extremely.

To put this in perspective; you are correct in saying that if my fireball drains 10/100 health, it's 10% and thus the same as 1/10 health. And in the same vein, A really powerful fireball that drains 50/100 health is 50%, and thus the same as 5/10. But here's the kicker; what if I want a spell that only drains 5% health to use it? Or what if you cast a spell that does 10% damage, but my armour blocks 4%? I now need to subtract 6% damage from my caster.

Suddenly, I'm in the region where I'm having to knock off the 0.5 or 0.4 from a score of 10. If I'm using a dial that deals in whole numbers, that's impossible. I basically have to kick the dial idea and move to pen and paper; or get a dial made up with decimalised points. At which stage, what's the difference between using 0-10, or 0-100?


The second point is that I have actually playtested this; albeit it in a much more abstract format. When John says it isn't a game yet, just a theory; he's only half-right. When I was about seventeen/eighteen, I spent three years designing and writing a very complicated RPG game that incorporated several elements of this in the battle system. It went through about five editions and several dozen games (each of which would usually have at least a few dozen battles in). The battle spellbook was about a hundred pages long by the end! Me and a group of about ten friends would get together, down some drinks, and spend a few days at somebody's house building up our characters and playing. Good times!

It was different to this in several regards, but shared a lot of the more abstract mechanics. One of those was the battle cast/countercast system which had several caster levels, offensive/defensive spells which both drained health in casting, a combined health/mana pool, etc. I've converted a few of things. One of the old features was the range being close/medium/long and needing a counter of the appropriate type; which I've converted here to cast speed (stealing from Yu-Gi-Oh) since range is much more physically represented on the tabletop. It was also all pen and paper instead of cards and spinners.

It was good fun. As people got to know it, they started min/maxing to try and build more powerful characters (as the free roaming world map nature of the RPG meant they could end up fighting other players at any point). It got quite competitive towards the end. I ended up having to iron out broken combinations several times. So in a way, I suppose what I'm attempting to do is to develop the core battle concepts of my old creation into something designed for the tabletop as a complete game in it's own right.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 greatbigtree wrote:
@ Ketara:

Not so much that WMH has particular mechanics, although I do like that their damage resolution is basically Str + RNG - Armour = damage. So if you roll high, you do more damage than if you barely exceed your target.


I take it RNG is range? Meaning that the closer you are, the higher the damage? I like the idea of that as a concept for more primitive bladed weapons (an arrow will hit harder if it's released closer). Not entirely sure about the application here. I'll consider it though!

Mostly what I was suggesting is that all generals are like SM librarians. They all get “mana” that they can use to cast their spells or boost their combat abilities. They each have a unique spell list, though some spells are common to multiple casters.

Everything in WMH dies fairly easily, but most casters can take two or three strong hits. Some more, some less. Some buff their armies, some cripple their opponents, some are killers in close combat, some are a mixed bag.

A caster has battlegroup points that can only be spent on their retinue. In general, you can only have one caster in your army, so a “0” point game is actually the caster plus BG points. Typically 25 to 30 points depending on the caster, which usually buys a Heavy jack and two light jacks. It just sounds like the scale you’re looking to play at.


That is really quite interesting. It sounds similar on a conceptual level to how I'd envisioned certain 'summoning' type builds of caster working. Tell me, what's the best WMH rulebook? I know they've been through several iterations, so there might be a few ideas to be gleaned from it.

This message was edited 7 times. Last update was at 2018/10/19 21:27:17



 
   
Made in us
Infiltrating Prowler





Portland, OR

 Ketara wrote:
This example works perfectly within the data given; so I can't fault the reasoning! And I do actually agree with the conclusion on that basis. Except for possibly one nitpick; namely the attribution of it being an issue to design a game with a set average play time in mind (I think every game does that to an extent).
You can't really design a game set around average play time, what I mean is you can't create hypotheticals and estimate a play time without actual data. Playtime is created by all the combinations of gameplay, more than simply health and damage. Health and damage don't actually equate out to game time, the game mechanics themselves are what equates out to more or less game time.

First have to write the rules, play it, determine if that length was too long, too short or correct and then adjust. It is always best to start with smaller numbers and then gradually increase. I can tell you from experience 3 models vs 3 models on a 4'x4' game board is already going to be 45-60 minutes. When doing game design it is best to start small, then increase when needed instead of large and have to make large cuts. You get more consistent data collection that allows you to accurately measure the impact of the changing decisions.

Is it IGOUGO, does it have alternating activations, or maybe there is a bidding system to determine initiative, or simply rolling 3d10 and distributing to the models? Are actions straight actions, no ability to respond, or is there a reaction system, do you allow interrupts? Do you allow models to have multiple activations in a round or simply 3 models, 3 activations?

