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.

A game where each player controls 1-3 Mechs, where you'd be using a deck of cards to activate your shields, special rockets, off-table support and all that. Throughout the game you'd gain points that you'd use to buy additional cards and new weapons to stick on your Mech.

So a Mech wargame that's somewhat RPGish. The mechs could be about the size of a Space Marine Terminator, and be played on a rather small table, like a 2x2' board.

I'd buy.

Chongara wrote:
Scale isn't important, I can enjoy any size or scale of game . What is important for a game (in order of importance) for me is:


1 A clearly written, functional consistent rule set that supports the creation of interesting game states.
2 A company that is active in the community, proactive about updates and providing general support.
3 A setting and aesthetics I enjoy.
4 An interesting & diverse set of game pieces (models) with distinct functions.
5 Good model quality.

^ this ^This ^THis ^THIs ^THIS

Case in point: New DA book out some Saturday in Feb 2013. FAQ/Errata out the Monday after. If the orks (when done) are the same, they may be gone from my house.

Simple rules that are easy for a new player to pick up.

I dont want to have to refer to an encyclopedia size book every five minutes when I am playing the game. I just want to play.

Dont want to have to buy multiple books to be able to play a game either. Anything that requires you to buy a main book then a book for your army before you can play properly is an easy way to make me not want to bother.

If you want to expand the universe with extra books and armies after the main book then sure no problem but make sure its optional.

 jason1977 wrote:

Chongara wrote:
Scale isn't important, I can enjoy any size or scale of game . What is important for a game (in order of importance) for me is:


1 A clearly written, functional consistent rule set that supports the creation of interesting game states.
2 A company that is active in the community, proactive about updates and providing general support.
3 A setting and aesthetics I enjoy.
4 An interesting & diverse set of game pieces (models) with distinct functions.
5 Good model quality.

^ this ^This ^THis ^THIs ^THIS

Case in point: New DA book out some Saturday in Feb 2013. FAQ/Errata out the Monday after. If the orks (when done) are the same, they may be gone from my house.

I think most of the newer codices have gotten Day 1 errata or FAQs. That is definitely something I'm not going to have happen.

kb305 wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

kb305 wrote:
i want a modern, carefully balanced, fully updated improved version of final fantasy tactics on the tabletop.

(im only talking about game mechanics and overall feel of game play here, not the FF character, setting etc)

Might I suggest Endless Fantasy Tactics then?

that looks interesting but squads instead of single characters. tape measure can stay instead of grid. someone should combine the best elements of all these games to make the ultimate turn based table top strategy game.

You say you want something that captures the game mechanics of Final Fantasy tactics, and then say you don't want things that are game mechanics from FFT...

What about a system that doesn't use dice at all? Simply using stats and comparisons between stats to determine hits, misses, wounds, etc?

I would love to see a 'fleet scale' battle system that could dive into multiple-IPs not touched upon at all or....in depth.

'Star Wars' and 'Space: Above and Beyond' are ones that I'd be interested in...and I'm sure there are a lot of other video game genres where the fleet ships were amazing but barely touched.

Perhaps using the system from Silent Death as a starter? Always liked that game...

 McNinja wrote:
What about a system that doesn't use dice at all? Simply using stats and comparisons between stats to determine hits, misses, wounds, etc?

No thank you. I'd like some degree of chance in my game, or it doesn't really seem like it'd be a 'game' to me. You can wind up using a single d6 to modify the stats you compare (see Munchkin) but you need to have something above just 'high number wins.'

That's just my initial reaction, though. If someone had a concrete idea on how to do this, I'd be willing to hear them out, especially if it was a new or novel approach.

 Jimsolo wrote:

 McNinja wrote:
What about a system that doesn't use dice at all? Simply using stats and comparisons between stats to determine hits, misses, wounds, etc?

No thank you. I'd like some degree of chance in my game, or it doesn't really seem like it'd be a 'game' to me. You can wind up using a single d6 to modify the stats you compare (see Munchkin) but you need to have something above just 'high number wins.'

That's just my initial reaction, though. If someone had a concrete idea on how to do this, I'd be willing to hear them out, especially if it was a new or novel approach.

Agreed. This was my initial reaction as well. An RPG I used to play, Amber Diceless Roleplaying (based on Roger Zelazny's Chronicles of Amber novels) had the mechanic where the highest score always won. It was more of a storytelling game, though, and the characters were essentially gods. The stats were used as guides for how to tell the story, not to determine win vs. loss.

Randomization, though inherent to all wargames I've played, has to walk a line. Too much, and you might as well just play craps. Too little and I'd be concerned it would just be Rock-Paper-Scissors-Lizard-Spock. That said, I'd be very curious how a wargame with no random number generator would work.

