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.

 NoseGoblin wrote:

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.

Why are you looking at company size games (80-250 men per side) when you are manufacturing 28mm figures? Surely you're not trying to cram more figs on a board than 40k's
armies-on-a-parade-ground setup?

As for THW. I'm not a huge fan of the reaction system, but it has alot of fans. Have you read the new 5150 Star Army ruleset? Ed claims that it has been modified from the original 5150 so it scales up to easily handle a few platoons on a side plus vehicles.

WarEngine might be one option. It's going to need some bolt-ons for huge mechs, but it's a very nice system that works well for platoon v platoon. Aaron (the creator) has been fiddling around with version 3.0 for a while, but he might be interested in working with a motivated company.

No, not advocating cramming a board, (I hate the Apoc parking lot) but I prefer not to rule out the option of larger forces spread over several boards with several players. I have always loved large scale games with several players as long as there is proper terrain then it makes for quite a spectacle and a very memorable game day.

I have a copy of Star Army but no one to play it with so I cannot judge the play speed aside form a solo game.

I cannot comment on WarEngine as I have never seen it, do you have a link?

I am also producing models in 15mm, Depending on the markets reaction to the 15mm kits currently in the queue I may release the full range in 15mm scale as well.

Two Fat Lardies have Quadrant 13, I'm reading the rules right now. It's based on their I ain't been shot, mum! system, which is to say that army list generation is pretty much by concensus.

Mark: Aetherverse seems to be very quick to play, from the playtest (insert name here) has been describing to Magic8Ball. It would represent the relative fragility of infantry when compared to gods of war such as Leviathans, methink.

Please, please please don't use StarGrunt...

I think Unified Game Theory did a great job with their Vortex ruleset. Designed to cover any type of figure with a point based build system and a bunch of scenraios to play with. Even have some free combatants inspired by the recent Reaper Kickstarter (the base rules are also free).

http://www.unifiedtheorygames.com/

I've been of the mind that no create your own units with points rules system will ever gain enough traction to dominate. The people who would play those games are all looking for different things. People don't want to do even more work just to start playing. They want the package. It also means that it's difficult to include and balance any of the more interesting features and abilities that players like in miniature games these days.

My idea was for a package system, with its own line of quality figures, army lists, and setting all built to high production values. Just like Warmachine or 40k. However, instead of a point creation system tacked on, it instead had a semi-open license to other miniature manufacturers to create packaged and vetted content for the rules and setting.

So for example, my scifi game, it's set in a bright future with a galaxy teeming with life. So it makes sense in the fluff that you have all these new aliens popping up all over the place. Any company that manufactures miniatures, and doesn't have a game of its own may freely use the open license to release either full army lists, or stats to use their miniatures as mercenary units, or both. This would include some limited use of the main game's promotional material, such as the logos, and other copyrighted names, etc.

Of course, there would have to be some quality control.

Business-wise, it's a somewhat terrible idea since it can pollute the image of your product, and lets other manufacturers undercut you while still using your own stuff. However, it may work due to the relative small and niche status of our hobby. We are a pretty small fraction of the entertainment industry as a whole, we're competing with movies, video games, and life for time, money, and table space.

Any market image, or sales, lost from this program might be made up by mind share. Being able to get control of the tabletops, letting people play with your rules, even if it's not your miniatures, means more potential players who are looking for more production value and official support.

For the manufacturers, the incentive to use this system would be to have official rules and a system behind it, and some other options for paid, opt-in programs where you get official status for your 3rd party miniatures, inclusion in the overall balance of the game, and your units are allowed at official events and tournaments. No longer are your 3rd party miniatures limited to use as proxies/counts as, or in less popular construct your own rules, but instead gain promotion by being usable in a larger popular game.

At least that's the theory, the reality is I don't know enough about business to make that call, and any system trying to make use of this needs to gain enough popularity from the start to try and push this.

I think this is an interesting idea. What i would recromend looking at is not so much making unit types to be needed for certain reasons ( 40k's silly infantry are really only needed for taking objectives), but making each unit type have certain advantages or having a certain place on the battlefield or role if you will to play. DBA is a very good game that shows this well. Support Infantry you could say are needed to support other infantry when assaulting enemy units that are dug in or behind cover. Artillery or mortar forces are great for softening enemy resistance that if you didnt do that you could exspect alot more losses attacking the enemy positions if not all out failure, however you still need the more basic infantry to assault those said postions .

