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.

So, I'm working on a skirmish-size Alternating Action game with a few single models fighting each other.

I'm working on the roll to hit, roll to wound, roll to save approach, but in a different manner. I'm starting to become concerned that it may be a bit too complicated.

models have statistics:

Skill - this is the value you need to equal or exceed on a D6 to hit when you attack, EG Skill 3+ is better than skill 6+
Attacks - how many shots the weapon makes
Strength - how many dice you roll to wound with each hit
Toughness - this is the value that attacks have to roll to wound you, EG Toughness 5+ is better than Toughness 3+
Armour - How many dice you roll when defending
Defence - what you need to roll to cancel a wound, EG Defence 2+ is better than Defence 4+.

So, for the example:

Skill 4+
Attacks 3
Strength 2
Toughness 5+
Armour 3+
Defence 4

attacker rolls 3 dice, each needing a 4+ to hit. for each hit, roll 2 dice (these pool together, so 2 hits means a single roll of 4 dice, not 2 rolls of 2), each needing 5+ to wound. defender then rolls 4 dice, needing 3+ to cancel each wound.

any wounds not cancelled go through and are deducted from the models health.

My reasoning behind this is that more variables allows more flavour. However, is this overly complex? I've avoided any tables, so all the data is on the cards/unit profiles.

weapon examples would be:

rocket launcher: S10 A1
minigun: S1 A10
machinegun S2 A3

higher strength increases your chance of getting through the defence. In the example it was a very tough target (I wanted to keep all the values different to keep it easy to understand) but most infantry would be Toughness 3+, 5+ save on 2 dice.

Obviously the fine details will need ironing out but is this a good base for a system, or is it too complex?

It's not complex at all, but it does take a pretty basic and unimaginative system and swamps it in dice. It's not something I'd be drawn to. If you're aiming for a game with a very limited number of models (a few single per side etc) then I think you can go way more into detail as the bookkeeping can be more thorough - limb wounds, concussions, damaged weaponry, so on. I'm not sure this system lends itself to that.

Also, in this system 'as is', if you simulated 1000 missile launcher and 1000 minigun attacks at any particular target you'd end up with the exact same amount of damage dealt. How do you get around that as, they should be different weapons for use on different targets?

 Riquende wrote:
It's not complex at all, but it does take a pretty basic and unimaginative system and swamps it in dice. It's not something I'd be drawn to. If you're aiming for a game with a very limited number of models (a few single per side etc) then I think you can go way more into detail as the bookkeeping can be more thorough - limb wounds, concussions, damaged weaponry, so on. I'm not sure this system lends itself to that.

Also, in this system 'as is', if you simulated 1000 missile launcher and 1000 minigun attacks at any particular target you'd end up with the exact same amount of damage dealt. How do you get around that as, they should be different weapons for use on different targets?

I see what you mean... I think it's back to the drawing board with this one!

I like the idea of recording specific wounds on specific places, I will have a think about how best to incorporate it into my ideas...

Thanks!

There's also the problem that 40k suffers from to a degree and that's assigning more dice to more attacks, but a higher likelihood of a single dice doing something with stronger attacks. The problem is granularity, in that the weaker the weapon (and more numerous the dice), the more likely it is to do some damage, as opposed to all or nothing.

Does that make sense? I remember a person once explaining to me that more dice didn't mean luckier, it just meant that there was much more space for a medium range of effects.

 some bloke wrote:
So, I'm working on a skirmish-size Alternating Action game with a few single models fighting each other.

I'm working on the roll to hit, roll to wound, roll to save approach, but in a different manner.

That's just regular Warhammer, which is fine.

You could simplify it as to-attack vs to-defend, to keep it simple - that's what I did with KOG light.

Not that it really matters, as the combat resolution is generally the least important part of the mechanics. The important stuff is terrain, deployment, activation, control, modifiers, positioning, etc. -- all of the stuff that leads up to the AvD roll(s).
http://deltavector.blogspot.com/2019/01/game-design-77-dice-mechanics-arent.html

Think about that, and you'll find that the final AvD roll can be very simple as long as it captures the things that you want it to do.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 some bloke wrote:
So, I'm working on a skirmish-size Alternating Action game with a few single models fighting each other.

I'm working on the roll to hit, roll to wound, roll to save approach, but in a different manner.

That's just regular Warhammer, which is fine.

You could simplify it as to-attack vs to-defend, to keep it simple - that's what I did with KOG light.

Not that it really matters, as the combat resolution is generally the least important part of the mechanics. The important stuff is terrain, deployment, activation, control, modifiers, positioning, etc. -- all of the stuff that leads up to the AvD roll(s).
http://deltavector.blogspot.com/2019/01/game-design-77-dice-mechanics-arent.html

Think about that, and you'll find that the final AvD roll can be very simple as long as it captures the things that you want it to do.

Thanks for this feedback, I think it's very sound advice that the surrounding gameplay and immersion is much more important than the combat system.

I think I need to brainstorm my game and decide what, apart from the different fluff, will set it apart from any other skirmish game.

Delta Vector has a lot of good stuff to think about - take your time reading the various articles. Not everything there "works" or is "correct" for your game, but it's worth your time to consider what's going on and what you want to do.

Even if your system is mechanically sound, the number of steps to achieve it may just clog the game up. It will needlessly slow the game down with purely RNG rather than descision making.

Rather than variation coming through granular variables, rules which don't need additional rolls/ steps could be an option. Ie pistols may be fired in addition to another one handed weapon. Shotguns do double damage at half range. Veterans may perform an additional action in a turn. Scoped weapons auto hit enemies in the open and so on and so forth.

Roll to hit, damage is automatic, armor reduces damage by d3 or something. Two rolls and the game keeps moving. Fancy characters add 1 or 2 to the d3 roll etc etc

Dice rolling helps add a little tension, variation, and catharsis. I forgive 40ks excessive amount because of the setting.

I find it's useful to play Calvinball before writing anything down - doing stuff that's fun and interesting and then building the system around that.