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.

I've actually been crunching on this for about 2 years. I also sent some PM's to the creator of Aetherverse but never heard back. The odd thing about that is, it's actually the name I wanted to use when I started and while searching it out for conflicting games, I found his.

I like the idea behind his system, but find some of it too clunky.

The "trick" to the system I'm working on is that it can scale between sizes of 6mm, 15mm, and 28mm/Heroics. I also have another card up my sleeve, but I don't want to reveal that angle yet.

This, in theory so far, can be used with any miniatures at any scale and any army from any game. For example you could run High Elves against Space Marines, Napoleonics against Battlemechs, and so on. I've ran several test combats/games and point scaling units is very important. It's hard to keep it generic enough to include just about anything, yet specific enough to warrant running different armies.

I'd be willing to bang heads with a couple people on it if they are *really* interested. Just keep in mind that most people take their creations seriously, even if they aren't good, lol. So many people may not want hang their baby out there for people to rip apart. At least until they've quadruple checked their work.

[Edit] I also have a good idea of how it all ties together in the fluff. We all know good fluff sells the game.

 TalonZahn wrote:
I've actually been crunching on this for about 2 years. I also sent some PM's to the creator of Aetherverse but never heard back. The odd thing about that is, it's actually the name I wanted to use when I started and while searching it out for conflicting games, I found his.

If you sent it a couple of years ago it's very likely that at the time I just wasn't paying attention. I've only really been working on AV2 with any seriousness since last fall or so. I did a little bit of talking regarding someone in the UK using the system for what they were working on, but they had no idea what they were doing in terms of an actual publication plan, so I cut that off. Beyond that, if I got communication about the game prior to the current "uptime", I'm sorry it got missed but I wasn't all that interested in much of anything at the time.

That said, I think that the direction of this thread seems to be away from an independent game and rather the pipe dream of a number of independent companies working together on something.

It had to be at least a year and a half ago.

I was mostly looking to knock heads together or possibly have someone tell me I'm insane in my direction. My stuff is based around D12, unit point structures, etc..

It's definitely not at easy as some might think.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
The point is there will never be a good "do it all" wargames rule set.
I can see several one for each type of wargaming, but not a "GURPS" of wargaming because each scale and type of combat is different, I do wonder how much pressure would this place on the manufacturers who choose to adapt it, would they be forced to make vehicles for example because the system would theoretically need them?

Well, no. I'm talking about games in a more-or-less 40k scale, (Not Apocalypse, not Necromunda) since that's the size where companies like RH, Dreamforge, Anvil et al seem to aim most of the time. Something specific to the scale of the quite-a-few companies now who predominantly make not-40k figures and have talked about developing their own games. RH, DFG already have vehicles in their lines. No idea if Joel/Anvil has plans to develop them in the future, but it wouldn't be surprising, given his increasing breadth.

Other companies like Vic, Hasslefree, Heresy, etc have enough figures of the right scale and in "forces" that they would also work.

Not talking about EPIC/Air War/Space War etc at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Magc8Ball wrote:

That said, I think that the direction of this thread seems to be away from an independent game and rather the pipe dream of a number of independent companies working together on something.

Well, if you want to lead it and feel that you can get everyone on board in an official capacity to your personally-developed game, then more power to you. I think the idea of getting a bunch of established companies to come onboard, adopt and make official a perpetually WIP community-driven project written by unknowns is a bigger "pipe dream", personally.

I should point out that I have no desire to "lead" anything either - I think interested indy companies would need to take the lead and have some form of ownership over it to feel that it was theirs, and theirs to do what they will with after getting a system developed. With no disrespect, I think getting some of the more well-known, well-published names on board would do more for the idea and a take-up of it (from both gaming companies and consumers), if only in terms of proven writers being proven - the "Rick Prestly/Alessio Cavatore/Andy Chambers/etc wrote that? I'll have to check it out!"

I am in agree with the general idea but I think there is a problem in mixing two different interests:

1.creating a unique core rulest used by all the small manufacturers
2.creating a set of armybooks that should be balanced between them

Today the leading manufacturer (let's assume it is also the manufacturer with the biggest testing team and with the most important feedback from players) is not consistent in point cost with himself.