Things like that, watch a ton of history shows and make it a feel of you can bring in what ever you want for your force, every unit has its strengths and weaknesses, Tanks for example are very exsposded to even weaker infantry AT weapons and need the support of infantry to avoid being taken out. I do know when i release my starting range and all goes well , i will be teaming up with someone to produce a very fun game system , that will also allow army creation into it within limits.

However as many earlyier have said and i agree many companies have failed in this path, that i feel is because they price their forces only for their game and such are not priced well to be used in other games. I can assure you i wont be making that mistake!, i will ensure my pricing is very competitive and attractive for all the community .

Anyhow if a game system is produced i would certainly back it, though no matter what if i do well i will create my own game system, but its success is not as much of a concern for me it will be more of a game system that i want to play because i enjoy the game as i have not found a game system out their sadly that is built more or less in the way i have described above !.

Good luck guys and look forward to seeing what you all create !

with best regards - Shawn.

My advice, price your product for what it is, not what the competition has.

Let your product sell for its own unique points and price it accordingly, if the miniatures are high quality sculpts and casting, they cannot be priced the same level average sculpts and casting models are, if you plan on a skirmish level game you can't expect to sustain your game with mass battle prices (that's a good reason why skirmish games tend to have higher quality sculpts and casting) .

Ignore the competition as far as compatibility goes, if your models are good, then people will buy them regardless of scale, proportions ectr, the majority of people complaining about not been compatible would not buy them even if they were, with a minority complaining of you trying to tap on X game systems popularity with your sculpts.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
My advice, price your product for what it is, not what the competition has.

Let your product sell for its own unique points and price it accordingly, if the miniatures are high quality sculpts and casting, they cannot be priced the same level average sculpts and casting models are, if you plan on a skirmish level game you can't expect to sustain your game with mass battle prices (that's a good reason why skirmish games tend to have higher quality sculpts and casting) .

Ignore the competition as far as compatibility goes, if your models are good, then people will buy them regardless of scale, proportions ectr, the majority of people complaining about not been compatible would not buy them even if they were, with a minority complaining of you trying to tap on X game systems popularity with your sculpts.

I dont know for sure if this comment is aimed towards me or towards the OP, however your talking about sculpts so i am going to assume its for me !, I dont want to bring this thread off track but i should respond to your feed back which i do apprecaite!. I tend to aim in somewhere in the middle, my miniatures are aimed to be high detail sculpts but i am getting them done in a way that is alot less costly than most companies do or havent yet considerd to do. So i will be able to sell my miniatures at a lower price which will give me that much better of a chance at getting the markets attention.

I know my range wont be switch parts out as compatable as some other miniature ranges are, and its good to hear most are not concerned for that, for i am to bring a unique line of miniatures to the market and not so much as rip offs or generic bland miniatures. I see your point as well and i agree is my main focus if the miniaturse are good enough sculpts they will sell themselves, when i do eventualy create our game system it will be aimed at around a platoon size game being the average full force game size.

thank you for posting your thoughts and feed back i greatly appreciate and will consider all you have posted here!.

thanks again and with best regards - Shawn.

I know I love In the Emperor's Name for playing rules-light skirmishes in the 40K universe, and I am currently pondering ways to make it a larger game. Currently it's a game of alternating activations, but actually in each phase of Movement, Shooting, Hand-to-Hand, etc., rather than a complete set of game phases with each unit.

It's rules-light, so there are easy creation rules for all sorts of fighters, any types of weapons you want to port in from 40K, infantry armor and vehicles.

Unfortunately the gameplay gets cumbersome with more than 10-12 figures per player. I want a system that's about the size of a 1500 pt WH40K 2nd edition game, where you might see a player fielding two units of Space marines, a Hero, and a Dreadnought on the field as a complete force.

I have been pondering, and I think that if each alternation activated a unit, instead of a single figure, things might actually balance out right there. There's even a bare-bones system for making vehicles, which would suffice for the types of vehicles such a small skirmish would see (like a Marine or Eldar bike/jetbike).