A other idea that I got in my mind would be to use special team/squad/formation actions like supression and supportive fire. This would make a squad more than the sum of its parts by giving unique special abilities. Also for the idea about not using dice seems to be a good one but only for some parts of the game because I think a good game has to have some dice in it to make it a bit random. Athough the cards could be made a bit random by for example turning them around and then picking one, though using dice is most often just more simple.

Sienisoturi wrote:
A other idea that I got in my mind would be to use special team/squad/formation actions like supression and supportive fire. This would make a squad more than the sum of its parts by giving unique special abilities. Also for the idea about not using dice seems to be a good one but only for some parts of the game because I think a good game has to have some dice in it to make it a bit random. Athough the cards could be made a bit random by for example turning them around and then picking one, though using dice is most often just more simple.

That's definitely something I like. I have XCOM: Enemy Unknown playing in my head as I figure out squads and stuff.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jimsolo wrote:

 McNinja wrote:
What about a system that doesn't use dice at all? Simply using stats and comparisons between stats to determine hits, misses, wounds, etc?

No thank you. I'd like some degree of chance in my game, or it doesn't really seem like it'd be a 'game' to me. You can wind up using a single d6 to modify the stats you compare (see Munchkin) but you need to have something above just 'high number wins.'

That's just my initial reaction, though. If someone had a concrete idea on how to do this, I'd be willing to hear them out, especially if it was a new or novel approach.

Gymnogyps wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:

 McNinja wrote:
What about a system that doesn't use dice at all? Simply using stats and comparisons between stats to determine hits, misses, wounds, etc?

No thank you. I'd like some degree of chance in my game, or it doesn't really seem like it'd be a 'game' to me. You can wind up using a single d6 to modify the stats you compare (see Munchkin) but you need to have something above just 'high number wins.'

That's just my initial reaction, though. If someone had a concrete idea on how to do this, I'd be willing to hear them out, especially if it was a new or novel approach.

Agreed. This was my initial reaction as well. An RPG I used to play, Amber Diceless Roleplaying (based on Roger Zelazny's Chronicles of Amber novels) had the mechanic where the highest score always won. It was more of a storytelling game, though, and the characters were essentially gods. The stats were used as guides for how to tell the story, not to determine win vs. loss.

Randomization, though inherent to all wargames I've played, has to walk a line. Too much, and you might as well just play craps. Too little and I'd be concerned it would just be Rock-Paper-Scissors-Lizard-Spock. That said, I'd be very curious how a wargame with no random number generator would work.

Though what I have in mind does, at a basic level, come out to "bigger number wins," that's not the full extent of it. This is still a very rough concept that I'll have to test out. Instead of simply pointing at a model and saying "my BS score is 12 and his evasion score is 9, I hit him," you would declare your shot, letting your opponent know of any modifiers, like going prone, staying still, being really close, etc. Then, your opponent could not only be behind cover to raise evasion/armor, but throw down points to try to dodge the shot or activate armor, or something along those lines. I may end up using dice, we will see.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
In that situation, a Space Marine Terminator against an Eldar Dire Avenger might not be able to evade much of anything the Dire Avenger does, but he does have some great armor and entering a more defensive stance would allow him to live.

 McNinja wrote:

Sienisoturi wrote:
A other idea that I got in my mind would be to use special team/squad/formation actions like supression and supportive fire. This would make a squad more than the sum of its parts by giving unique special abilities. Also for the idea about not using dice seems to be a good one but only for some parts of the game because I think a good game has to have some dice in it to make it a bit random. Athough the cards could be made a bit random by for example turning them around and then picking one, though using dice is most often just more simple.

That's definitely something I like. I have XCOM: Enemy Unknown playing in my head as I figure out squads and stuff.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jimsolo wrote:

 McNinja wrote:
What about a system that doesn't use dice at all? Simply using stats and comparisons between stats to determine hits, misses, wounds, etc?

No thank you. I'd like some degree of chance in my game, or it doesn't really seem like it'd be a 'game' to me. You can wind up using a single d6 to modify the stats you compare (see Munchkin) but you need to have something above just 'high number wins.'

That's just my initial reaction, though. If someone had a concrete idea on how to do this, I'd be willing to hear them out, especially if it was a new or novel approach.

Gymnogyps wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:

 McNinja wrote:
What about a system that doesn't use dice at all? Simply using stats and comparisons between stats to determine hits, misses, wounds, etc?

No thank you. I'd like some degree of chance in my game, or it doesn't really seem like it'd be a 'game' to me. You can wind up using a single d6 to modify the stats you compare (see Munchkin) but you need to have something above just 'high number wins.'