Twisted minds have spread the malignant gossips that this kind of behaviour is a conscious way to get planned obsolescence...indirectly pushing the players to get the newest models...what a freaky idea to compromise the quality of your product with the risk of losing customers...

Now imagine many manufacturer in cooperation to create a core ruleset but in competition between themselves to sell models...the same twisted minds might expect those companies to pretend to be totally consistent in points cost, but the temptation to be slightly better could be too strong for them...and we are just humans. And this slightly better little by little may totally jeopardize the project

Sergio Tulkas wrote:I am in agree with the general idea but I think there is a problem in mixing two different interests....
...2.creating a set of armybooks that should be balanced between them

This would be a challenge. If cross-compatability was the goal then armybook statting would have to be in the hands of a third party designer, and I wonder if the individual companies would want to give up that much control.

TalonZahn wrote:

This, in theory so far, can be used with any miniatures at any scale and any army from any game. For example you could run High Elves against Space Marines, Napoleonics against Battlemechs, and so on. I've ran several test combats/games and point scaling units is very important. It's hard to keep it generic enough to include just about anything, yet specific enough to warrant running different armies...

[Edit]... I also have a good idea of how it all ties together in the fluff. We all know good fluff sells the game.

Interesting, but is it also trying to encompass many scopes (skirmish warband, platoon, batallion, etc) It's not hard to use rules in different scales, but I've yet to see a game that really works well in different scopes. Also notable that you are writing some fluff. However, I have a feeling that the type of gamer who buys your rules will be much less interested in fluff as in a playable ruleset.

 Azazelx wrote:

I don't see the "driver" being the community (it's not a GOA-style idea) so much as, say, Hasslefree, Vic Minis, Raging Heroes and Dreamforge all having a chat about what they want, putting in a bit of money together (rather than a lot individually) and getting their own "Fanticide" written up, which they all share an investment and ownership in. (as opposed to a third non-miniatures party like SJG). The Brands™ would be their own brands - just the same as the theoretical RH ruleset is it's own brand, and Dreamforge's ruleset is also it's own brand.

This is a much better idea than an "open source" ruleset. However if they're all going to have their own version of the ruleset then I don't think it will be long before they modify it enough that it will not be compatible.

Another idea might be to have a ruleset for Dreamforge (the larger scale battle game, like 40k in scope) and have supplements that add the charachters or units from Raging Heroes and Hasslefree.

I don't see why skirmish can't be accomodated into a larger battle system. It could be as simple as adding an "advanced rules section" or "skirmish rules." I know, I'm being super creative this morning. It's just that with the more boutique producers, or at least the metal ones, a full army might not be in anyone's budget.

Az: Wouldn't it be simpler if the core ruleset was its own brand and RH, DFG, Defiance (gah) made their own compatible army list? Or if the community worked to make the list compatible?

It could be a way for manufacturers of assessing what the community thinks of their game as well. Imagine Tony Reidy seeing this and going "uh, so not everyone sees our PZG as gods of war who can annihilate everyone" and it might act as tacit feedback.

For what it's worth... I've always wanted to field a few Space Marines against a WFB Empire army...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And if I'm not too coherent, be gentle, I'm in the middle of exams.

Adding "skirmish" rules to a mass/larger battle system could be as simple as fleshing out the rules for characters/individuals and putting the focus on them for that battle. Instead of your basic unit being a "unit" it could instead be an individual (probably with multiple wounds).

On a slightly different note, if the ruleset had a solid "army creation system" it would eliminate the possibility of companies adjusting their points to make their models better. That said, it also creates a bit of a problem in that one person may use Company X's models and rules, while another player only uses Company X's models and designs their own rules (within the system); this could make it rather confusing for tournament play.

No, because if you want a good game the entire focus should be on the characters.

A good mass battles game (that means not something like 40k) should have the attention on the big picture and not on the individuals, a good skirmish game should focus on individual members not on big formations, these needs exclude overlapping if you want good rules.

And yes you can have squads in a skirmish game, but each squad should behave as would would expect from an individual and players should be able to interact with individual members of the squads, this is bad game design in a mass battles game.