1 vs 1 could take 15-20 minutes a game, using MtG for example 2-3 games is 60 minutes, that is a 1vs1 with 20 health. That is simply card flipping, no moving models across a table, no measuring, no checking line of sight, no other interactions with the terrain. Playing 2vs2, by adding 2 extra players or as an example 2 extra models, can take 60 minutes for one game. It isn't simply double time because more health and damage potential, it is there are more interactions which increase time. We haven't even added movement, measuring, terrain, etc.

 Ketara wrote:
One, that this is primarily the low key stuff we're working with in the examples given above. The sorts of spells you should be able to splash out half a dozen of within the course of a game without severely prejudicing your chance to win. If I'm going to get (for argument's sake), four levels of magic; I'd like to have the option to vary the damage/cost levels more extremely.
You've just described MtG, varied costs, levels, damage, and costs. All primarily using 1-2 damage, as well as methods to block, heal, defend, interrupt, etc which means damage isn't actually happening or at a lower rate of attrition.

 Ketara wrote:
To put this in perspective; you are correct in saying that if my fireball drains 10/100 health, it's 10% and thus the same as 1/10 health. And in the same vein, A really powerful fireball that drains 50/100 health is 50%, and thus the same as 5/10. But here's the kicker; what if I want a spell that only drains 5% health to use it? Or what if you cast a spell that does 10% damage, but my armour blocks 4%? I now need to subtract 6% damage from my caster.
Honestly, do not use percentile dice. Don't design a system around percentages for miniatures games. Now you could use stepping method for dice, to increase/decrease power but percentiles aren't fun in a game system that doesn't need or use them.

Basically, I would have to ask what does the 5% health drain really add to the game battle or experience? It is the same reason that most games don't use percentile die unless we are talking about RPGs. There isn't a lot of difference between 78% compared to 79% or 70% to 80%, it is meaningless. Just barely doing anything doesn't feel like an accomplishment or an achievement. 5% vs 10% is meaningless. Why does it even have to be percents? Why isn't it simply 10 damage - 4 armor = 6 damage, they are conceptually the same thing, which is also the same as 5-2=3 damage.

Ok, that makes sense and at least explains everything then. If you started with a core of RPG mechanics I can see why you used percentiles. However, that does not translate into miniatures and board games well. There are reasons why they don't use them. With an RPG you varying degrees of interactions and difficulties that are open-ended. With a board/miniatures game, you have a finite set of actions, abilities that are strictly defined. If you think there is a large difference between a game system using d6 vs d10 or d20, there isn't really. At the core of them, they are all the same.
   
Made in ca
Junior Officer with Laspistol





London, Ontario

@Keteaa:

Sorry, RNG = Random Number Generator, in this case. Base is 2d6, but there's boosting, extra dice, roll an extra die and discard the lowest... they have a few modifiers to things.

For example, a charging weapon master might have STR 12, plus 4d6 damage vs a tough target with Armour 20. If they roll 14, they'd do 6 points of damage to it.

I'm only familiar with the current, 3rd edition. The rules are available for free on the Privateer Press website. As are the "Cards" (like codex entries) for the models.

A "Battle Box" costs about $45 CAD, comes with a Caster and a Battlegroup, the Rulebook, Cards, Tokens to Play the game with... You can download a free version of their army builder app ( War Room 2 ) that gives you access to all the "Starter Box" card content for all of the factions...

I've heard Europe is more expensive, like GW is more expensive in NA... But I find it to be a lot of fun.

Combat boils down to Attack Rolls as Skill + RNG >= Defense, you score a hit. You then take STR + RNG - Arm = Damage. You can do 0 damage.

You have movement, charging, shooting, magic...
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






 Ketara wrote:
if some bloke has got a magic sword and teleported across the board; his attack may well be too quick for an earth wall to block him.


I can guarantee that it would, I am very fast with a sword!

regarding people putting down the 100HP approach, it's worth remembering that the OP's intention is that the 100HP is also the mana- essentially the wizard is draining his own life force to attack the opponent. if you spend 5 health to make a big attack, 2 health to block the counterattack and take 1 health from the attack, you lose 8 health in one turn, which is quite a lot out of 20.

One suggestion I would have, to utilise the board-game aspect of this as opposed to the current discussions about the health system, is to make the spells physical, and give them speeds. So each spell would have a fast/medium/slow stat, which defines the order in which they are cast, and have a speed in inches, defining how far they move each turn. The spells would have a physical representation on the board, with a direction arrow to declare which way they are going, and would move a set speed each turn. Barriers would be physical barriers, placed on the board, which block spells which try to pass through them. some spells might be "homing" and move towards the target wizard, others would just continue in a straight line, some would be an area effect and just make a piece of scenery explode and not move from there, some might make a whirlwind which can be manipulated by whichever wizard bids the highest - there's a lot of options. I personally would reduce the movement of the mages to a maximum of 1-2" (this is a fast paced battle after all) so that dodging spells becomes more difficult. each turn should be quite quick so moving short distances won't make the game feel slow. The emphasis should be on magical blocking after all. Deflection spells could come in useful here, too, as you could randomize the deflection angle and end up with spells ricocheting everywhere!

