Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Hi, i'm currently making my own table top game (futuristic) for an extended project, and I'm hoping to get some idea of what people want from a table top game. So I've put together this questionaire (is that how you spell it??) to see what people want. Unfortuantely, you can only ask one question in a poll (unless I'm horribly mistaken), so I've got to ask you to reply by comment. So, the questions.

Do you prefer using inches, or cm in a table top game?
Do you prefer: Many random events happening (crazy guns, wierd battlefield effects), Only some random events (morale, movement), or minimal random events (only dice rolls for saving and wounding etc)
Do you prefer large games with lots of models, or small games?
What is more important to you: Balance in the game, or story driven...sutff (fluff!)
Do you prefer games with lots of terrain (cities, ruins, ruined cities) or minimal terrain (some hills, maybe a barn :3)?
Do you enjoy team games, or do you prefer playing solo?

And finally, I've got a lil idea (mabe its been done before i have no idea) but most shooting in games has a maximum range. I decided to take this, but also say that if you exceed the maximum range, then instead of the shot just disappearing, instead, the shots BS and strength (talking in 40k terms here) are decreased based on the distance. What are you're thoughts on this?

*questionnaire

Anyway, to answer:
Do you prefer using inches, or cm in a table top game?
Scale matters in this. For 28mm scale, inches, but for smaller models cms.
Do you prefer: Many random events happening (crazy guns, wierd battlefield effects), Only some random events (morale, movement), or minimal random events (only dice rolls for saving and wounding etc)
I prefer a more dynamic experience; explosions, fires, unique weapons, etc.
Do you prefer large games with lots of models, or small games?
I personally prefer smaller games with really customizable characteristics.
What is more important to you: Balance in the game, or story driven...stuff (fluff!)
Game mechanics, for sure. I enjoy background, but if a game is an unbalanced, unplayable wreck it can't be saved.
Do you prefer games with lots of terrain (cities, ruins, ruined cities) or minimal terrain (some hills, maybe a barn :3)?
Pile on the terrain!
Do you enjoy team games, or do you prefer playing solo?
I like to have a social experience, just because of the atmosphere.

I think I just filled this in to make a carbon copy of my own game...

Anyway, I think the idea's been done before, but I can only really see it in small games. Remember to keep it in your vision; don't warp the idea to what other people may want.

PM me or check out my thread in the banner below if you want any info about getting a response on Dakka.

And keep on trying!

I'm on the road atm and I'll reply in more detail later. BUT with that said here are two posts that I had in a similar thread some of it is specific to that thread but there is some general game design advice.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/506558.page?userfilterid=36184

1) Inches all the best things are measured in inches

2) Many random events, but if that makes it really unbalanced, stick to a few. I'm after fun and laughter, but I like strategy too.

3) No preference.

4) Balance is always important, but I like a nice narrative too. I can create my own narrative though, but it's harder to change the rules. Balance should be priority.

5) Somewhere in the middle. It shouldn't be hard to get a shot off or whatever, but there should be enough to make you have to think

6) I like a game where the rules are customizable enough to play both ways.

7) Not a bad idea, though could get complicated. Perhaps use it only with War Machines/Artillery/Heavy Weapons.

Oh, also, answer questions and respond to criticism well.

Alfndrate reminded me.

You're asking alot of questions, but you are the designer right? Here are some questions for you.

First of all:
How many different wargames have you played?
How many different wargames have you read?
What did you like about those games?
What did you not like?

Why does the world need another wargame?
What is your vision for a game?
What would make it different than other games that are out there?
What would make it better than other games that are out there?

If you want suggestions for what makes a great wargame, I can point you to some wargames that are really great! If you want to build a wargame that's better, you need show folks why they should want to participate.

To sum up...
Have you done your homework?

Eilif wrote:
Here are some questions for you.

THIS.

Before starting on your own design you need to ask yourself WHY you are doing it. Do you really have an interesting idea that anyone will want to play, or are you just makin a game for the sake of making a game.

dimdum wrote:
Do you prefer using inches, or cm in a table top game?

Don't care. A distance is a distance no matter what unit it is measured in. The only (very small) factor is that tape measures in inches are easier to find in the US. Most people here probably have one lying around somewhere, but would have to go out and buy one in cm.

Do you prefer: Many random events happening (crazy guns, wierd battlefield effects), Only some random events (morale, movement), or minimal random events (only dice rolls for saving and wounding etc)

Few random events and preferably with enough dice to make exceptions to the average fairly rare. Big dramatic random events can easily make the game unbalanced and a lot less fun (for example, if the random battlefield effects go too far in one player's favor) and overshadow player choices (who cares about your subtle strategy if your opponent can just roll "I win" and negate it). Frequent random events (movement, etc) probably won't have much of an impact on the game compared to just having fixed values, and can add a lot more die rolls.

If you want a good starting point, IMO a fight between two squads of tactical marines has about the right balance.

Do you prefer large games with lots of models, or small games?

Lots of models, but not so many that the table becomes overcrowded and strategy is reduced to "move forward and kill things". A 1500 point game of 40k is about right, IMO. Too small (less than 750-1000) and there isn't enough variety in what you can bring, especially with the tanks/aircraft/etc that IMO make a game fun. Too big (2000+) and you need too much table space to keep a proper unit density and leave room for movement decisions, and it starts taking too long to get a playable army.

Of course this assumes a "skirmish" style game where models aren't forced into giant fantasy-style blocks. If you have to paint endless rows of generic infantry then adjust those numbers down significantly.

What is more important to you: Balance in the game, or story driven...sutff (fluff!)

Balance.

Do you prefer games with lots of terrain (cities, ruins, ruined cities) or minimal terrain (some hills, maybe a barn :3)?

Lots. Too little and it's too easy to just bring a static gunline. The table needs enough terrain to provide cover for weak units to hide in, block LOS and force static weapons to choose a field of fire, etc. Of course this is all within reason, too much and ranges get compressed too much and all your real fighting happens at point blank range where two units can finally see each other.

Oh, and don't require specialized terrain. In terms of quantity and type your game needs to be playable with the generic terrain people already have. If you need to bring specialized terrain it counts against the time/money investment limit for how many models you can include.

Do you enjoy team games, or do you prefer playing solo?

Solo. Team games can be fun, but it's a lot harder to find enough people to play a team game, and even harder to find balanced teams. Include rules for playing team games if you want, but don't make it the focus.

And finally, I've got a lil idea (mabe its been done before i have no idea) but most shooting in games has a maximum range. I decided to take this, but also say that if you exceed the maximum range, then instead of the shot just disappearing, instead, the shots BS and strength (talking in 40k terms here) are decreased based on the distance. What are you're thoughts on this?

Way too much detail at that point. Before you can worry about how you're going to handle maximum ranges you need to figure out what kind of game you want to make. You're doing the equivalent of trying to write the rules for 40k sniper rifles (in 6th) before you've even figured out the to-hit/wound tables.

As the author of several wargames that have enjoyed moderate success and very positive feedback, I would offer one piece of advice: build the game you want to play, not the game you think other people want to play.

R.

 precinctomega wrote:
As the author of several wargames that have enjoyed moderate success and very positive feedback, I would offer one piece of advice: build the game you want to play, not the game you think other people want to play.

R.

Seconded.

Thirded.

 precinctomega wrote:
As the author of several wargames that have enjoyed moderate success and very positive feedback, I would offer one piece of advice: build the game you want to play, not the game you think other people want to play.

R.

Fourth-ed!
Precinctomega is also a good example in that he wrote rules, then put them out there and then asked for advice on rules for an expansion. I don't recall if there was a draft version of the rules before he put them up for sale, but the point is he did the work. I recommend checking them out, (They're only 1GBP!) if only to get an example of a simple but effective indie ruleset.

To the OP,
We're not being harsh merely for the sake of being harsh. It's just that every week someone posts nearly the exact thread saying. "I want to make a game? Help me make a game. What do you want to see in a game?"

These projects are failed from the get-go because the authors (though I hesitate to call them that since they haven't written the game yet) don't have a vision of their own, and most times haven't done their "homework".

I've read alot of homebrew games (probably a dozen or so) and at least that many games by self-publishing authors or small indie games companies. Most are just ok, but some good enough that I play them somewhat regularly. II've never read a good game that didn't first start with an author well versed in wargaming, with knowledge of (or at least some experience with) quite a few games, a vision of their own and a product they wrote themselves before seeking input.

As far as Dakka goes, it's a hard sell to begin with, and the only folks who get help/proofreading/advice/playtesting are those who do the work, come out with a coherent vision and create a good draft of a game before coming to forums for advice.