There have been tons of generic rulesets ever since Stargrunt And Stargrunt II in the 80's and 90's. Stargrunt II is completely free to download, but is pretty rules crunchy in that time-period's style of wargames, which I unfortunately dislike.

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/5686/stargrunt-ii

As said before several generic "open source" rulesets I have been meaning to check out are:

-Tomorrows War
-Gruntz
-both Scifi and Fantasy settings of Song of Blades and Heroes
etc.

The best part about generic rule systems is they don't have to be the Games Workshop-esque juggernaut. They are for people who are in it for the social aspect of gaming, as well as for the figures. The best rulesets are the ones that provide a fun game, but without overshadowing the two previous things. I love 40K for the universe and the figures. I only play 40K because it's the "familiar" option. On the other hand, I hate the tomes of rules and tedious collections of FAQ's that are required to play in my favorite sci-fi universe with the figure I love.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
I

Unfortunately the gameplay gets cumbersome with more than 10-12 figures per player. I want a system that's about the size of a 1500 pt WH40K 2nd edition game, where you might see a player fielding two units of Space marines, a Hero, and a Dreadnought on the field as a complete force.

I have been pondering, and I think that if each alternation activated a unit, instead of a single figure, things might actually balance out right there. There's even a bare-bones system for making vehicles, which would suffice for the types of vehicles such a small skirmish would see (like a Marine or Eldar bike/jetbike).
.

I think I mentioned it before, but if you're looking for an alternate unit activation system that is aimed at a few squads, heroes and very small vehicles, then you really need to check out WarEngine: The Wiki crashed last year, but all the rules (2.1 or 2.12 is the current version) are here:
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/WarEngine/
,,, as well as alot of force lists for 40k figs.
It's a fast system, but not lacking in tactical depth. It is not a reaction system like THW or Tomorrow's War though.

Thanks, I'll have to look into it!

I just had a quick look at three proposed universal games, waiting for a deeper review:

Aetherverse
open source. the second version of the rules is a work in progress (the fist version is still available). The core without army lists is around 60 pages. There is a minimal set of special rules (5 pages). The point cost value stems from a formula. d10 system.

Vortex (free version 29 pages)
you pay for it so I have no access to the complete version. Probably (because of the sentence "The full 172 page Core Rulebook contains not only these basic rules, but complete tools for building Combatants") the point cost value stems from a formula. d10 system.

Exoshift
(edit: Exoshift isn't open) the availabel version is the 0.36, 14 pages. There is just a page of special rules. d10 system. The army lists are not yet available but the point cost value maybe is not issued from a formula.

My ideal game (but you should cope with reality):
Free, possibly also opens source, a good set of special rules, d6 system, no-formula: standard profiles with point cost as references: you can possibly add units after a testing quality check.

underfire wargaming wrote:

I dont know for sure if this comment is aimed towards me or towards the OP, however your talking about sculpts so i am going to assume its for me !, I dont want to bring this thread off track but i should respond to your feed back which i do apprecaite!. I tend to aim in somewhere in the middle, my miniatures are aimed to be high detail sculpts but i am getting them done in a way that is alot less costly than most companies do or havent yet considerd to do. So i will be able to sell my miniatures at a lower price which will give me that much better of a chance at getting the markets attention.

I know my range wont be switch parts out as compatable as some other miniature ranges are, and its good to hear most are not concerned for that, for i am to bring a unique line of miniatures to the market and not so much as rip offs or generic bland miniatures. I see your point as well and i agree is my main focus if the miniaturse are good enough sculpts they will sell themselves, when i do eventualy create our game system it will be aimed at around a platoon size game being the average full force game size.

thank you for posting your thoughts and feed back i greatly appreciate and will consider all you have posted here!.

thanks again and with best regards - Shawn.

Indeed it was for you, will be interesting to see what you have planned.

I especially like In the Emperor's Name, as it is super rules-light, D6-based, has a super-simple formula for fighter, vehicle and weapon creation, and has a very easy system for quick gaming with points-balanced forces. Lots of the other games I really like are purely scenario-driven (a system I don't particularly like), so a simple "500 point" force is impossible with those.