That's just my initial reaction, though. If someone had a concrete idea on how to do this, I'd be willing to hear them out, especially if it was a new or novel approach.

Agreed. This was my initial reaction as well. An RPG I used to play, Amber Diceless Roleplaying (based on Roger Zelazny's Chronicles of Amber novels) had the mechanic where the highest score always won. It was more of a storytelling game, though, and the characters were essentially gods. The stats were used as guides for how to tell the story, not to determine win vs. loss.

Randomization, though inherent to all wargames I've played, has to walk a line. Too much, and you might as well just play craps. Too little and I'd be concerned it would just be Rock-Paper-Scissors-Lizard-Spock. That said, I'd be very curious how a wargame with no random number generator would work.

Though what I have in mind does, at a basic level, come out to "bigger number wins," that's not the full extent of it. This is still a very rough concept that I'll have to test out. Instead of simply pointing at a model and saying "my BS score is 12 and his evasion score is 9, I hit him," you would declare your shot, letting your opponent know of any modifiers, like going prone, staying still, being really close, etc. Then, your opponent could not only be behind cover to raise evasion/armor, but throw down points to try to dodge the shot or activate armor, or something along those lines. I may end up using dice, we will see.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
In that situation, a Space Marine Terminator against an Eldar Dire Avenger might not be able to evade much of anything the Dire Avenger does, but he does have some great armor and entering a more defensive stance would allow him to live.

What if they had some kind of points that were secretly bid? You add the evasion points or precision points that you secretly bid, and high number wins. But your whole army only gets X number of points to spend per turn. That might work.

That could work, or at the very least a system like like that. It would also scale nicely.

 McNinja wrote:
What about a system that doesn't use dice at all? Simply using stats and comparisons between stats to determine hits, misses, wounds, etc?

Easier said than done. You can do diceless systems a la malifaux, but there MUST be some random integer modifier system in a game. If it is all static statistic based, then the game becomes rock paper scissors to some extent of min maxing. Random probability, even if just a d6 system (yawn, btw), keeps things random, interesting, and adds in those moments of incredible victory from certain defeat, and defeat from certain victory.

Okay, I just finished reading through the Malifaux rules. Funnily enough, their system is almost identical to the one I had envisioned, and it looks really good. I'm wondering how it will scale up, though, I'll have to think about that.

I'd like a clear and concisely written ruleset that isn't tied to a particular figure range, so the game has to be good on it's own merits and isn't used to drive figure sales or reliant on good figures.

 Haight wrote:
If it a'int got wombats, not interested.


I'd want a well thought out, logical, tight ruleset .... but here's the kicker. I'd like to see an innovative dice mechanic. D6 has been done to death, as has multi-d6. D10 is okay but its basically the same mechanic in most games. I'd like to see something truly innovative, elegant, and not a convoluted hot mess of a new dice mechanic.

Ideal genre would be post apocalyptic. It's a great genre and it's not well represented in the market, imho, or at least nearly as well as sci-fi / fantasy.

I say try out Infinity, as it does something very different, but well done in my opinion, with a d20 dice mechanic. For the most part, the ruleset is pretty logical as well as thought out, but some of it is ambiguous and slightly loose (weather it is due to being translated from a foreign language or how the authors wrote it, I am not sure), and it kind of has a lot of special rules to it although the main rules are easy to get down. Also, it is Sci-fi, not Post-apocalyptic, but I thought I throw that suggestion out there for you.

Might I recommend you have Chuck Norris?

Something that would be cool would be a game where the stats of the units are based on the models themselves, and you can bring whatever minis you want to the table. (Not to beat a dead horse, but Fuzzy Heroes did that, and it was great, although you wouldn't want to use wargaming minis in Fuzzy Heroes...) Something that not only allowed models from different companies and game systems, but even ENCOURAGED it, would be awesome!

 Jimsolo wrote:
Something that would be cool would be a game where the stats of the units are based on the models themselves, and you can bring whatever minis you want to the table. (Not to beat a dead horse, but Fuzzy Heroes did that, and it was great, although you wouldn't want to use wargaming minis in Fuzzy Heroes...) Something that not only allowed models from different companies and game systems, but even ENCOURAGED it, would be awesome!

