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.

 Peregrine wrote:
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.

Quoted for truth. I think Peregrine has hit the three biggest points right here. For point 1, I would suggest building a "Gameplay Dictionary"- have clearly defined terms for different effects, and stick to it. Look at Warmachine- you have boxed vs. dead, and models may advance, or be placed or slammed or pushed, each functioning differently in-game. Also, do not be afraid to have different terms which function identically, but interact with other rules differently. For example, let us pretend that 40k has Deepstrike (Teleport), Deepstrike (Parachutist), and Deepstrike (Tunneler). All three would function the exact same, however (Parachutist) would be susceptible to being shot at by weapons with the interceptor rule, (Teleport) would be susceptible to Warp Quake, etc.. They wouldn't need new rules, they simply function as different keywords for other special rules to interact with.

 Tanakosyke22 wrote:

 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.

I have tried Infinity, though i played a few years back when less had been done about the state of balance of tags, etc. I have a good gaming friend that I played the game with back then who is very hot into Infinity, again, now. Might give it a whirl again this summer. One cumbersome aspect of infinity is the sheer amount of goddamn terrain you need to keep the game interesting.

The orders system is brilliant, however, always loved that. It is probably the single most innovative wargame technique i've seen in a long time, right up there with Malifaux's "card deck instead of dice" mechanic (also brilliant). If the balance is where the game needs to be, then i'll probably pick it up, but i'm just a touch gunshy having tried the game a long time ago and having found balance being an issue.

-----------


Back on topic.... another thing i like about games - granularity and scalability. Both are important. I want a game system that works at a level where i can get a game in for an hour on a small scale, or one that can ramp up and work at the level that would take all day / afternoon to play.

Granularity is important too. I like customization. It's a fine line to walk, because customization is inherently more difficult to balance, but its so much more interesting than just "This piece is Bob. Bob does X. There is no way that Bob does anything else".

Its much more interesting if Bob can come to the table with this loadout, that loadout, or a mix betwixt the two.

 Peregrine wrote:
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.

I think I should clarify this point somewhat. Math is indeed good, but I'm talking about individual instances (specifically I suppose in higher model count games) where you want improbability. It should be something that can be overcome with commitment of immediate, battlefield resources. Single models that can be relied upon to do exactly what you want are tactical no brainers and it simply becomes a matter of selecting the most resource efficient one.

I suppose what I'm looking for is the difference between bringing something that should mathematically work as is and something that, with proper use and support on the battlefield should work.

I'd like to see a game with spring loaded exploding bunkers and bridges like MARX used to make.
That being said, make it fun and unpredictable, so that even a small squad has a chance to hold off the tanks for awhile. Just get it away from listhammer and you'll be halfway there.

Obviously, I'd love to see a tight/well written set of rules... preferably ones that dont take a week for me to get through a rule book for.

But, reading through the comments here, here's a few things that came into my mind:

Perhaps use a combination of dice and deck of cards. IF this is a skirmish sized game, where players have individual models targeting individual models, not unit to unit, they could roll an action on a d6, d10, d20, whatever you decide to use. On a positive result (so a hit for shooting or CC, etc) the player then uses their deck of cards, flip the top card of the deck to determine damage. This easily simulate someone using a pistol, hits their target but flips badly on their damage merely "wings" their target, however, if they flip very high, could be like a "headshot" and instant kill. This way, ALL hits have the greatest possibility to do damage, but the damage is still variable enough that you'd have to weigh your options in who you attack.


Also, using similar stats to RPGs and other games, have the entire game turn based not on I go/U go.. but rather each unit gets an "initiative" or a "speed" rating. In the event that 2 or more units have the same initiative (if they are on the same side, the controlling player chooses their order of precedence), then the 2 players, at the beginning of each turn roll or flip for determining the order of what unit goes in which order.

Balanced factions that are not overpowered or weak, and easy to use rules that do not sacrifice complexity and depth to achieve this.

Mainly I just want to have fun with it, fighting over rules or unit stats takes away from the fun.

I also want my toys to be a bit cheaper!

Rules and unit stats will be very clear. I'm not one for ambiguity or making it "cinematic."

How should I go about whole "I go, you go" thing? I have haves couple ideas:
1, movement phases are are simultaneous, and combats are figured out via initiative.
2, more like infinity where one player has the turn but but the opponent can still react in it.
3, something else.

 McNinja wrote:
Rules and unit stats will be very clear. I'm not one for ambiguity or making it "cinematic."

How should I go about whole "I go, you go" thing? I have haves couple ideas:
1, movement phases are are simultaneous, and combats are figured out via initiative.
2, more like infinity where one player has the turn but but the opponent can still react in it.
3, something else.