Also, games without a standard "I go, You go" system are a refreshing change. Too many games of 40K result in a 10-minute wait until you can use what's now left of your force that you couldn't do anything to mitigate damage to other than armor save rolls. It's kind of draconian.

But then again I am on a rules-light kick lately. I can turn to 40K and AT-43.Confrontation: Age of Ragnarok for 80-page rulebooks. Hell, the current RPG I want to run is 16 pages, and I think ITEN is about 20..

Exoshift isn't open. My earlier post was just an idea early in development that has been shelved indefinitely. And I really need to take those old rules down.

Sergio Tulkas wrote:
My ideal game (but you should cope with reality):
Free, possibly also opens source, a good set of special rules, d6 system, no-formula: standard profiles with point cost as references: you can possibly add units after a testing quality check.

Asking for free rules development (or any free labor) is extremely unrealistic. What is the incentive of the developer to spend the time balancing and publishing? Someone *may* do it as a labor of love, but then it will be their sole vision on their time schedule. Expect such a project to never get off the ground or quit midway through. Any figure producer will only produce a ruleset to push their figures, because why encourage people to spend their money on competitors? Independants still need to pay the bills....

Without taking into account competitors, there is no real reason to develop something you do not produce and do not intent to produce, not only makes the system artifact heavy, it gives people wrong impressions/ hopes and makes streamlining/ polishing more difficult.

It is much easier to make games like Gruntz, the Song of Blades titles, and Heroes and Tomorrows War, where the main rules can encompass a huge amount of different companies' figures, with rules and stats that are purposefully generic so that each gaming group can put their own thematic spin on things without changing a single rule.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
It is much easier to make games like Gruntz, the Song of Blades titles, and Heroes and Tomorrows War, where the main rules can encompass a huge amount of different companies' figures, with rules and stats that are purposefully generic so that each gaming group can put their own thematic spin on things without changing a single rule.

I'd forgotten about Gruntz!
http://www.gruntz.biz/
http://www.wargamevault.com/product_info.php?products_id=92879
Currently it's aimed at 15mm, but it'd be a perfect candidate for upscaling to 28mm. It's also been extensively playtested, and has reportedly sold pretty well, so you're not looking at an untested system. It would easily handle the platoon-and-higher kind of engagements that the companies seem interested in. It's not open-source, but it has a unit creation mechanic.

Also, it's Profile-card method of force organization means that a company could simply sell a deck of cards anytime they want to release a new faction. It'd be a quick an easy way for multiple companies to get in on the action. Gruntz15mm has already parneted with several miniaitures companies,so clearly the author is open to colaboration.

I need to go look at my copy again.

One ideal thing about Gruntz is that each miniature producer has only to release their own cards for it, and that's the end of rules development for them. Or they could be community generated, much like how Army Builder has players creating profiles. Some sort of forum for people to submit "cards" "profiles" or what have you would be an essential piece of the puzzle, I think.

Sergio Tulkas wrote:
I just had a quick look at three proposed universal games, waiting for a deeper review:

Aetherverse
open source. the second version of the rules is a work in progress (the fist version is still available). The core without army lists is around 60 pages. There is a minimal set of special rules (5 pages). The point cost value stems from a formula. d10 system.

Point of order: the game actually has 17 pages of "special rules"; I suspect you just looked at the Army Characteristics and Unit Traits sections (which is about 5 pages) but there are also sections with special rules for weapons, armor, vehicles, and personalities that takes up significantly more space. This is also prior to adding in fluff and illustration for the abilities (which will occur in the "pretty" version of the rules) other than a couple of pictures put in to fill up dead space.

Everything else you said is true, though! Thanks for the inclusion in your overview; feel free to talk to me more directly if you'd like more information prior to doing a deeper review.

 Eilif wrote:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
It is much easier to make games like Gruntz, the Song of Blades titles, and Heroes and Tomorrows War, where the main rules can encompass a huge amount of different companies' figures, with rules and stats that are purposefully generic so that each gaming group can put their own thematic spin on things without changing a single rule.