*Cough cough* Song of Blades and Heroes *Cough cough*

I'm not going to try to suggest specific ideas since a "poll the forum" game concept is almost certainly doomed. Instead I'll give you three general things I want to see in a game:

1) Rules that work. Everything should be clear and straightforward. If a rule is supposed to do X it should say X, I shouldn't have to interpret an ambiguous rule using the same assumptions as you ("casual" play/fluff/etc) to see how it could mean X. If I actually have to use the "4+ it" resolution as more than a very rare last resort then your rules are terrible. If I as a new player can't read your rulebook and immediately understand the game, with no questions that can't be answered by pointing to the appropriate part of the rulebook, then why would I want to play your game?

2) A clear identity for the game. You should know what your game is trying to do, and your rules should accomplish that goal without any extra stuff. Consider X-Wing vs. 40k. X-Wing has a clear identity as a small-scale dogfighting game with an emphasis on board game style streamlining and accessibility to new players (even non-gamers). And the rules reflect that identity. The rulebook is short and efficient, gameplay moves quickly, and you never feel that something is out of place. 40k, on the other hand, has no idea what kind of game it wants to be. Is it an infantry skirmish game with an emphasis on heroic characters, or a game of epic battles full of tanks/aircraft/etc? Is it a detailed simulation of "real" battles in the 40k universe, or an approximation that favors simplicity and ease of play over flawless realism? Nobody knows, and the rules reflect this uncertainty. They're a bloated mess with every random idea someone at GW had just shoved onto the pile without any real thought about whether it's moving the game in the right direction or not.

3) "Out of the box" playability. The game should be balanced and interesting without having to make up house rules or "play casually" or whatever to fix the balance problems. I should be able to play whatever I want, and as long as I have a coherent strategy in mind I should have a fair chance of winning. List building (or your game's equivalent) should be about choosing which tools you want to have in your toolbox, not about identifying the most overpowered things and taking as many of them as I can. And those choices should feel "fluffy", even if I don't make a deliberate attempt to take "fluffy" options. If I need tons of house rules like "don't take more than one of unit X" or "Y% of your army should be troops" to make these things happen then you need to playtest more and fix your broken game.

Thank you peregrine. The challenge I've encountered thus far is what sort of randomization tool to use. Malifaux has a great card system, but straight up copying their system is poor creativity at best. i want to keep it very simple, because even though I like 40k, 120 pages of rules is just too much.

I'd like to add, in addition to Peregrine's excellent post, at least some small aspect in which the players directly compete against one another. Like in old Epic placing order tokens was based on reading (or predicting) your opponent rather than simply making a unit do what they do (a great failing of IGUG systems). It doesn't have to be that mechanic specifically but something where *I* can outplay my opponent *without* directly utilising models. Where they can go 'Well played!' before I've rolled a dice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and as an addition, I think if you're working on a small scale you should keep things on the unlikely side of working. The more expected results you have the more mathhammer a game gets.

 fishy bob wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
Something that would be cool would be a game where the stats of the units are based on the models themselves, and you can bring whatever minis you want to the table. (Not to beat a dead horse, but Fuzzy Heroes did that, and it was great, although you wouldn't want to use wargaming minis in Fuzzy Heroes...) Something that not only allowed models from different companies and game systems, but even ENCOURAGED it, would be awesome!

*Cough cough* Song of Blades and Heroes *Cough cough*

Huh. Never heard of it before. Have to check that out. Are the rules free to download? I know that's a big thing right now...



Meanwhile, McNinja, I had a question. Sorry if I missed it when you said it, but why don't you just use d6s for randomization? Their simplicity and availability make them darn near the perfect choice.

 Jimsolo wrote:

 fishy bob wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
Something that would be cool would be a game where the stats of the units are based on the models themselves, and you can bring whatever minis you want to the table. (Not to beat a dead horse, but Fuzzy Heroes did that, and it was great, although you wouldn't want to use wargaming minis in Fuzzy Heroes...) Something that not only allowed models from different companies and game systems, but even ENCOURAGED it, would be awesome!

*Cough cough* Song of Blades and Heroes *Cough cough*

Huh. Never heard of it before. Have to check that out. Are the rules free to download? I know that's a big thing right now...

Do check it out. It's one of my favorite rulesets

It's a skirmish game (somewhat meant for fantasy, but I don't think it's genre specific) where you use any models you want. You can also stat them up yourself with an online army builder. It's a lot of fun. It's not free, but very cheap. Five dollars I seem to remember.

 Jimsolo wrote:
Meanwhile, McNinja, I had a question. Sorry if I missed it when you said it, but why don't you just use d6s for randomization? Their simplicity and availability make them darn near the perfect choice.