I would have persistent spells costing mana to maintain, and when they are abandoned (the wizard stops trying to control them) they have certain effects - summoned flame demons may not be so keep to return to where they came from, after all! So you might throw out a general shield, which deflects weak magic, start summoning a powerful demon across the board, only to have to stop halfway through to throw up a bigger defence - what will the demon do?

I think that fireballs bouncing everywhere and mages barely having time to move aside would make for a very entertaining game. For playtesting, think wizards launching x-wing models at each other. you could even integrate the steering system, so some spells are easier to control than others. give each wizard a "control" stat to limit the number of spells he can control at once, so as the game goes on it becomes substantially more difficult to maintain control. Also allows wizards to take control of each others spells (to deflect them away from themselves). You could have the two wizards roll off against each other to see who controls it, if they both try to, and add their wizard level/skill.

I look forward to seeing this develop!

12,300 points of Orks
9th W/D/L with Orks, 4/0/2
I am Thoruk, the Barbarian, Slayer of Ducks, and This is my blog!

I'm Selling Infinity, 40k, dystopian wars, UK based!

I also make designs for t-shirts and mugs and such on Redbubble! 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

 Ketara wrote:
When John says it isn't a game yet, just a theory; he's only half-right. When I was about seventeen/eighteen, I spent three years designing and writing a very complicated RPG game that incorporated several elements of this in the battle system. It went through about five editions and several dozen games (each of which would usually have at least a few dozen battles in). The battle spellbook was about a hundred pages long by the end! Me and a group of about ten friends would get together, down some drinks, and spend a few days at somebody's house building up our characters and playing. Good times!


This explains why you're fixed on such a high level of detail and complexity. In my experience, high detail RPGs don't translate to good boardgames / tabletop wargames, especially as the modern trend has been toward streamlining things. Good luck.

   
Made in us
Infiltrating Prowler





Portland, OR

 some bloke wrote:
regarding people putting down the 100HP approach, it's worth remembering that the OP's intention is that the 100HP is also the mana- essentially the wizard is draining his own life force to attack the opponent. if you spend 5 health to make a big attack, 2 health to block the counterattack and take 1 health from the attack, you lose 8 health in one turn, which is quite a lot out of 20.
I do understand that the OP wants to use Health/Mana as one combined pool and from an RPG point of view, it could make sense but from a board game, miniatures game it does translate well. It could be done strictly as a card based game using what is known as "Press Your Luck", you are damaging yourself to power your abilities, pressing your luck to do enough but still have enough health to account for their attacks. It is easy to account for additions, subtractions, modifications through a card format in a simple concise and clear format. This is why M:tG works well.

In a miniatures game, without using counters, using one 0-100 dial seems simple but it isn't really. After a cast, you need to change the dial, after damage, change the dial, these interactions add up. It also makes it harder to reverse (this is from a M:tG judge point of view) when you have to rewind because something was invalid, couldn't have happened. You basically have a piece that is being picked up, manipulated and is hard for a player to catch someone cheating. Not that I expect people to cheat, but there is a reason why certain counters are easy to see on a game table. In a miniatures game when we rewind due to invalid actions or incorrect moves, everything is very clear but to a dial that is palmed is a different story. Cards are public information and static, easy to see on a small table for 2 players but on the dial isn't static or as public, as half the time it is in a players hand when they move things. That is why XWing dials are defined, you place them down away from you when it is time to reveal you flip them over and aren't picking them up constantly making adjustments as you play.

Not to mention there are better ways to handle spell casting, allowing varied results by having a separate mana pool, Or base it on X amount of actions unless something boosts or minuses but be clear on it. The mana pool could be limited or part of their actions base, heal, generate mana or cast, but not be able to do all three... usually have to choose one or the other, unless something is part of a component of another (for example Life Steal is a casting spell, which does heal or good steal mana). It also gives you a more dynamic base to create more varied spellcasters, maybe there is one who uses health to make spells cheaper (like a necromancer or warlock) but it doesn't make sense for all methods of magic to use the same power ability. I mean it could be designed that way, it is their world, but when everything is the same it can become bland and predictable.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






Los Angeles

Upon reading the concept of this game I was reminded of Mage Wars.

https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/101721/mage-wars-arena

That might be worth checking out for ideas.

With a game at this scale, I am tempted to suggest larger models. Something in the scale of Arena Rex would make the coteries of magic users more interesting on the table, and allow for some cool modeling options, but that runs counter to the appeal of grabbing some of the many wizard models most players have in their collections and throwing down for a game.

Still, if this were to be marketed, I'd want to play with large, detailed models.
   
 
Forum Index » Game Design
Go to: