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, over the last few months I've been working on a sci fi skirmish rule set, which has reached the state where it has enough bare bones content to be seen and alpha tested.

Obviously, it's very rough at the moment and still has a long way to go. The name is also only a placeholder, a code-name if you will, for the time being.

The game is intended to be played with 5-10 minis each side.

I'd really appreciate it if you could take a look over the rules and stats, maybe even try the game out and let me know what you think. Here are the links:

Rules



Thanks a lot.

Reaper

Erm, I take it from your username that "Reaper's Game" refers to yourself, not the miniature company called "Reaper"?

Might want to edit the thread title.

 Magc8Ball wrote:
Erm, I take it from your username that "Reaper's Game" refers to yourself, not the miniature company called "Reaper"?

Might want to edit the thread title.

You are indeed correct title changed!

I will dl it and try to read over it this weekend.

imm0rtal reaper wrote:

 Magc8Ball wrote:
Erm, I take it from your username that "Reaper's Game" refers to yourself, not the miniature company called "Reaper"?

Might want to edit the thread title.

You are indeed correct title changed!

Cheers! I'll glance at the rules and provide feedback when I have some time.

Looks interesting so far. Seems like a lot of influence from 40k. Have you tried any other game systems? Here are a bunch of comments as I read through the doc.

I'm glad you went with alternating actions on a per-unit basis instead of entire army UGO-IGO. I'd recommend looking at some different approaches for handling uneven numbers though. Never been a fan of the "just activate all the leftover guys at the end!" since that tends to give a bigger-than-expected advantage to numerically superior armies.

I'd specify whether you can use the actions in any order, since some people might be used to being forced to Move then Shoot. I do see that you have shooting and combat ending the activation. Just wondering why you went for that approach instead of allowing people to "shoot 'n' scoot"?
I'd also consider revisiting the Moving and Shooting penalty of +1 to hit, just because you don't want to have the game bog down to people camping and not moving because it's easier to shoot. Games focused on range tend to have that happen already, so you want to encourage movement generally.

I saw you have "Leaping (will be moved to advance rules)". Are you planning on splitting the game into basic and advanced rules? What motivated you to do that, and do you see an average player starting with basic or going right to advanced? I don't see anything else pegged for advanced rules, so what else do you plan for that?

I'd be interested to see how the "Shooting into Combat" rule playtests for multiple combats. I feel like a more elegant solution could be found, instead of having to designate each model with a number and roll additional dice.

Seems like the rolls to hit would drastically get over 7? Throw in some Cover, have the shooter move, and be firing from Effective Range and you're already at a +3 penalty. What about having Ideal Range give -1 bonus (which seems weird when -1 is a good thing hehe), Effective Range having no effect, and Extreme Range being +1 penalty?

Is there a way you could merge rolling to hit and rolling for damage into a single roll? I know 40k has three rolls to resolve a simple attack, but I feel like you could come up with a better approach

Are you calculating the point values of units using a mathematical system or just going by what feels right?

I'd probably merge the Tables PDF into the rulebook, just so that people only have to download a single file (already hard enough to get people to read anything these days).

Anyways looks like a good start!

 bosky wrote:
I'd be interested to see how the "Shooting into Combat" rule playtests for multiple combats. I feel like a more elegant solution could be found, instead of having to designate each model with a number and roll additional dice.

Something that might work on this front (and since you've got me thinking about it, I might incorporate it into Aetherverse) is similar to the D&D method.

1. You may shoot at enemies who are in close combat
2. They get a cover bonus to your to-hit target number
3. If you miss, you hit your own guys (in D&D you have to miss by a certain amount but without using a d20 you don't get that kind of granularity)

Allowances would need to be made for there being multiple friendly units in the combat (probably just another roll of a die) or a third player's models being involved (probably make them immune).

 bosky wrote:
Looks interesting so far. Seems like a lot of influence from 40k. Have you tried any other game systems? Here are a bunch of comments as I read through the doc.

I've played a few other systems, but I've tried to stay away from reading the rules of comparitive systems (like infinity and mercs) for the time being. I was concerned that I would use too much of these other systems. So I wanted to get my teeth into the game before exploring other systmes for ideas.

I'm glad you went with alternating actions on a per-unit basis instead of entire army UGO-IGO. I'd recommend looking at some different approaches for handling uneven numbers though. Never been a fan of the "just activate all the leftover guys at the end!" since that tends to give a bigger-than-expected advantage to numerically superior armies.

The uneven numbers issue is one of my top priorities for changing at the moment. I just haven't settled on another approach. One thought I had was that each unit the enemy had more than you left at the end of the turn granted you an extra activation, to balance it out. But I'm not sure how I feel about that.

I'd specify whether you can use the actions in any order, since some people might be used to being forced to Move then Shoot. I do see that you have shooting and combat ending the activation. Just wondering why you went for that approach instead of allowing people to "shoot 'n' scoot"?

Good shout. You can take your actions in any order, but as you noticed, shooting and combat end the activation. This is both to represent the concentration needed to perform the actions, and to stop people popping out, shooting and popping back. There is an appeal to this, but if you have to sacrifice the rest of your activation to shoot, it will make you think about whether that's what you want to do, or if you want to relocate etc first.

I'd also consider revisiting the Moving and Shooting penalty of +1 to hit, just because you don't want to have the game bog down to people camping and not moving because it's easier to shoot. Games focused on range tend to have that happen already, so you want to encourage movement generally.

This is a good point. I'd added the penalty to stop people zipping around the board, shooting, and then not getting a penalty because they are in ideal range. The idea is that there will be weapons which don't have a penalty to shoot with. I just haven't got there yet

I saw you have "Leaping (will be moved to advance rules)". Are you planning on splitting the game into basic and advanced rules? What motivated you to do that, and do you see an average player starting with basic or going right to advanced? I don't see anything else pegged for advanced rules, so what else do you plan for that?

There will be a number of rules moved to the advanced section (that particular one was more of a mental note). The firing into combat rule, for example will be moved to the "advanced" rules section. The reason I've chosen to do a split is accessibility. By taking out some of the more complicated and extreme rules it gives people the core of the game that is easy to pick up and quick to play. It's hard enough to convince people to pick up a new game as it is. Better to have a short, concise ruleset that's simple to learn/difficult to master that people can get to grips with. Then you can say "oh, you can also do things like fire into combats with the risk of killing your own men, which may drive your unit to madness. You can leap from buildings like a parkour master and dive through windows away from attacks. Ultimately, I'm going for a very narrative and cinematic game. But you have to work your way there. Bombard people with too many rules to begin and they won't try the game. But ease them into it with easy to learn core mechanics and a fun, narrative scenerio. Then you can introduce them to the more advanced mechanics.

I'd be interested to see how the "Shooting into Combat" rule playtests for multiple combats. I feel like a more elegant solution could be found, instead of having to designate each model with a number and roll additional dice.

Again, shooting into combat is a feature I'm very eager to include but am still working on a way to elegantly include. If it comes to it that it's too complicated and there's no easy way to do it, I'll drop it. But I'd rather not.

Seems like the rolls to hit would drastically get over 7? Throw in some Cover, have the shooter move, and be firing from Effective Range and you're already at a +3 penalty. What about having Ideal Range give -1 bonus (which seems weird when -1 is a good thing hehe), Effective Range having no effect, and Extreme Range being +1 penalty?

You've bought up a key point, that it is very easy to bring the roll needed over 7. In our playtesting we found we needed 6s a lot of the time. Dropping the move/shoot penalty and giving a bonus to ideal range could make play much quicker. But it would need to be tested to make sure it doesn't make the game too short (i.e everything dying in the first turn something shoots at it.)

Is there a way you could merge rolling to hit and rolling for damage into a single roll? I know 40k has three rolls to resolve a simple attack, but I feel like you could come up with a better approach

I think combining hit/damage into one resolution will take away the range of variety available in the stats. I mean at the moment "defence" is a pretty abstract term that refers to a combination of armour, natural toughness, speed to dodge attacks and special equipment (in any or all combination)

Are you calculating the point values of units using a mathematical system or just going by what feels right?

It's a system. Every unit is "paying" the same amount of points for the same weapons etc. For example, every unit (except the drone controller, but that's to do with the fact it is a required unit for the army) that has a defence of 6 or higher has had the cost of an energy shield added to their points cost. So a standard unit cannot have a defence over 6 without paying more for it.

I'd probably merge the Tables PDF into the rulebook, just so that people only have to download a single file (already hard enough to get people to read anything these days).

A very good point. I shall do.

Anyways looks like a good start!

Thanks for the replies so far folks. Given me a lot to think about. I was going to do some playtesting today but the prototype for my laser cut walkways arrived so I've been playing with that all day

When I first saw the thread title, I thought Reaper Miniatures was taking over Taban's Eden game.

You may want to work on your naming regarding "Reaper" and "Eden". They already mean something in the miniatures world, and it may cause confusion.

Inline replies replied to inline

imm0rtal reaper wrote:
I've played a few other systems, but I've tried to stay away from reading the rules of comparitive systems (like infinity and mercs) for the time being. I was concerned that I would use too much of these other systems. So I wanted to get my teeth into the game before exploring other systmes for ideas.

I tend to try to read as many systems as possible, but that's also because I just like mechanics I think systems can sometimes inspire a person, or make them think about mechanics a totally different way. It can be tough to resist pulling a neat idea from another system though. But if you wrap it in your own game, fluff, and other interlinked mechanics it can be worthwhile.

The uneven numbers issue is one of my top priorities for changing at the moment. I just haven't settled on another approach. One thought I had was that each unit the enemy had more than you left at the end of the turn granted you an extra activation, to balance it out. But I'm not sure how I feel about that.

Yeah it's a tough one. Luckily it's also a common problem for alternating activations. I guess it also depends if you're going to have a "horde" style army where there really is a situation with one side vastly outnumbering the other. Also keep in mind 3 or 4 player games (if you're planning to target that number of players).
I know Magc8Ball has mentioned his weighted activation system before, where the order of activations is slightly more random and less back-and-forth, so uneven numbers don't matter as much.
I went for a "ratio check" in my own rules, where you see the number of un-activated entities on each side before each activation. So if PlayerA has 6 un-activated entities and PlayerB has 3, that's a 6:3 ratio, which is 2:1, so PlayerA would activate 2 and PlayerB would activate 1. This helps spread out the uneven activations across the turn instead of having them all at the end.
You could take a nod from Dust Warfare that has players roll dice equal to the number of units they have alive to determine activations. A player might end up with fewer activations than they have units, so they are forced to choose who to activate.

Good shout. You can take your actions in any order, but as you noticed, shooting and combat end the activation. This is both to represent the concentration needed to perform the actions, and to stop people popping out, shooting and popping back. There is an appeal to this, but if you have to sacrifice the rest of your activation to shoot, it will make you think about whether that's what you want to do, or if you want to relocate etc first.

From what I read I don't see how a shooter could move out of cover, shoot, and move back in within the same turn? It seems like they'd Move + Shoot, end of turn, then Shoot + Move, so they'd still be exposed for a whole turn. I just think that it's a bit arbitrary to force players to go in a certain order. I could see it for a muzzleloading musket era game where taking a shot is a lot of work, but in modern/futuristic games where everyone is pretty mobile, attacking and repositioning in any order seems more realistic and provides more tactical options.

This is a good point. I'd added the penalty to stop people zipping around the board, shooting, and then not getting a penalty because they are in ideal range. The idea is that there will be weapons which don't have a penalty to shoot with. I just haven't got there yet

Hmm if they move into ideal range and shoot, isn't that just good maneuvering? Seems like you'd want to reward smart positioning and aggressive rushes instead of penalizing them. Although if you add in the "hip fire" weapons you're talking about that might help flesh out the rule. Something like pistols and shotguns which are better on the run would make sense compared to a long rifle.
In my game I ended up giving the attacker a penalty to hit the target if the TARGET moved, to REALLY encourage movement. Like I said I always worry that without objectives or a scenario, players will tend to hide in cover and not be the first to move forward. Especially true if both sides are "shooty" and don't have maniacs running forward with chainswords

There will be a number of rules moved to the advanced section (that particular one was more of a mental note). The firing into combat rule, for example will be moved to the "advanced" rules section. The reason I've chosen to do a split is accessibility. By taking out some of the more complicated and extreme rules it gives people the core of the game that is easy to pick up and quick to play. It's hard enough to convince people to pick up a new game as it is. Better to have a short, concise ruleset that's simple to learn/difficult to master that people can get to grips with. Then you can say "oh, you can also do things like fire into combats with the risk of killing your own men, which may drive your unit to madness. You can leap from buildings like a parkour master and dive through windows away from attacks. Ultimately, I'm going for a very narrative and cinematic game. But you have to work your way there. Bombard people with too many rules to begin and they won't try the game. But ease them into it with easy to learn core mechanics and a fun, narrative scenerio. Then you can introduce them to the more advanced mechanics.

Sounds like a good way to split the rules. I've done the same in the past with optional Variant Rules that allow players to pick and choose "designer approved" house rules.
When you do add in all the versatile types of movement (which sounds like a good idea!) you might want to see if you can use some kind of unified mechanic for them. Maybe an Agility stat? Having leaping behave totally differently than jumping would be a hassle to remember.
Also if you give each new player a quick reference card or sheet that helps a lot to remember everything they can do. Just a way to say "It is your activation. Here are your 5 options." Boardgames do that a lot but I don't see it as much in tabletop games.

Again, shooting into combat is a feature I'm very eager to include but am still working on a way to elegantly include. If it comes to it that it's too complicated and there's no easy way to do it, I'll drop it. But I'd rather not.

I definitely agree that shooting into combat is nice. I've always, always, always been frustrated about melee in 40k giving immunity to enemy fire (especially as I used to play Chaos so they'd totally shoot into combat). I don't know how common shooting into combat will be for your game, but if it's more than twice a game I'd definitely playtest a few approaches.
One other consideration when you're thinking of elegant solutions is if you're going to have multiplayer games beyond 1vs1. Since then you might end up with close combats with 3 or 4 armies all with different units.
I like the idea of providing a generic, blanket penalty to the shot regardless of the number of attackers in combat. If the shot hits then whoever the shooter wanted is hit. Nice and simple. Then if the shot misses you can get into some mechanic for figuring out who is hit.
I know you don't have a lot of roll offs in your game, but a fun idea could be each player involved in the combat that was hit by a missed shot gets a D6. They add a +modifier equal to the number of enemies in combat. They roll off, and whoever gets a higher result chooses who the shot hits. This naturally provides a bonus to the numerically inferior combatant. For example PlayerA has 3 melee attackers wailing on 1 guy of PlayerB. PlayerB decides to shoot into combat to help his beleaguered friend. The shot misses though, so the roll off happens. PlayerA has 1 enemy in combat, so he adds +1 to the roll. PlayerB has 3 enemies in combat, so he adds +3 to his roll. They rolloff and PlayerB wins and chooses to hit one of PlayerA's guys.
Or you could have the shot evenly pepper everyone in combat, but at a reduced strength. That way if the shot misses the intended target it instead basically glances everyone involved.

You've bought up a key point, that it is very easy to bring the roll needed over 7. In our playtesting we found we needed 6s a lot of the time. Dropping the move/shoot penalty and giving a bonus to ideal range could make play much quicker. But it would need to be tested to make sure it doesn't make the game too short (i.e everything dying in the first turn something shoots at it.)

Hmm what about combining all the separate modifiers into smaller sets? So there would be an Easy and Hard mod to a shot. Easy would include short range, shooting from prone, etc. Hard would include long range, target is in cover, etc. That way you just modify the to-hit number a few times instead of having to track +1, +1, +1, -1 and so on.
I also think this highlights a need to decide how you generally want shooting to feel. Do you want a lot of hits that don't wound a ton? Few hits that do lots of damage? Average of both? I know D&D 4th edition went for "hit often, for a bit, but have lots of Hitpoints to whittle down".

I think combining hit/damage into one resolution will take away the range of variety available in the stats. I mean at the moment "defence" is a pretty abstract term that refers to a combination of armour, natural toughness, speed to dodge attacks and special equipment (in any or all combination)

Yeah totally dependent on how you want the system to feel and play. I just have bad flashbacks of 40k with rolling 20 dice to hit, picking out all my 4+, re-rolling 8 dice and picking out 5+, then letting my opponent roll and pick out their 3+. Quite a burdensome approach for such a common action as shooting I can see wanting variety for Defense, but you could still factor that into a single roll.
In my case I went for weapons having an attack and damage value, and each unit having a base to-hit number. The base to-hit number is modified by enemy Defense. So they might have 3 base to-hit against a Defense 1 target would need 4+ to hit. They roll XD6 where X = attacks of weapon, so similar to what you did. Any of the dice that are above 4 are successes. Then they add the damage value of the weapon to the number of hits, and that's the total wounds on the target. So with a 2 Damage weapon and 3 Hits they'd do 5 total damage to the target. Still plenty of options for armored targets, skilled shooters, rapid fire weapons (high attacks, low damage) or big heavy weapons (low attacks, high damage), and all in one roll.
In your case you could even have number of hits be reduced by Defense directly. So if the shooter hit 5 times and the Defense is 2, 3 hits get through and wound the target.
Just something to consider. There are people who like either approach (as some people love rolling a bunch of dice for each resolution), so do whatever you enjoy most

It's a system. Every unit is "paying" the same amount of points for the same weapons etc. For example, every unit (except the drone controller, but that's to do with the fact it is a required unit for the army) that has a defence of 6 or higher has had the cost of an energy shield added to their points cost. So a standard unit cannot have a defence over 6 without paying more for it.
Excellent job on doing a math based point system right from the start. Does this include their stat lines? So Move 5 costs a certain amount for instance? If you have that kind of unit building capability I'd consider writing the formulas in the rulebook so people can make their own statlines that have proper point values compared to the official armies.

Couple more generic notes.

Since you're still in the early stages of formatting the rulebook I think you should consider moving to a 2-column layout. I know on my recent game I went 1-column and regretted it, but by the time I wanted to change it I'd have to do a tooooooon of rework, so I left it. 2-column might not look as readable on the screen, but it's great on paper and much, much more common in published rulebooks.

Also a minor wording mistake. In the Tables PDF each weapon has "Attacks", but in the Shooting section in the rulebook it says "Use a number of dice equal to the number of shots in the profile". Might want to make "shots" consistent with "Attacks".

EDIT: Haha I just realized Battletech uses the exact same ratio system for uneven activations. And here I thought I had come up with something new!

 bosky wrote:
Inline replies replied to inline


You could take a nod from Dust Warfare that has players roll dice equal to the number of units they have alive to determine activations. A player might end up with fewer activations than they have units, so they are forced to choose who to activate.

A chance system for remaining activations might be the way I got. For example, if player A has activated all his units and player B has 3 units left; unit 1 needs a D6 roll of 2+ to activate, unit 2 a 3+, unit 3 a 4+ and so on and so forth. In fact, that will probably be the system I use. Need to give it some playtesting though of course.

From what I read I don't see how a shooter could move out of cover, shoot, and move back in within the same turn? It seems like they'd Move + Shoot, end of turn, then Shoot + Move, so they'd still be exposed for a whole turn. I just think that it's a bit arbitrary to force players to go in a certain order. I could see it for a muzzleloading musket era game where taking a shot is a lot of work, but in modern/futuristic games where everyone is pretty mobile, attacking and repositioning in any order seems more realistic and provides more tactical options.

You're completely right. That is just a case of me being a derp. Shooting doesn't need to end the turn at all!


Hmm if they move into ideal range and shoot, isn't that just good maneuvering? Seems like you'd want to reward smart positioning and aggressive rushes instead of penalizing them. Although if you add in the "hip fire" weapons you're talking about that might help flesh out the rule. Something like pistols and shotguns which are better on the run would make sense compared to a long rifle.

You have a point. I will probably drop the move penalty or add in weapon types, but it will probably just get dropped.


In my game I ended up giving the attacker a penalty to hit the target if the TARGET moved, to REALLY encourage movement. Like I said I always worry that without objectives or a scenario, players will tend to hide in cover and not be the first to move forward. Especially true if both sides are "shooty" and don't have maniacs running forward with chainswords

That's a wonderful mechanic, and makes a lot more sense.

Sounds like a good way to split the rules. I've done the same in the past with optional Variant Rules that allow players to pick and choose "designer approved" house rules.
When you do add in all the versatile types of movement (which sounds like a good idea!) you might want to see if you can use some kind of unified mechanic for them. Maybe an Agility stat? Having leaping behave totally differently than jumping would be a hassle to remember.

As movement becomes more complicated I may indeed end up adding an agility stat (which would be like the ranged stat, so a 4+ would mean you need a 4 or more to be succesful) That then means I can add in all sorts of things like rope swinging, swimming, and a load of other cool effects, all with a single roll.

Also if you give each new player a quick reference card or sheet that helps a lot to remember everything they can do. Just a way to say "It is your activation. Here are your 5 options." Boardgames do that a lot but I don't see it as much in tabletop games.

Again, this is something I'm really eager to do in the final version (and pretty much every version up until then once the core mechanics are solid) as it makes it that much easier to get into the game.



I like the idea of providing a generic, blanket penalty to the shot regardless of the number of attackers in combat. If the shot hits then whoever the shooter wanted is hit. Nice and simple. Then if the shot misses you can get into some mechanic for figuring out who is hit.
I know you don't have a lot of roll offs in your game, but a fun idea could be each player involved in the combat that was hit by a missed shot gets a D6. They add a +modifier equal to the number of enemies in combat. They roll off, and whoever gets a higher result chooses who the shot hits. This naturally provides a bonus to the numerically inferior combatant. For example PlayerA has 3 melee attackers wailing on 1 guy of PlayerB. PlayerB decides to shoot into combat to help his beleaguered friend. The shot misses though, so the roll off happens. PlayerA has 1 enemy in combat, so he adds +1 to the roll. PlayerB has 3 enemies in combat, so he adds +3 to his roll. They rolloff and PlayerB wins and chooses to hit one of PlayerA's guys.
Or you could have the shot evenly pepper everyone in combat, but at a reduced strength. That way if the shot misses the intended target it instead basically glances everyone involved.

i like the idea of a roll off for misses with a modifier. It may not be as "realistic" but it streamlines the process and still gives an advantage to the outnumbered. I may change it so that you have to first take a courage test to fire into combat (the moral implications of hitting your friends) then on a hit you choose the target, on a miss you use your proposed method.


Hmm what about combining all the separate modifiers into smaller sets? So there would be an Easy and Hard mod to a shot. Easy would include short range, shooting from prone, etc. Hard would include long range, target is in cover, etc. That way you just modify the to-hit number a few times instead of having to track +1, +1, +1, -1 and so on.
I also think this highlights a need to decide how you generally want shooting to feel. Do you want a lot of hits that don't wound a ton? Few hits that do lots of damage? Average of both? I know D&D 4th edition went for "hit often, for a bit, but have lots of Hitpoints to whittle down".

I understand what you mean, but I think there are too many variable situations to add an easy/hard shooting mode. I think yb removing the move penalty that should help. And tracking modifiers for shooting shouldn't be too hard when you're only doing it for one mini at a time.



Yeah totally dependent on how you want the system to feel and play. I just have bad flashbacks of 40k with rolling 20 dice to hit, picking out all my 4+, re-rolling 8 dice and picking out 5+, then letting my opponent roll and pick out their 3+. Quite a burdensome approach for such a common action as shooting I can see wanting variety for Defense, but you could still factor that into a single roll.

In our playtests, shooting hasn't been much of a problem. You roll to hit (add modifers for range, cover and if you've moved. Then you roll against their defence. If you beat their defence, they take the number of wounds equal to the damage stat of the weapon you're using.


Couple more generic notes.

Since you're still in the early stages of formatting the rulebook I think you should consider moving to a 2-column layout. I know on my recent game I went 1-column and regretted it, but by the time I wanted to change it I'd have to do a tooooooon of rework, so I left it. 2-column might not look as readable on the screen, but it's great on paper and much, much more common in published rulebooks.

Also a minor wording mistake. In the Tables PDF each weapon has "Attacks", but in the Shooting section in the rulebook it says "Use a number of dice equal to the number of shots in the profile". Might want to make "shots" consistent with "Attacks".

EDIT: Haha I just realized Battletech uses the exact same ratio system for uneven activations. And here I thought I had come up with something new!

2-column layout is the next thing on my to do list. I much prefer the style, but haven't had the time the last few weeks (or the time I've had has been spent playing games )

And wording cohesion is something I intend to iron out as well, thanks for picking up on that!

I really appreciate your comments. Thanks.

I wouldn't worry about the layout until you're *done* with the rules and ready to put them into a "pretty" format. When you start worrying about columns and the like you're probably also going to start doing pagination to make things break well across pages, and that just takes up a LOT of time that you're not going to want to spend... especially when you go to work on the next version and something the change just screws it all up.

imm0rtal reaper wrote:
A chance system for remaining activations might be the way I got. For example, if player A has activated all his units and player B has 3 units left; unit 1 needs a D6 roll of 2+ to activate, unit 2 a 3+, unit 3 a 4+ and so on and so forth. In fact, that will probably be the system I use. Need to give it some playtesting though of course.

Sounds cool, I'll be interested to see how it works. I think putting your own unique spin on uneven activations is always a rewarding approach.

You're completely right. That is just a case of me being a derp. Shooting doesn't need to end the turn at all!

Glad to hear you'd consider changing this, as I always think the more flexibility and choice a player has the better.

That's a wonderful mechanic, and makes a lot more sense.

Glad you like it. As I said I find it really hard to push two ranged "gunline" armies to do much besides camp.

As movement becomes more complicated I may indeed end up adding an agility stat (which would be like the ranged stat, so a 4+ would mean you need a 4 or more to be succesful) That then means I can add in all sorts of things like rope swinging, swimming, and a load of other cool effects, all with a single roll.

Oooh rope swinging would be cool. Some troops could have retractable grappling hooks or hover boots or other futuristic stuff. Being able to have that function under a single blanket system would just be a sweet bonus.

i like the idea of a roll off for misses with a modifier. It may not be as "realistic" but it streamlines the process and still gives an advantage to the outnumbered. I may change it so that you have to first take a courage test to fire into combat (the moral implications of hitting your friends) then on a hit you choose the target, on a miss you use your proposed method.

You could also have the Courage test be modified depending on the army. So maybe some armies (perhaps those that have more close combat troops or are more ruthless?) would have an easier time passing the test.

I understand what you mean, but I think there are too many variable situations to add an easy/hard shooting mode. I think yb removing the move penalty that should help. And tracking modifiers for shooting shouldn't be too hard when you're only doing it for one mini at a time.

I know what you mean, I ended up with a couple of different modifiers to shooting as well. It's pretty tough to avoid, since as soon as you add range and cover you're already calculating two mods.

In our playtests, shooting hasn't been much of a problem. You roll to hit (add modifers for range, cover and if you've moved. Then you roll against their defence. If you beat their defence, they take the number of wounds equal to the damage stat of the weapon you're using.

Works for me, whatever you like best is the best

2-column layout is the next thing on my to do list. I much prefer the style, but haven't had the time the last few weeks (or the time I've had has been spent playing games )

Like Magc8Ball said, generally try to avoid going tooooo overboard with stylizing and formatting an early prototype. I make that mistake all the time because I love tinkering with fonts. But the prettier a prototype is the harder it is to rip it apart and do vast changes. I think going to 2-columns and not worrying about paragraph breaks is a good start and will save much time later though.

I'm looking forward to seeing where the game goes, as I think you're really on a good track. Do you think you'll have a chance to do an early battle report at all? I always find reading through an after action report really helps get a feel for the mechanics above and beyond just purely scanning the rulebook.

 bosky wrote:


Oooh rope swinging would be cool. Some troops could have retractable grappling hooks or hover boots or other futuristic stuff. Being able to have that function under a single blanket system would just be a sweet bonus.

Really dynamic and cinematic things like this are something I'm really eager to get into the rule set. As there are only going to be a small number of minis on the board at one time, it's important to make it as interesting as possible.

You could also have the Courage test be modified depending on the army. So maybe some armies (perhaps those that have more close combat troops or are more ruthless?) would have an easier time passing the test.

The two armies that would be most likely to fire into a combat are the Nexus, and the URC (which are robots) and they already have pretty good and amazing courage needed to pass the tests anyway.


Like Magc8Ball said, generally try to avoid going tooooo overboard with stylizing and formatting an early prototype. I make that mistake all the time because I love tinkering with fonts. But the prettier a prototype is the harder it is to rip it apart and do vast changes. I think going to 2-columns and not worrying about paragraph breaks is a good start and will save much time later though.

Agreed. I'll put it into the two coloums to save time later, but it won't get much prettying up until much closer to release (so like 12 months )

I'm looking forward to seeing where the game goes, as I think you're really on a good track. Do you think you'll have a chance to do an early battle report at all? I always find reading through an after action report really helps get a feel for the mechanics above and beyond just purely scanning the rulebook.

Whether the report is video or text, I'll watch/read it!

I've made the changes to move/shooting, the bonus'/penalties for weapon ranges and firing into combat. Tomorrow I'll put together a quick start sheet and then add that, and the tables into a single master document. I haven't added agility and crazy acrobatic actions yet, want to make sure the more basic rules are more nailed down before adding something so dependant on them.

imm0rtal reaper wrote:
I've made the changes to move/shooting, the bonus'/penalties for weapon ranges and firing into combat. Tomorrow I'll put together a quick start sheet and then add that, and the tables into a single master document. I haven't added agility and crazy acrobatic actions yet, want to make sure the more basic rules are more nailed down before adding something so dependant on them.

Great, glad to hear you're making progress.

I agree that solidifying and playtesting the basic rules before getting into the advanced stuff is a good approach. Plus by the time you get to the advanced stuff you'll know your own system so well that you can probably design a smoother, more integrated set of rules.

Hey guys, so I got a demo game in last night and managed to record it for a battle-report. The video itself was terrible quality (dark and fuzzy) but it was good enough for me to use to write a battle report from it.

We played a 100 point game, with my oponent, Concrete Hero, playing an Alliance faction made up of 5 galactic marines; and myself playing a Ji’tar force. Our army lists were as follows:

Alliance

Galactic Marine
Sword, pistol
20

Galactic Marine
LMG, pistol, combat blade
30

3 Galactic Marines
Assault rifle, pistol, combat blade
45

Total: 95

Ji’tar

Ji’tar troop
Med kit, powerfist
36

Ji’tar scout
sniper rifle
28

2 Ji’tar troops
Assault rifle, pistol, combat blade

Total: 96

We played the Fire-Fight objective on a 2x2 board. Both forces were attempting to clear a dock area to be able to land further supplies. Here’s the setup before deployment:

http://i394.photobucket.com/albums/pp23/imm0rtalreaper/Skirmish%20Game/StartingBoard.png

We rolled for deployment and Concrete Hero won the roll, choosing to deploy along the western edge, taking advantage of the walkways and containers. I deployed opposite, putting all my units into the customs office building in the South-East corner.

http://i394.photobucket.com/albums/pp23/imm0rtalreaper/Skirmish%20Game/Deployment.png

Key: Blue= Standard Galactic Marines. Purple=LMG marine. Black= Marine with sword.
Dark green= Standard Ji’tar. Light green= Ji’tar scout with sniper. White=Ji’tar with powerfist (referred to as squad leader in the report).

We rolled for priority and Hero won the roll. The game was on!

Turn 1

Concrete Hero began the turn by dashing his marine equipped with the LMG towards the bunker in the South-West corner of the board. He had to use his first action to reach the base of the building and his second action to climb up.

For my first activation I used both of my scout’s actions to move him to the roof of the customs office, giving him a commanding view of the rest of the battlefield.

Hero’s second activation saw him moving one of his marines forward to take cover behind a barrier. For his second action he attempted to fire on one of the Ji’tar still in the building. Galactic Marines have a ranged skill of 4+, but as my unit was in cover he needed a 5+. He scored a 3 and the shot missed.

My second activation saw the Ji’tar squad leader sprinting from the building, using both actions to get behind the barrier opposite one of the marines, ready to attack next turn.

For Hero’s 3rd activation he opened fire on my squad leader with one of his marines, using both his actions, for a total of 4 shots. He needed 5+ to hit as I was in cover. He rolled 2 hits, but failed to roll the 5+ required to wound me. Ji’tar wear the finest armour in the galaxy, able to shrug off all but the most powerful of weapons, but they are few in number compared to the mass ranks of the Alliance

My 3rd activation saw one of my Ji’tar troops move out of the customs building into cover towards the south edge.

Hero’s 4th activation was to use his remaining marine armed with assault rifle to fire on my squad leader once again. He rolled 3 out 4 hits, but again failed to penetrate the Ji’tar’s armour.

For my last activation I moved the remaining Ji’tar trooper from the customs office and north into cover behind a barrier.

As I had completed my activations, and he still had a unit remaining, Hero had to roll to see if he could activate his last unit. He needed a 4+, but only scored a 2. Turn 1 was over.

How the board looked at the end of the first turn:

http://i394.photobucket.com/albums/pp23/imm0rtalreaper/Skirmish%20Game/EndofTurn1.png

Turn 2

We rolled for priority again, with Hero winning the roll for a second turn in a row.

He began his turn by activating the marine behind cover in the centre of the board, using both actions to fire at my squad leader. He rolled 2 hits of 5+ (my leader was in cover) and rolled a single 5+ to wound, penetrating my leader’s armour and causing 2 damage; leaving him with 4 health points left.

In an attempt to get revenge, I moved my leader forward, ready to charge next turn, and fired with my pistol. I needed a 4+ to hit, but the target was in cover so I needed a 5+. I rolled a 4 and the shot missed.

Hero’s second activation saw his marine armed with an LMG open fire on my scout. He used both his actions to open up on me with 8 dice, needing 5+ to hit (the scout was in cover). He scored 3 hits, but failed to wound.

My second activation was to open fire with one of my Ji’tar troops on the marine that had shot my leader. I used both actions to open fire, rolling 4 dice. I scored 3 hits, but only managed to score a single wound. The marine lost 2 health points, reducing him to 3 in total.

Hero’s 3rd activation was to once again open fire on my leader with one of his marines. The marine scored two hits and one wound, reducing my health by another 2 points. As my leader had lost more than 50% of his health this turn, he had to take a courage test, needing a 3+). He passed and stayed his ground.

My 3rd activation was to open fire with my sniper at the wounded marine. I needed a 3+ to hit, but only rolled a 2. I used my next action to fire again, hit but failed to score the 2+ needed to wound (sniper rifles reduce enemy defence by 2)

Hero’s 4th activation was to fire at my leader once again with his remaining marine with an assault rifle. Unfortunately he missed all of his shots.

My final activation was the remaining Ji’tar troop, who fired at the wounded marine also. I scored two hits but failed to damage.

Hero rolled for his marine leader armed with sword to see if he activated. He did not and the turn was over.

http://i394.photobucket.com/albums/pp23/imm0rtalreaper/Skirmish%20Game/Enfofturn2.png

Turn 3

Hero won the priority roll once again and his first action was to fire on the scout once again with his LMG. He rolled three hits in total but failed to wound. He used his second action to this time fire at the Ji’tar in the north west of the board, but the cover held and his missed.

My first activation was my leader. I used his first action to charge him into combat with the marine behind the barrier. My second action was to attack him. I rolled 2 dice to hit, rolled a single 4. I then rolled the 3+ needed to kill him outright. The killed marine was within 6 inches of 3 of Hero’s units so they all had to take courage tests to see if their resolve broke and they fled. His leader with sword passed and held his ground. The Marine closest to the board edge failed his test and fled a full 6 inches towards the edge. This took him over the edge so he too was out of the battle. The remaining marine passed his courage test and stood his ground.

Hero’s second activation was to charge his leader with a sword into the triumphant Ji’tar leader. He rolled 4 D6 (2 attacks, each rolling 2 dice because he has a sword), needing 4+. He scored 3 hits, needing only a single wound. He scored the 5+ needed and cut my leader’s head from his body.

My next activation was to shoot the exposed marine on the walkway with my sniper. I failed to hit and used my second action to shoot again. I failed the second shot also.

Hero’s 3rd activation was to fire on the Ji’tar in the North-West. He scored a 6 and a 4, but needed 5+ to hit as the unit was in cover. Rolling a single die he scored the 5+ needed to wound and the Ji’tar troop lost 2 points of health.

My next action was to shoot at Hero’s leader with my Ji’tar troop in the south of the board. I scored a single hit but failed to wound.

I had a single unit remaining but failed to roll the 4+ needed to activate him.

http://i394.photobucket.com/albums/pp23/imm0rtalreaper/Skirmish%20Game/EndofTurn3.png

Turn 4

I won the priority roll (finally) and used my first activation to move my Ji’tar troop in the south to the wall of the bunker. I used his second action to go to ground, making him hard to hit in shooting.

Hero’s first action was to open fire on my scout with his LMG again. He rolled 3 hits but failed to wound with any. He used his second action to fire again, hitting twice and wounding once, reducing the scout to a single health point.

The scout activated next, firing at marine on the walkway. I scored a 6 to hit and wounded him, reducing him to 3 health points. The marine then had to take a courage test for losing 50% of his health in one turn. He passed. I used my second action to fire again, wounding him and reducing him to 0 health. This put the marine into critical condition, if he wasn’t healed with a med kit by the end of turn 5, he would die.

Hero’s next activation was to move his leader towards my unit in the south. He couldn’t reach my unit to attack him in combat so he opened fire with his pistol. He would need a 4+ normally, but as I had moved he needed a 5+, as I was on the ground he needed 6+. He scored a 5+, but failed to wound.

I had a single unit left to activate, but failed my activation roll.

http://i394.photobucket.com/albums/pp23/imm0rtalreaper/Skirmish%20Game/Endofturn4.png

Turn 5

We rolled for priority and Hero won the roll. He immediately charged his unit with a sword into my Ji’tar in the south. He scored 3 hits, but only a single wound, reducing my unit to 4 health.

On my first activation I used my scout to fire into the combat. I missed my shot so we both rolled a D6, adding +1 to the result for each unit in combat. I rolled a 4,+1 for my unit in combat for 5 in total. Hero rolled a 5, +1 for a total of 6. I rolled damage for the shot as normal and reduced him to 2 health. As he had lost more than 50% of his health he had to take courage test. He failed the test and fled the combat. I made an automatic attempt to hit the fleeing unit with my Ji’tar in combat, needing a 3+ (4+ to hit normally, -1 as it’s hitting a fleeing unit) I failed the attack and he escaped.

Hero’s second activation was him LMG unit, who opened up on the scout once again, scoring 4 hits and a wound, which was enough to kill the scout. He used his second action to fire at my Ji’tar unit in the north, but failed to hit as he was in cover.

My second activation was to charge my Ji’tar troop in the south into combat with the fleeing leader. I managed to hit him and wound, reducing him to a single point of health.

I had one unit remaining to be activated, the Ji’tar in the north. I rolled to see if he would activate and scored the 4+ necessary. I immediately opened fire on the combat, missing both shots. Both shots hit my own unit, wounding him once and reducing him to 2 points of health. My Ji’tar troop had to make a courage test but passed and remained in the fight.

As no one had given hero’s wounded marine any medical aid by the end of this turn, he died.

http://i394.photobucket.com/albums/pp23/imm0rtalreaper/Skirmish%20Game/Endofturn5.png

Turn 6

Hero won the priority (again) and activated his leader first. He rolled his 4 D6, scoring a single hit. He scored the wound and reduced my Ji’tar to 0 health, putting him into critical condition.

My first activation was to fire at Hero’s leader with my Ji’tar in the North. I scored a single hit, but failed to wound. I used the unit’s second action to fire at Hero’s leader. I scored a hit and a wound, killing him.

The death of the leader caused Hero’s LMG marine to take a courage test, which he failed, fleeing off the board edge. When the dust settled, the Alliance had all been killed or fled and a single Ji’tar troop remained to hold his dying comrade in his arms while they waited for support.

The Ji’tar were victorious.

http://i394.photobucket.com/albums/pp23/imm0rtalreaper/Skirmish%20Game/EndofTurn6.png


Recording the game was really useful as it’s helped me pick up on some things we missed out on (such as forgetting to add the penalty for shooting a moving target in a few turns)

It also showed me that the current rules for being within 6 inches of a friendly unit when they die may be a bit extreme. I like the mechanic so won’t be ditching it, but may reduce the distance to 3 inches.

Another thing the game showed us is that there isn’t a lot of reasons for units to move (except to give the penalty for shooting) Combat was never that important. Obviously more combat oriented troops would have more reasons, but I think combat needs to be made more vicious.

The first thought I have on this is to change how charging into combat works so that you get a free move action when you charge into combat, meaning you can take both your normal actions to smash the enemy.

Another idea is just to make combat weapons more deadly in general by upping their stats, but I’d like some thoughts on that.

Overall it was a really enjoyable game and Hero enjoyed it (it was his first game) we will be having a game next week with more exotic units and equipment so that should be good!

Thanks for reading guys and girls!

Great report, glad to see you got a game going! I think some pictures during the action would be cool to see as well. The maps-with-dots are informative but not as cinematic as an over the shoulder view of a Ji'tar.

Speaking of the Ji'tar you mention that they are normally outnumbered due to their superior equipment, but in truth the Alliance only had a single trooper more?

I do like the sounds of the "uneven numbers" activation scheme you came up with, where the person has to roll 4+.

Definitely agree with you about there not being a lot of reasons to move. Besides your charge on Turn 3 I think the majority of the troops didn't move at all. The map between Turn 1 and 2 are almost identical
Making close combat more powerful might help with that, but you also have to consider if you WANT close combat to become the focus? It is a sci-fi game after all, so do you want it to devolve into a big medieval melee in the center with people hacking away?
I would consider using a slightly larger board, since it seemed like everyone got into position fairly easily and didn't have to move. I'd also consider a bit more terrain so that there isn't an exposed middle ground. Maybe an objective or two. Also a turn limit instead of "to the death". Different deployments beyond "line up on each side" could help too, since if the squads start scattered they may move to link back up with allies.

Just a note on objectives, if you do eventually add them I'd recommend the objectives provide an in-game bonus as well. In every game I've played between friends with static point objectives (like "Capture this and get 4 points at the end of the game") we normally just end up fighting a pitched battle and forgetting to even bother with the objectives. Plus winning by objective capturing if half your army is wiped out always feels like a loss. So having the objectives give everyone within 3" a bonus to hit, or more health, or something like that will encourage and motivate people to use them during the game.

Even with all that I think being able to shoot twice a turn means moving would have to be REALLY beneficial to outweigh the loss of firepower. Maybe give less of a bonus for a second action of shooting? Blame it on recoil or reloading or something like that, but maybe just give 1/2 the bonus dice instead of doubling them?

Anyways glad to see the report and I look forward to more!

 bosky wrote:
Great report, glad to see you got a game going! I think some pictures during the action would be cool to see as well. The maps-with-dots are informative but not as cinematic as an over the shoulder view of a Ji'tar.

Had I been playing during the idea with more ideal lighting (and not using my camera to record video) there would have been pictures a plenty. For the next game I'll try and get hold of my room mates decent camera for stills.

Speaking of the Ji'tar you mention that they are normally outnumbered due to their superior equipment, but in truth the Alliance only had a single trooper more?

The reason for this was that the Alliance army was all Galactic Marines, the elite unit. Had they been troopers, they would have outnumbered the Ji'tar nearly 2:1. But I chose a fairly balanced force as it was my housemate's first time.


Definitely agree with you about there not being a lot of reasons to move. Besides your charge on Turn 3 I think the majority of the troops didn't move at all. The map between Turn 1 and 2 are almost identical
Making close combat more powerful might help with that, but you also have to consider if you WANT close combat to become the focus? It is a sci-fi game after all, so do you want it to devolve into a big medieval melee in the center with people hacking away?

I think shooting will remain the focus, it is sci fi after all. But making combat a little more bloody should make people actually want to fight. One of the races, the Nexus, are quite fight-y so they'll probably get in the fight a lot more.

I would consider using a slightly larger board, since it seemed like everyone got into position fairly easily and didn't have to move. I'd also consider a bit more terrain so that there isn't an exposed middle ground. Maybe an objective or two. Also a turn limit instead of "to the death". Different deployments beyond "line up on each side" could help too, since if the squads start scattered they may move to link back up with allies.

A 4x4 board and much more terrain are both things I want, but don't have the recourse for at the moment. But as I'm having my own terrain laser cut that should change quite quickly

Just a note on objectives, if you do eventually add them I'd recommend the objectives provide an in-game bonus as well. In every game I've played between friends with static point objectives (like "Capture this and get 4 points at the end of the game") we normally just end up fighting a pitched battle and forgetting to even bother with the objectives. Plus winning by objective capturing if half your army is wiped out always feels like a loss. So having the objectives give everyone within 3" a bonus to hit, or more health, or something like that will encourage and motivate people to use them during the game.

At the moment the rules have 4 game types: Firefight (what this game was) Secure Objective, Capture prisoner and Attack & Defend. Once the core rules are finished I'll be adding an event card system when (for argument sake) on turn 3, 6 and 9 say, you turn over an event card which could be earthquake, meteor shower, equipment drop. Or it could be objective base, such as if you can kill your opponent's most expensive unit in the next game turn you get a bonus victory point etc. This should help with the cinematic element as well as throwing in a little chaos and a lot of replayability.

Even with all that I think being able to shoot twice a turn means moving would have to be REALLY beneficial to outweigh the loss of firepower. Maybe give less of a bonus for a second action of shooting? Blame it on recoil or reloading or something like that, but maybe just give 1/2 the bonus dice instead of doubling them?

The massive fire-power advantage is the reason shooting ended your activation originally. I'll test it some more and if needs be change it so that you can do other things, just not shoot twice.

Anyways glad to see the report and I look forward to more!

I'm working for the next few days, but then should have nearly a month off in which to do a lot of work on the rules and get some more reports up.

I just stumbled across this. I haven't gotten a chance to read the rules yet, but from the battle report, it reminds me of the new X-com game. Which is an awesome thing. That game's incentive for movement is to make your chance of success higher by flanking the target. I don't know how it would fit in your game, but it's something to think about.

Biophysical wrote:
I just stumbled across this. I haven't gotten a chance to read the rules yet, but from the battle report, it reminds me of the new X-com game. Which is an awesome thing. That game's incentive for movement is to make your chance of success higher by flanking the target. I don't know how it would fit in your game, but it's something to think about.

Thanks. Xcom was definitely an influence when we started working on the rules. And in the latest version of the rules, if you are within Ideal range (which varies with different weapons, but is about 12 inches) you have a bonus to hit the target. We've also changed the rules so it's harder to shoot a target that has moved, which should help get people moving a little more.

Sorry things have been so quiet, I have just moved house so everything is still boxed away. So work on the rules will be a little slow while I'm settling in and finding work.

One of my main goals at the moment is finding artists to do concept/environmental work. I've gotten in touch with a few, but their prices are really, really high. So for this stage (where all we want is simple line drawings, no fancy shading or colour or anything like that. Just something to start pulling ideas together) I'm looking for something a little cheaper.

If you haven't looked already, there are a lot of upcoming and amateur artists on DeviantArt. The website name is terrible and sounds like I'm redirecting you somewhere awful, but it's really not The quality will vary drastically between artists since anyone can sign up, but you can definitely find some more inexpensive (or even free) options and some really skilled people..

 bosky wrote:
If you haven't looked already, there are a lot of upcoming and amateur artists on DeviantArt. The website name is terrible and sounds like I'm redirecting you somewhere awful, but it's really not The quality will vary drastically between artists since anyone can sign up, but you can definitely find some more inexpensive (or even free) options and some really skilled people..

I had a quick look on DA a while back, but will be going back there when I have some funds. I also had some pretty reasonable success with free work using a freelance site.

In fact, here is a piece done by an artist named Karel from on of the freelance sites. It's a Ji'tar troop:



*The album is locked, so I'm not sure if you'll see the picture.

It's only a first pass concept, but it gives you an idea of how the Ji'tar will look.

CGHUB.com

Polycount.com (for sculptors)

cgsociety.org

When you actually want decent artwork you can base miniatures off, post freelance job apps on these sites.

 Vertrucio wrote:
CGHUB.com

Polycount.com (for sculptors)

cgsociety.org

When you actually want decent artwork you can base miniatures off, post freelance job apps on these sites.

Are you saying you didn't like the drawing? I appreciate the links though.

Nah, the drawing is okay, however, you can tell you either got it for free or it was from a freelancer still in college. It's a man in rubber suit, from a straight front angle, only okay perspective.

Pay your artists, doesn't have to be much if you get younger talent and the rates are agreed on, but you'll be amazed how much better the work they put out is.

That translates into miniatures that are even more striking, stuff that sets you apart from all the other numerous scifi skirmish games out there. It's a tough market, and it's only going to get tougher.

 Vertrucio wrote:
Nah, the drawing is okay, however, you can tell you either got it for free or it was from a freelancer still in college. It's a man in rubber suit, from a straight front angle, only okay perspective.

Pay your artists, doesn't have to be much if you get younger talent and the rates are agreed on, but you'll be amazed how much better the work they put out is.

That translates into miniatures that are even more striking, stuff that sets you apart from all the other numerous scifi skirmish games out there. It's a tough market, and it's only going to get tougher.

I agree with you. And I will be paying artists, I'm under no illusions that you can't launch a game on the back of free art

The first batch of stuff I had done were just that, first passes as the artist started to get a feel for the race.

Here's the most recent stuff he did:



There's still a way to go of course, but already the details (such as the rifleman's torso armour) are staring to develop. I've specified that the legs all need to change, they're all screaming space marine too much at the moment. and we've started discussing how to make them a little less human looking.

The first pic looks like he is wearing an "In N Out" hat.

SheSpits wrote:
The first pic looks like he is wearing an "In N Out" hat.

What's been seen. . .

Haha, it does a bit yeah, but it is a beret.