So your best course of action is to:
-First answer the questions in my post, (to yourself most importantly)
-Then answer the questions in your own post
-Then start writing and playtesting. Maybe get a couple of friends to try it with you.

When you have something you think folks will like, then come back to dakka and ask for input.

And I sincerely mean this,
Good luck!

I can tell you from a writer's perspective that all of that helps a lot.

People will respond better, be able to focus their points and generally will stick around as they can see that their input is actually shaping the game. A lot of people refuse to post their games because they think "it's the next big thing" or that people are going to steal their work. However, many people don't know that the author has automatic copyright over their original work. If you clarify the usage agreements, that's that, done.

And yes, to confirm, we get several a week.

Look at some of Diognesethedog's threads that are in this forum for a good guide of what not to do for game design.

Fifthededed

The same applies in any creative process. It's amazing the number of times I get asked why I don't write music like [insert artist here], or telling me I should cover [insert song title here]. You write what you want to listen to/play/read/watch. That's why I always think it's odd when someone rips on a musician for casually listening to their own music.

A game is no different. Just like music, don't do it because you plan on making a lot of money doing it (go play the lottery, your odds are better), you do it because you have a passion for it. If you accept that, then there is no real reason to worry about what other people like, so go make what makes you happy.

 precinctomega wrote:
As the author of several wargames that have enjoyed moderate success and very positive feedback, I would offer one piece of advice: build the game you want to play, not the game you think other people want to play.

I have to break the chain of agreement and dispute this point.

It's good advice if the game in question is just a fun project and it doesn't matter if nobody (other than maybe the author's best friend) ever plays it.

It's terrible advice if you want to sell a game. The gaming market is completely saturated right now, if you don't start with a clear idea of what market you're aiming for and how you're going to convince them to buy your game instead of the competition you aren't going to sell very many copies. A generic but functional set of rules that exists just for the sake of existing is doomed to failure.

 Peregrine wrote:

 precinctomega wrote:
As the author of several wargames that have enjoyed moderate success and very positive feedback, I would offer one piece of advice: build the game you want to play, not the game you think other people want to play.

I have to break the chain of agreement and dispute this point.

It's good advice if the game in question is just a fun project and it doesn't matter if nobody (other than maybe the author's best friend) ever plays it.

It's terrible advice if you want to sell a game. The gaming market is completely saturated right now, if you don't start with a clear idea of what market you're aiming for and how you're going to convince them to buy your game instead of the competition you aren't going to sell very many copies. A generic but functional set of rules that exists just for the sake of existing is doomed to failure.

And yet you would both agree that you should write something first, and have some goals in mind, do your homework, etc. The writer hasn't said whether the goal is a fun game for a club/friends or a living wage.

Besides, whether it's based on "Market research" or "the game you want" it's really a moot point. The gaming market is saturated, and it's highly unlikely that any indie project is going to be the next-big-thing anyway. If you don't have financial backing and a proven track record, the best you can hope for is a few extra bucks in your pocket, or if you're among the very small minority that are really successful, a relatively low income living.

Im sixthing precinctomega and disputing Peregrines assertion. Ive been developing my rules for almost a decade, writing, deleting, rewriting, revising ad nauseum. The entire time, the thing i had over my head, the thing i had on my back was the eternal question: "Who would want to play this game? Would anyone play the game? What if they don't find it complex enough? What if they think its too simple? What if they think that certain mechanics are unnecessary? What if seemingly logical design choices to me prove to be extreme abstractions or incomprehensibly advanced to the player?"

The fact of the matter is that there is always going to be someone who thinks what you do is gak, and another who thinks its the best thing since sliced bread. I've never seen any game system (or anything really) that is universally hated or loved.

So, who do you cater to?

Good business sense would say make something that would appeal to the greatest number of people, but doing that results in the "generic but functional" ruleset that Peregrine warns against. The successful games are for the most part games that have done something different from the competition and taken more development risks in bringing something new and innovative to the field, these are undoubtedly the games that the designers wanted to make, not the games that everyone else wanted to play. People dont know what they want to play if it doesnt exist. I didnt know that i wanted to play warmachine, malifaux, infinity, flames of war, dropzone commander, etc. until after I knew they existed, beyond a nebulous idea of "I want a game that has x and does y". If the designers had surveyed me or anyone else and asked them what they wanted, they would get a million different answers that were all just as vague and useless. Gamers are not game designers, for the most part. Gamers for the most part cant tell you that they want a certain mechanic to represent x and it should function via y because of z, etc. The ones that can are not ordinary gamers, they are neophyte game designers who may not have realized their potential and may never do so. By creating the game they want you are creating another developers game, not your own, the problem is they likely have no idea what they are doing because they are not cognizant of the fact that they are developing rules by proxy, nor are they shouldering any developmental risks themselves. If you are creating the game that multiple such unaware developers are telling you to create, then woe be unto you for you will create an abomination of a ruleset that nobody wants to play, and likely couldnt play even if they tried.

Design by committee doesnt work, the F-35 s proof of that.

I also have to disagree with Elif. Malifaux, Flames of War, Warmahordes, Infinity, etc. all started as indy projects, I dont know if their creators struck it rich but they are certainly popular. The old adage of "You make a small fortune in the gaming industry by starting with a large one." Is certainly not universally true, and in my opinion was written to describe the overwhelming majority of game developers who might be great rules writers but are gakky businessmen. The gaming market has always been this saturated (well maybe not always but certainly the past couple decades), its only relatively recently that people have realized it (and when I say people I mean the GW crowd and co., the historicals crowd realized it long long ago in like the 70s).

Do you prefer using inches, or cm in a table top game?
I would say inches, but really I hate measuring. It feels so pedantic having to measure distances for every model and shot, and it is one of the things which just slows games down. it's one of the main reasons I prefer board games and dungeon crawlers with printed squares. I would like a game where accurate measuring was not critical to the strategy.

Do you prefer: Many random events happening (crazy guns, wierd battlefield effects), Only some random events (morale, movement), or minimal random events (only dice rolls for saving and wounding etc)
I like lots of details and random outcomes, but they should matter to the game and not interrupt the flow. For example I will never forget the game in 40k 2nd ed, where I blew up my friend's Predator, with a Land Speeder... Only to have the turret fly up into the air and scatter on top of the Speeder destroying it. That was exciting stuff. On the other hand there were lots of games where I kept having to roll for nuisance things which didn't matter much to the game at all. if you do have random events I think it's better if they resolve themselves 'roll again next turn' results an get old quickly if they keep coming up.

Do you prefer large games with lots of models, or small games?
I usually prefer smaller games, they flow better, and each unit seems more significant.

What is more important to you: Balance in the game, or story driven...sutff (fluff!)
Is it too much to ask for both? Presentation, narrative (fluff) and style are the things that attract me to games. I will often even fool myself that mediocre games are far better than they really are, if they are well presented. But for a game to have serious replay value it needs good balance.

Do you prefer games with lots of terrain (cities, ruins, ruined cities) or minimal terrain (some hills, maybe a barn :3)?
I'm not really sure what you are asking here. In 40k I like lots of terrain. However I've never been a big fan of the way terrain works in 40k. So in a new game I might not want any terrain. It depends how it works. I would quite like a Gears of War style system where you actually have to take cover to get the defence bonus. Rather than in 40k where you just arbitrarily stand near a wall and then have to argue with your opponent about whether he can see seven sixteenths or eight fifteenths of your model.

Do you enjoy team games, or do you prefer playing solo?
I love team games, but games also need to be fun to play with just you and a friend. I have a lot of co-op games that require someone to GM so you can't really play with just two. Games like Zombicide and Gears of War 'the board game' have automated (Ai) enemies, so they are really fun with two people, and can even be played solitaire. I think it's the sign of a good game if you are able to play 1 player, or 2 player co-op.

And finally, I've got a lil idea (mabe its been done before i have no idea) but most shooting in games has a maximum range. I decided to take this, but also say that if you exceed the maximum range, then instead of the shot just disappearing, instead, the shots BS and strength (talking in 40k terms here) are decreased based on the distance. What are you're thoughts on this?

It makes sense that someone with a higher BS would be able to make longer shots. However as I said before... too much measuring is dull. Also if you count a 28mm figure as being 6 foot tall, then a 48" table would be 288 foot across. Almost all guns are deadly at that range (even pistols, if you could hit anything), there are plenty of people who can even throw further than that. Makes you wonder how much you even need range in a table top game?

The question of your market strategy isn't one that should occupy a designer until after the game is written, playtested and ready for, at least, a beta release. Look how many games, go to a second edition because how the first edition ends up being played isn't how the designers wanted it to be played... Or isn't how the customers want to play it!

You have to have faith in your vision first. If what you want is a squad-level, fast-paced, hard SF skirmish game, then that's what you should design. If you want an army-level fantasy battle system, then do that. But I do agree with Peregrine as far as the extent that you need to do your homework. Your game needs to provide something that other games don't. No game is a perfect simulation of combat, so it is always possible too find an element of the situation that you simulate or capture better, more efficiently or in more detail than someone else.

I happen to hate games that involve buckets of dice, don't muchcare ffor counters and like to be able to customize my forces and write an army list in minutes instead of hours. So that's how I wrote my games (ironically, it's now possible to to roll as many as ten dice if you really want to, and counters are essential to the game play in MechaWar and AirFrame, but that's how the design process works - murder your darlings and all that).

I wanted a game like Battletech that didn't take all day and involve more paperwork than my tax return; I wanted a game like Heavy Gear that wouldn't require me to mortgage my home. I had faith that, if I wrote it, enough people would like it that it would be worth writing another, which they would also like.

1£W obviously isn't a money-making enterprise. I've sold comfortably over 200 copies of MechaWar, though, and over fifty copies of AirFrame so far, so I count that as success.

R.

He has a point. A business plan after everything is made and fixed will be better.

It all depends on what you really want to do and to what scope.

From a personal perspective and experience, avoid asking what people want, they are all individuals with a variety of valid, at least from their point of view, opinions that are in many cases incompatible.

In my opinion, first design the rough outline of the world you want to create and by rough I mean really rough, just the general outlines, for sci fi example, how hard or soft, this is to putt he world into context, no need to think how an anti gravity vehicle will work, if there will be no such technology in the universe.

Then decide on the scale and scope, in my opinion for example company scale engagements are for 15mm, GW disagrees but that is not the point, the point is that regardless of opinions in both cases the scope is company level engagements and the scale is different, this is really important for the rules.

After all the above decisions you have the basics set, write the rules, test them and then write the background, refine the background and release the game for beta testing, never in my opinion allow background to infect the rules and never write a background that is not supported by the rules.

Another personal belief is never go for generic world in order to allow everybody to fit their miniatures in, all games that tried that failed, because the system becomes increasingly imbalanced and chunky, make our universe, design it from scratch and do not worry players can always find a way to fit their miniatures in a well designed system.

Oh, yes. And the other thing you need to remember is that designing a game isn't just a matter of writing it down. You need to buy and paint minis (most rules benefit from example photos, so you'll want the manufacturer's permission - you won't get it from GW, btw); you need to playtest and recruit others to playtest. You may want to commission custom artwork (don't just steal it from the Internet). And you'll need to spend a shocking amount of time just thinking about the game and how its various components gel.

To achieve this, you need one vital thing: passion for the game. And if your game is based on fulfilling the needs of others instead of yourself, then you will lack the passion necessary to see it to completion.

With respect to your questions though, I would maker one constructive observation with respect to inches or centimetres..

Inches are great for 28-32mm games, because you can just convert all measurements to cm for a 15mm game.

R.

K.I.S.S.

Do you prefer using inches, or cm in a table top game?
I like small, simple numbers. Between a move of 15 cm or 6", I'll prefer inches.

Do you prefer: Many random events happening (crazy guns, wierd battlefield effects), Only some random events (morale, movement), or minimal random events (only dice rolls for saving and wounding etc)
I like random craziness & weird effect.

Do you prefer large games with lots of models, or small games?
Both

What is more important to you: Balance in the game, or story driven...sutff (fluff!)
Balance

Do you prefer games with lots of terrain (cities, ruins, ruined cities) or minimal terrain (some hills, maybe a barn :3)?
lots!

Do you enjoy team games, or do you prefer playing solo?
team games.

Agree with KISS.

For example, the Games workshop Wargame series:

Battle for Armageddon - Difficult Rules Okay to Play

Horus Heresy - Difficult Rules with things changing every turn, difficult to learn, difficult to teach to your mate.

Eldar Attack - Simple board, simple space warfare rules, simplish craftworld based warfare ruler. By far the better and more fun out of the three games to play (unless you are a diehard player).

 Jasper wrote:
Agree with KISS.

For example, the Games workshop Wargame series:

Battle for Armageddon - Difficult Rules Okay to Play

Horus Heresy - Difficult Rules with things changing every turn, difficult to learn, difficult to teach to your mate.