Basically a true mass-battles won't focus so much on the unit members dying, but the unit as a whole, and the army as a whole? Something more like Flames of War or Kings of War...?

Do you think that it would be possible to have a set of core mechanics that could run both mass-battles and skirmish, while having either army creation or more specific rules for each genre further differentiate the two?

Correct on the first, the more you put on the table the more abstract the game should be, when you are commanding at company level, you do not care if private X from squad Y platoon Z carries a missile launcher and is good at it, what you care is that lieutenant of platoon 1C has understood your orders and is now positioning his platoon on cover to suppress the enemy formation that has taken cover in the buildings surrounding the roundabout.

On contrast on squad level you really care if private Michel that has the missile launcher is well trained and a good shot with it because the enemies have brought two exo armoured troops and the light weapons of the squad will have trouble eliminating them.

On the second part, I do not think that there will be a core set of game mechanics that can cover skirmish and mass battles in the same scale because the tactical and command needs are different, one could try to convert a "squad" to a "platoon" and to be honest I am experimenting with this very idea, but it leaves much to be desired, on the execution.

The needs of what each level of engagement needs are different and the rules should focus more on the different aspects.

That makes sense and I can agree with that.

So with the abovementioned companies, which setting would they fit best in? I suppose a better question would be "how big (model-wise) can/should skirmish go?" 5-10? 20-100?

Depends on what they want to sell really, a company that does really well sculpted, detailed, monoposed 28-30 mm models with the appropriate price tag should want to go for skirmish gaming, few models makes their range affordable and showcases their company.

On the contrary a company that sells decent to well sculpted multiposed models with low price tag should want to focus on mass battles format, were the masses of troops will serve their market strategy, when you make cheap models you do not want 10 or even 20 in the game you want a hundred or two hundred.

But after the scale of engagement there is a plethora of other things to decide, does the company want vehicles in, what will be the focus individual squads, formations, does something need to be showcased by the rules, can you go out of what the company already creates? the list goes on.

Good point. If there was a simple answer to this, the game would likely already be made.

That is the reason I keep this stance on it, it is not a negative stance, its a pragmatic stance.

D20 system. GURPS, tristat all tap on the virtue of RPG's been on the same scale always, players play an individual interacting with other individuals (players) and the world, game masters are the world.

Now the setting is irrelevant, players may be Neanderthals and homo sapiens at 200k BC after the Toba disaster or sentient fungoid of the Zcore space alliance at the war of the seven systems but the core system will always involve individuals interacting with the environment and other individuals, this allows everybody who wants to do so to create an add on adding what they need on the core system.

On the other hand wargames are more needed, they are not on the same scale, not on the same level and each company does not have the same needs thes eare the reasons why I do not think a generic wargame system will ever work.

Another problem is that generic wargame systems that try to cover as wide a gap as they can fall victims to bloating getting more into the core than they need.

Have you ever played "I ain't been shot, Mum?" It's the only WW2 mass battle system I tried, and apart from the fact that as soon as you suffered a single casualty in a squad it became useless, the level of abstraction of moving little stands of infantry instead of individual models was fine.

I could survive with a little stand of less than 10 space marines being moved to represent a full squad. You leave a little space on the stand to count down the members.

I still think the same rulebook, if generic enough, could have interesting skirmish rules as a section and mass battle games as another. It would consolidate the offer much more.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I forgot to add, I agree with the general statements and the specific examples you put forth, Psy.

An option would be to have basic rules that underlay how movement, shooting and combat are resolved, but then have rules that can slot in depending on the scale of the game. Say skirmish could represent individual models with statlines, whereas mass combat could instead grant a unit as a whole with a statline and effects would be resolved against an individual model in skirmish and a unit in mass combat.

Interesting thread, glad I found it!

A few points to consider, from the "small manufacturer" side of things - Im Joel from Anvil Industry and Im one of a small army of people planning "their own game".


- All the different companies who could be interested will have vastly differing scales of operation, financial resources, miniatures ranges etc and will want many different things from the rules set, how do you combine these competing needs?