I'd forgotten about Gruntz!
http://www.gruntz.biz/
http://www.wargamevault.com/product_info.php?products_id=92879
Currently it's aimed at 15mm, but it'd be a perfect candidate for upscaling to 28mm. It's also been extensively playtested, and has reportedly sold pretty well, so you're not looking at an untested system. It would easily handle the platoon-and-higher kind of engagements that the companies seem interested in. It's not open-source, but it has a unit creation mechanic.

Also, it's Profile-card method of force organization means that a company could simply sell a deck of cards anytime they want to release a new faction. It'd be a quick an easy way for multiple companies to get in on the action. Gruntz15mm has already parneted with several miniaitures companies,so clearly the author is open to colaboration.

I need to go look at my copy again.

I only have a basic knowledge of Gruntz. It uses a points-based army selection system, doesn't it? Also, does it scale well? As in, can the rules be used with forces that are only made of maybe two infantry units, and one or two vehicles as starting forces?

I've not played it yet, just spoken to some folks who have and it seemed cool enough that I bought the rules. I'd advise you to ask your questions directly to them at the Gruntz forum. I've heard that the creator is quite active there.

Cool. Definitely a good example of an existing open-source ruleset. Even better, it's one of the few good ones for 15mm, while tons of them are for 28mm.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Cool. Definitely a good example of an existing open-source ruleset. Even better, it's one of the few good ones for 15mm, while tons of them are for 28mm.

Indeed. Just a minor clarification though, the rules aren't open source. You have to buy them and the author controls all distribution and modification.

However, they are generic and have a unit creation mechanic so the rules can be used with virtually any sci-fi miniatures.

Erp, you caught me! Sorry, I meant more of the latter than the former. Though the price is so crazy low for what you get, balances against the fact that you can literally use any company's 15mm figures is so cool.

Yeah, the Gruntz model seems pretty nice, especially since there's a nice 15mm scifi scene that's been growing lately, and especially now with all the 3D printing available.

I've considered releasing my vehicle sculpts in 15mm scale just for people to use with Gruntz and other systems.

What's the key difference between average 28mm systems and 15mm systems? In my mind the only real difference is that having more room for models means that you're able to have more maneuver warfare and get closer to a true spread of weapon ranges (which makes balancing different) and can field more vehicles, but that you're essentially dealing with the same sort of rules.

Depends on your design perspective, if you still stick to moving individuals and keep the rules for individual figures, you have a 28mm game in a more proper battlefield space, if you decide to go for infantry bases you can shift the abstraction and make rules for formations and not individuals.

 Magc8Ball wrote:
What's the key difference between average 28mm systems and 15mm systems? In my mind the only real difference is that having more room for models means that you're able to have more maneuver warfare and get closer to a true spread of weapon ranges (which makes balancing different) and can field more vehicles, but that you're essentially dealing with the same sort of rules.

The main difference tends to be the size of the engagement that can be realistically (a relative term, but bear with me) fought on a standard sized gaming table and how the rules accommodate that. Not counting rulesets like 40k which cram a ridiculous number of 28mm units on the table.

In 15mm, you can (with some scale compression) fight with a couple platoons and a few vehicles on a 4x6. In 28mm, you can only realistically put about a platoon per side with anything more than a couple of vehicles really stretching credulity. Thus games aimed at 15 or 28mm scales are usually going to try to establish rules that best operate at those "scopes" Typically -though by no means always- a 28mm ruleset will have a bit more granularity to keep things interesting with fewer miniaitures on the table, whereas a 15mm ruleset will be a bit more abstract to accomodate more miniatures without bogging down.

This is by no means an absolute. Some rulesets like Song of Blades and Heroes have streamlined play at their core and simply provide guidelines that 15mm games be played on a smaller surface with shorter measurements. Games like Tomorrow's War (also aimed at 15 and 28mm) have a fair amount of complexity to the rules, but just assume that folks playing larger battles in smaller scales will simply take more time.

My initial lookover (have not played yet) of Gruntz 15mm is that with a standard food unit having a move of 4 inches and being played on a 4x4 table it could be played as-is with 28mm miniatures, or you could multiply all measurements by 1.5 and play on a larger 4x6 or 4x8 table.

I've some experience with this kind of thing. I used the 15mm rulset "Mech Attack!" as-is for 10mm miniatures and with doubled measurements and a double size table for 28mm games.