Eldar Attack - Simple board, simple space warfare rules, simplish craftworld based warfare ruler. By far the better and more fun out of the three games to play (unless you are a diehard player).

There is a huge difference between complex and complicated. The two are not mutually exclusive nor do they go hand in hand.

You could add range modifiers to the hit roll, and range bands to the weapon modifying the damage as the range increases.

For example
to hit mods.
0-4" +2,
5"-8" +1,
9"-12" 0,
13"-16" -1,

Range bands
0-6" D6+4
7"-12" D6+2
13"-18" D6
19"-24" D6-2

This sort of thing means that you can fiddle with the damage that a weapon does at range, making some weapons powerful at range, but weak close up (Missiles needing time to arm the warhead, for example. Shoot it too close to a tank, and the warhead doesn't arm, so isn't as effective.

Do you prefer using inches, or cm in a table top game?
Inches makes things easy. I'm used to inches and therefor inches will do.

Do you prefer: Many random events happening (crazy guns, wierd battlefield effects), Only some random events (morale, movement), or minimal random events (only dice rolls for saving and wounding etc)
Some craziness is awesome, I do play Orks though, so I may be biased.

Do you prefer large games with lots of models, or small games?
Small games! Much easier to get an army done to play with. Would be nice if you could expand into larger games somehow?

What is more important to you: Balance in the game, or story driven...sutff (fluff!)
Both are equally important. Fluff is always good, but if one army is massively overpowered then that would not be cool.

Do you prefer games with lots of terrain (cities, ruins, ruined cities) or minimal terrain (some hills, maybe a barn :3)?
Options for both. Lots of terrain keeps things nice and strategic but not a lot of people have access to lots of terrain.

Do you enjoy team games, or do you prefer playing solo?
Again, both. Working as part of a team is cool every now and then.

The most important thing an author can do is to read.
This applies to wargamers as much as novelists. You need to read games, play games, many different systems and scales and themes, to find out what is out there.
To anyone saying they want to make a wargame, my first questions are always "Why? What does your wargame do that is unique from other games?"
If they say, 'well, there is no chibi-head miniatures rpg game in 54mm scale, well thats alright.
But if they say 'well I don't like how 40k does this..' alarm bells are going off because it immediately seems like they've only played one game.

Trasvi wrote:
The most important thing an author can do is to read.
This applies to wargamers as much as novelists. You need to read games, play games, many different systems and scales and themes, to find out what is out there.
To anyone saying they want to make a wargame, my first questions are always "Why? What does your wargame do that is unique from other games?"
If they say, 'well, there is no chibi-head miniatures rpg game in 54mm scale, well thats alright.
But if they say 'well I don't like how 40k does this..' alarm bells are going off because it immediately seems like they've only played one game.

Very much agreed!

However in addition too...
"there is no chibi-head miniatures rpg game in 54mm scale"
... I also listen for statements indicating an understanding of Wargame mechanics. Things like:
I think _____ style activation offers some advantages because____
Tweaking ________ in the melee phase means that _______
Targeting the game at _______ level of play should allow each player to field _______

Not these exact statements mind you, but something indicating that the author has a real knowledge of wargames.

Lots of useful advice offered here, but I note that the author has not returned with any information about what games they've played, how theirs will be different/better, etc, etc....

chaos0xomega wrote:
Im sixthing precinctomega and disputing Peregrines assertion.

...

The fact of the matter is that there is always going to be someone who thinks what you do is gak, and another who thinks its the best thing since sliced bread. I've never seen any game system (or anything really) that is universally hated or loved.

You missed the point here. I'm not saying that the OP needs to make everyone happy, I'm saying they need to make someone happy. All they seem to have is "I'm going to make a game" and a bunch of hopelessly generic rules with nothing to get anyone's attention. What they need to do is stop making up random bits of rules/fluff and figure out an overall concept that at least some target audience is going to be interested in. For example:

"I love the rules of 40k, but the fluff is stupid. I'm going to make a game with a similar style of rules and sell it with my awesome background fiction. In fact, here are some of the unique things that no existing game has."

"Wargaming has high barriers to entry, I'm going to make a game that focuses on being easy for new players to pick up. This game will feature fairly simple rules, pre-painted models, and use a well-known and loved IP." (X-wing)

"The hobby is cool, but there isn't enough out there for competitive players. Fluff and cool models are nice, but I'm going to focus my efforts on making a balanced competitive tournament game." (Warmachine)

Etc.