-Making a "basic" ruleset is great, but if you try and include every possible kind of miniature/tactic/weapon you end up with a huge and complex rules set, which few people will want to sit through and learn.

On the flip side, if you make it overly simplistic, then it becomes rather limited in scope and all the different manufacturers are going to want to add in lots of extra rules for their own figures.

-Balance is a big issue, as has been noted, its virtually impossible to make a system which can fairly assign a "points cost" to any invented unit, that can only happen with usefull play testing time with human beings and the units concerned, and they have to be balanced against other units being created at the same time, this means you would have to create a number of "basic unit types" and then assign miniatures to pre existing unit entrys.

-Different manufacturers will want to focus their games in different ways and will have many unique ideas to add flavour and tactical interest. It would be almost impossible to come up with a system which wasnt then changed a bit by everyone to suit their own needs, at which point you just have half a dozen similar but incompatible games rules sets.

-Another issue is the financial incentive - a rules set, designed specifically for a particular miniatures range, acts as an advert for that product, thats why so many companies make their "quick rules" available to download for free.

Why would a company want to actively promote and finance a rules set which can be used with any other companies figures also, when its impossible to guarantee a return on the investment?


If you want a "general rules set" which is designed to use any figures, then why not just pick your favourite wargame ruleset and proxie any old models you like. Thats what people do with my product range at the moment.

--------

Referring specifically to the planned Anvil Industry Game - the first time Ive really discussed this in public -

I have a very specific vision for the game background, play style, ruleset/tactical options and miniatures, and each element will be designed to work in harmony with the others. I will be writing the rules as a means to play scenarios linked to a developing narrative and story line. The rules will necessarily have to reflect the specific style of military operations and the goals of each set of scenarios/missions.

The plan, very roughly, is to release the game in a series of narrative "chapters", each one of which will add new miniatures and expand the background while moving the storyline forward with a series of linked missions (plus the usual "line up and kill the other guy" type rules.

I have so many specific ideas for the units and tactics I want to see employed that using any kind of "generic" rules system just wouldnt work for the game, unless as I mentioned, the rules set was was incredibly complicated, which is its self a barrier to new players.

The most popular sci-fi game ruleset is boring and clunky, but does at least have the advantage that its core mechanics are relatively simple and easy to pick up, which is important.


TL/DR - This is a great idea in principle, but every manufacturer will want to do their game slightly differently, and in making a ruleset which is capable of factoring in ALL competing requirements risks being far to complicated for new players to bother learning. There are a lot of barriers to effectively creating a universal rules set which then needs to become well known in order to gain traction.

Cheers guys,

I will continue to follow this thread with interest.

Joel

Anvil Industry

Sergio Tulkas wrote:
2.creating a set of armybooks that should be balanced between them

This is not possible. The way I'd like to see it is people would have templates - archetypes if you will - that you would assign. You'd simply pick the archetype that fits - like "heavy infantry" for space marines, and use the profile for heavy infantry to decide points. Maybe collect together a bunch of different profiles for what game system has what profile for what unit in the same way that Army Builder comes up with their stuff.

The goal here is not to write a ruleset that would make other rulesets from major companies who have millions of dollars to throw at rules obsolete - that's not going to happen. It's simply, at least in my mind, a way to use minis that don't have any rules at all, or from games that don't normally fit together.

The challenges here are incredible; I certainly couldn't make this happen in a meaningful way. But to the smaller guys that don't have rules and aren't good at doing so, I imagine there must be quite an incentive to do so. Besides, hard isn't impossible. We do hard stuff all the time, we use our smart people for that.

-Another issue is the financial incentive - a rules set, designed specifically for a particular miniatures range, acts as an advert for that product, thats why so many companies make their "quick rules" available to download for free.

Why would a company want to actively promote and finance a rules set which can be used with any other companies figures also, when its impossible to guarantee a return on the investment?


If you want a "general rules set" which is designed to use any figures, then why not just pick your favourite wargame ruleset and proxie any old models you like. Thats what people do with my product range at the moment.