But they also have a major drawback: they only have six numbers. You see this in 40k with things like tactical squads (basic troops that are average at everything) having the same BS as sternguard (the veteran elite of the elite shooting specialists) because a D6 only has six sides and you can't give the tactical squad BS 3.5 to properly represent the fact that they're a step down from the best. Granted, part of this is due to GW's refusal to use the full range of the scale instead of just making the default stat line all 4s and only having the occasional 3 or 5 with 1-2 and 6 almost nonexistent, but you just get a lot more flexibility if you have more sides on the dice. If you had a D10 system you could make IG veterans BS 6, tactical squads BS 7, sternguard BS 8, and still have room to save BS 9-10 for exceptional characters.

(And sure, you can do things like rolling 2D6 instead of single dice, but that gets really awkward when you have more than a very small number of rolls to make.)

 Kojiro wrote:
Oh and as an addition, I think if you're working on a small scale you should keep things on the unlikely side of working. The more expected results you have the more mathhammer a game gets.

Math is a good thing. It means that your game is predictable enough that it's worth trying to plan ahead based on the expected outcome of your choices. If the game is too random to make effective math predictions then you have a very "swingy" game where big results with the dice matter more than player decisions. This can be very frustrating and unrealistic (troops sitting out in the open 6" apart and desperately hoping to roll 6s to finally hit something), and can easily produce really one-sided games if one player gets a streak of really good/bad luck.

One thing I would add in general--be very, VERY careful with abilities or traits that debuff the enemy, or prevent them from acting, and even more careful if you want a faction or list to be built around such tactics. Nothing at all, even losing, is more soul-sucking and enthusiasm-killing than a game where you don't get to do anything. There's a difference between an "Well played, I'll get you next time!" loss and a "Why did I even show up to the table?" loss. By the same token, it should be hard or impossible to kill models on the first turn; nobody likes to put down their new cool model and then lift it off again before it even gets to move.

Make special rules easy to reference; reprint them in the model profiles and maybe have reference cards for models or units that describe everything they do at a glance. Rooting through the books in the middle of a game to see what this vaguely worded ability does kills momentum.

Create timing charts for things like attacking and damaging something--areas where special rules tend to pile up, and arguments can start about what would happen first if, say, you've got something that rams away what it hits vs something that can counter-attack when hit.

Also, playtest, playtest, playtest. Get the most rules-savvy players you can find, order them to break the game, and then fix what they've broken and repeat. Heck, have a public beta. The more people who are looking at the game, the more game-breakers or dud pieces get caught.

I would like a game that has 28mm maybe they're 32mm miniatures, Some in resin, some in plastic, and metal. A set of rules that I have to search through to find what I need, and maybe several other books in the $50 price range that I have to have to play my army. Maybe 50 different factions of one army type, that have similar vehicles, and flyers, yet different rule books for each, some factions unable to use the same vehicles, and flyers...

 Peregrine wrote:

 Kojiro wrote:
Oh and as an addition, I think if you're working on a small scale you should keep things on the unlikely side of working. The more expected results you have the more mathhammer a game gets.

Math is a good thing. It means that your game is predictable enough that it's worth trying to plan ahead based on the expected outcome of your choices. If the game is too random to make effective math predictions then you have a very "swingy" game where big results with the dice matter more than player decisions. This can be very frustrating and unrealistic (troops sitting out in the open 6" apart and desperately hoping to roll 6s to finally hit something), and can easily produce really one-sided games if one player gets a streak of really good/bad luck.

You have to be careful of going the other way too, though. If your game is TOO predictable (Axis & Allies) then you wind up with a dull as dishwater game with only one 'best' way to play, and the same tedious game playing itself out every time.

Jimsolo wrote:
Meanwhile, McNinja, I had a question. Sorry if I missed it when you said it, but why don't you just use d6s for randomization? Their simplicity and availability make them darn near the perfect choice.

While they are very available, peregrine does make some good points. If I incorporate dice, they may be D10s, but we'll see.

Jimsolo wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Kojiro wrote:
Oh and as an addition, I think if you're working on a small scale you should keep things on the unlikely side of working. The more expected results you have the more mathhammer a game gets.

Math is a good thing. It means that your game is predictable enough that it's worth trying to plan ahead based on the expected outcome of your choices. If the game is too random to make effective math predictions then you have a very "swingy" game where big results with the dice matter more than player decisions. This can be very frustrating and unrealistic (troops sitting out in the open 6" apart and desperately hoping to roll 6s to finally hit something), and can easily produce really one-sided games if one player gets a streak of really good/bad luck.

You have to be careful of going the other way too, though. If your game is TOO predictable (Axis & Allies) then you wind up with a dull as dishwater game with only one 'best' way to play, and the same tedious game playing itself out every time.

There will always be that element of chance, but if a certain model is a sniper, there's a rather good chance he'll hit what he's trying to shoot.