Hmm, I'll explain my current predicament as a random consumer. There are a great many models and games out there currently. I have found a number of models that I really like the looks of, but that have no corresponding game or "use" for them and, as a result, I'm less inclined to buy them. This supports your statement of "free quick-rules" promoting a company's game. With that in mind, supporting a generic system that also supports other companies doesn't make much sense.

I am currently looking really hard at the Dreamforge Stormtroopers. I like the models, but I do not play 40k (the most obvious game to proxy them for). I have heard that they are working on a game of their own, which is great! I can then buy the models and play the Dreamforge game! Unfortunately, trying to convince my normal gaming group that they should play this game instead of/as well as 40k, Infinity, Malifaux, Warmahordes, ect, might prove rather difficult. Personally, I'm getting a bit sick of learning 5-10 different rulesets based on what army/game I want to play. Part of it comes down to how much free time I get for gaming; if I can only play 1 or two games a week, I generally want to play my favourite one (in this case Warmahordes), which leaves my other armies and games sitting and collecting dust (Infinity, Flames of War, Warhammer, Malifaux). Thinking about this, I may pass on the Dreamforge models because I don't want to learn yet another game and have to convince people they should play it instead.

Further on the thought of proxying... Let's say I get your "free quick-start" rules from Anvil Industry and like the rules, but proxy all of my models because I don't like the ones you make (just speaking theoretically here). In this case, you gain a bit of recognition from the rules, but none of the profits from the models you are trying to sell. Alternately, you'll have people who dislike your rules, but buy models from your range to proxy for other games. Essentially proxying works both ways and I would argue that if people like your models and can use them, they will buy them, then make the rules work.

The point I'm trying to make is that having a "generic ruleset" will not invalidate the companies involved due to differing rulesets. Hmm, perhaps an example? Imagine if GW was instead a bunch of little companies with each company producing one army for 40k (heh, let's also assume that the game is fairly balanced too). If someone wants to play Tau, they will buy models from Tau company. If they want to play Chaos, they will buy from Chaos company. The players will be able to find games anywhere they go due to the game being generic and/or (hopefully) widespread enough that there are players everywhere. Admittedly, for this to work the ruleset would have to be very tight and either have strict rules for designing forces and assigning points or have that done by a third-party.


Eh, maybe it is more of a dream than anything.

Edit: It's nice to see some actual manufacturers getting into this dicussion too.

Ouze: so a list of generic troop and vehicle options would be a section of the generic core rules? I could definitely live with that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
A friend of mine on the forum, Ironbovin, proposed a card shuffle mechanism to select which unit goes when, with reshuffling in between each draw, to keep it as random as possible.

I argued that it could, theoretically, get very dull for the opponent whose cards never come up. Aside from the vagaries of war being such, does anyone else think this is a good idea?

I think that's a pretty awesome idea, the shuffling, and would like to see something like that as a variant at least, like a mission type.

 Goremaul wrote:


Hmm, I'll explain my current predicament as a random consumer. There are a great many models and games out there currently. I have found a number of models that I really like the looks of, but that have no corresponding game or "use" for them and, as a result, I'm less inclined to buy them. This supports your statement of "free quick-rules" promoting a company's game. With that in mind, supporting a generic system that also supports other companies doesn't make much sense.

I am currently looking really hard at the Dreamforge Stormtroopers. I like the models, but I do not play 40k (the most obvious game to proxy them for). I have heard that they are working on a game of their own, which is great! I can then buy the models and play the Dreamforge game! Unfortunately, trying to convince my normal gaming group that they should play this game instead of/as well as 40k, Infinity, Malifaux, Warmahordes, ect, might prove rather difficult. Personally, I'm getting a bit sick of learning 5-10 different rulesets based on what army/game I want to play. Part of it comes down to how much free time I get for gaming; if I can only play 1 or two games a week, I generally want to play my favourite one (in this case Warmahordes), which leaves my other armies and games sitting and collecting dust (Infinity, Flames of War, Warhammer, Malifaux). Thinking about this, I may pass on the Dreamforge models because I don't want to learn yet another game and have to convince people they should play it instead.
\
The point I'm trying to make is that having a "generic ruleset" will not invalidate the companies involved due to differing rulesets. Hmm, perhaps an example? Imagine if GW was instead a bunch of little companies with each company producing one army for 40k (heh, let's also assume that the game is fairly balanced too). If someone wants to play Tau, they will buy models from Tau company. If they want to play Chaos, they will buy from Chaos company. The players will be able to find games anywhere they go due to the game being generic and/or (hopefully) widespread enough that there are players everywhere. Admittedly, for this to work the ruleset would have to be very tight and either have strict rules for designing forces and assigning points or have that done by a third-party.

Eh, maybe it is more of a dream than anything.
)

I think you hit it on the head with that last statement. The chances of a bunch of companies agreeing on anything is pretty slim.

Good Generic rules to use with your Dreamforge figs already exist (Tomorrow's War, Warengine, No Limits, etc...). The problem, as you rightly point out, is getting your friend's to play those rules. Adding another ruleset to the mix -even one sponsored by a batch of indie companies- won't make it any more likely that your friend's will be wanting to play those rules.

The onus for making a generic ruleset (a new one or an old one) play is -as it has always been- on the gamer. You have to go out and do the legwork of finding like minded gamers or converting a few to your point of view. I was lucky enough to be able to find such people, and we've been playing generic games every other week for 3 years.


Lastly, and what some folks seem to forget is this:

Generic rulesets, are -by nature- breakable.

At this point I've probably played over a dozen rulesets with a unit creation mechanic. When the authors put the ability to build units in the hands of players, there are ALWAYS ways to manipulate the rules to create uber-charachters and imbalance the game, often resulting in an arms-race-like atmosphere where folks have to maintain a steady diet of cheese just to have a chance of winning. A group that cannot manage the WAAC impulses of their members will quickly find generic rulesets unplayable or at least not-enjoyable. That's why most folks are content to leave balance (or some approximation thereof) in the hands of game designers.

In our club we've done a pretty good job of culling that impulse, but sometimes we have to house rule to keep it so. I love generic rules, but I'm keenly aware of the extra effort required to make them work for a gaming group. That's why good generic rulesets will continue to be written and some will even sell pretty well, but I don't think that a generic ruleset will ever catch on in a "big" way.

Generic rulesets, are -by nature- breakable.

Too true sadly.

So the best case scenario would be a company/group (Entity Prime!) that -only- produces the rules to the game, then other companies create models and submit their rules to Entity Prime, who then playtests and makes changes to fit the models/army into the game. Rules are released either as pdfs or books... Maybe have the rules as a free pdf and then the companies can release their own "codexes"? Would something like this work...?

 Goremaul wrote:

Generic rulesets, are -by nature- breakable.

Too true sadly.

So the best case scenario would be a company/group (Entity Prime!) that -only- produces the rules to the game, then other companies create models and submit their rules to Entity Prime, who then playtests and makes changes to fit the models/army into the game. Rules are released either as pdfs or books... Maybe have the rules as a free pdf and then the companies can release their own "codexes"? Would something like this work...?

In a way it already has.

Two Hour Wargames has partnered with Rebel Miniatures (and possibly other companies) to make several rulesets (each with it's own army lists) that use their "Reaction" gaming engine. Technically these are separate games from THW's own games, but they are very similar, and in some cases cross compatible.

Ganesha Games did the same thing. Adapting it's rulesets for other companies miniatures, but retaining full or partial compatibility with their own rules.
-"Song of the Splintered Lands", for Splintered light miniatures and "Song of Fur and Buttons" for Eureka's colonial teddy bears are both completely compatible with "Song of Blades and Heroes"
-"Song of our Ancestors" for Zombiesmiths "Quar" minaiures is compatible with "Flying Lead"
-"Deep Wars" for Antimater games is mostly compatible (with some mods) with Song of Blades and heroes.

Ganesha is in progress of making a document that includes stats for Song of Blades and Heroes and Tale of Blades and Heroes (the RPG game) for every Reaper Bones miniatures. Additionally, Ganesha games almost all have unit creation mechanics and online force builders so you can stat up any miniature you have for thier games.

Craig Cartmell took his "In The Emperor's Name" game, a free fan-supported ruleset of 40k warband combat, and adapted it for Steampunk/Victoriana. It's now available from Osprey as "In Her Magesty's Name", with figs from North Star Miniatures

Lastly, when released, the game "Future War Commander" included stats for dozens of existing miniatures lines.

What I'm saying is that non-open-source rulesets already exist where the authors are willing to enter into agreements to make variant games or army lists for the miniatures, or settings of other companies. I'd put alot more trust in these proven rulesets where the author retains some measure of control than a more nebulously lead "open source" project.

 Goremaul wrote:

Generic rulesets, are -by nature- breakable.

Too true sadly.

So the best case scenario would be a company/group (Entity Prime!) that -only- produces the rules to the game, then other companies create models and submit their rules to Entity Prime, who then playtests and makes changes to fit the models/army into the game. Rules are released either as pdfs or books... Maybe have the rules as a free pdf and then the companies can release their own "codexes"? Would something like this work...?

That's the model I'm using for Aetherverse. Anybody is free to publish army lists/books using the rules, and there is a submission procedure in place to allow anyone to suggest new rules that they might need to fit their desired models. I still remain in control of what is legal, rules-wise, so that there's at least SOME semblance of balance.

I endorse this thread!

I agree with the premise, with all the mini companies, myself included running kickstarter and releasing new shinny toys, it would be nice to have an answer to a growing problem.

I have always said you cannot piss in a corner without hitting a ‘new game system’. I think the crux of such a design would be a very robust point purchase/unit build system that way the gamer and or the manufacturers could lay out the unit’s strengths, weaknesses and stats and play a balanced game with ANY figures.
I look back on RPG’s, Traveler, ICE, etc. where they had detailed unit creation systems.. ICE (Iron Crown Enterprises) although very complicated did just that, a generic sci-fi or fantasy game that had detailed unit/vehicle creation rules that allowed full customization and use within a game. You would need to test the rules past break point to get the balance right, but for the most part it is just math, %’s and costs.

Point me to some willing partners on such a venture and I would be happy to talk about the possibilities.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I was looking at 2-hours games ‘Recation system’ group of games as one potential match but I am not sold on the idea, mainly because its needs a bit more streamlining. If you want to field a smallish number of units it’s a good system but the player does loose some control over their units as some reactions are random. When you scale it up to Company sized games it starts to break under its size and complexity.

Point me to some willing partners on such a venture and I would be happy to talk about the possibilities.

If you're willing, maybe check out the rules/premise for Aetherverse. I am not the creator, but I want to (am?) doing some playtesting with a couple of friends for the system. Magc8Ball is really good at taking responses and feedback for it as well. We've got a thread about it over here (http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/518044.page). Check it out!

I may have based the army I played the other day off of the Eisenkern Stormtroopers...

 NoseGoblin wrote:


Point me to some willing partners on such a venture and I would be happy to talk about the possibilities.

This just got a lot more interesting!

Some thoughts:

The producer of the core system needs to be VERY active in supporting the system, this is one of the things that drew me to Two Hour Wargames, an existing fan base and a very active support group.

Name recognition would help, if you had a designer that was widely known within the industry it would certainly help generate more interest not only that of the end user but also the miniature manufacturers.

Cheese limiting design factors, you would need to have a very robust unit generation mechanic that would not allow ‘wherever possible’ Cheeze Whiz unit design “What do you mean I cannot mount 20 quad cannons on that half-track, it’s big and there is clearly room”.

A concerted effort to cross promote, not only by the core rule maker but also by the independent manufacturers. A yearly small licensing fee paid by people such as myself that is used to advertise the core system and promote awareness as well as fund promotions at the major conventions.

Last but certainly not least a fast and fun system that attempts to meet the needs of the widest variety of gaming styles.

They system would need to be scalable and fast with emphasis on numerical values over fluff and 'special abilities' this is the only way you will ever get armies form assorted manufacturers to play well together. I.E. an attack 6 with a range of 6 costs X points it it only has a range of 4 then it costs Y points, etc. If you want to add flavor to the play you can do it with event cards or some such thing but the base play will need to be very simple and the costs vs power of the attack and defense ,etc will need to be pretty straight forward.