One I'm currently kicking around is something like this:

1) Each unit receives two actions a turn, or one "sustained" action.
2) Players secretly note the order in which their units will activate. Designate the different actions to take place in different places in the order (for example, a unit may activate first, and then wait until the end of the turn to take its second action.
3) Alternating activation of unit in the order designated.
4) May alter the order mid-turn by using command points

I also like the idea of a number of actions per turn, with orders dictating how those actions can be spent:

Charge order: 2x move/2x Melee or any combination
Advance:1x Move, 1x Shoot, 2x Melee
Fire:2x Shoot, 2x Melee

That's an ultra simplified version of the system I was working on. Note in this system a unit got to perform one action at a time before moving on to the next unit, which is why being locked into what your orders were mattered. You can't decide on the fly you need more firepower if you've ordered a squad to move out or expect them to rapidly redeploy if you've told them to hunker down and fire. It's more complex than some people might want however and has some book keeping.

 Kojiro wrote:
I also like the idea of a number of actions per turn, with orders dictating how those actions can be spent:

Charge order: 2x move/2x Melee or any combination
Advance:1x Move, 1x Shoot, 2x Melee
Fire:2x Shoot, 2x Melee

That's an ultra simplified version of the system I was working on. Note in this system a unit got to perform one action at a time before moving on to the next unit, which is why being locked into what your orders were mattered. You can't decide on the fly you need more firepower if you've ordered a squad to move out or expect them to rapidly redeploy if you've told them to hunker down and fire. It's more complex than some people might want however and has some book keeping.

What about a DnD 4.0 sort of system, where each action is divided into Major, Minor, and Move. Each unit can do any combination of the 3, however certain combos "cost" something a little extra.

I'm not familiar with that system. The idea of multiple cost actions is in there but it's yet more bookkeeping. What I really like is that there's a chance to interrupt someone- within the limits of your orders- if you've correctly anticipated and dedicated your resources. You still get to react to your opponent and quickly but how well precisely is up to how well you you planned your own moves, anticipated your enemy and adapt to your in turn losses.

 Kojiro wrote:
I'm not familiar with that system. The idea of multiple cost actions is in there but it's yet more bookkeeping. What I really like is that there's a chance to interrupt someone- within the limits of your orders- if you've correctly anticipated and dedicated your resources. You still get to react to your opponent and quickly but how well precisely is up to how well you you planned your own moves, anticipated your enemy and adapt to your in turn losses.

IIRC, with the DnD system you can move+minor+major. or move+minor+minor. Major+major. As it's really only 3 categories of actions, one could easily say, "this unit is moving here, and 'readies an action'" yet, you dont have to reveal that action, until it may come to fruitiion (say your action is to ready a specialy type attack, since it is "ready" as soon as an enemy unit/model enters that attacks range, it goes off, and you resolve it prior to anything else going on)

So I've been working on the Skirmish level and I've come up with a means of how to allow models actions during the game. Each model starts with 3 action points, which they can spend on moving, shooting, assualting, or if they want, they can use their points to add direct +1 bonuses to certain stats (mainly to-hit rolls or Dexterity modifiers). Each action, (moving, shooting, assaulting), costs 1 action point, and you can perform them in any order, so you can shoot, move, then assault, move twice then assault, or move three times. Movement is the only action that can be performed more than once.

Thoughts? I've also toyed with the idea of giving them 5 points, with movement costing 2 so you don't have models with MOV 8 (meaning they can move 8") covering the entire map in one turn.

A few questions McNinja-

1) Does each model activate independently or on a small squad level? If each model activates independently is there an order to it or a simple free for all?

2) Does a model resolve all three of it's actions without interruption? If the chain is unbroken (barring special circumstances) you're better off simplifying the rules to be more like solos in Warmachine rather than the book keeping of three actions.

3)Is assault any different to a move order? This is a tricky one because you don't want an assault to be a move and attack- that makes it twice the value of a move/attack action. It needs to be differentiated in some way.

4)What action do units already engaged perform? Is it assault? Bear in mind the idea that one side makes all it's swings then the other side does so in their turn is an artefact of UGOIGO.

 Kojiro wrote:
A few questions McNinja-

1) Does each model activate independently or on a small squad level? If each model activates independently is there an order to it or a simple free for all?

2) Does a model resolve all three of it's actions without interruption? If the chain is unbroken (barring special circumstances) you're better off simplifying the rules to be more like solos in Warmachine rather than the book keeping of three actions.

3)Is assault any different to a move order? This is a tricky one because you don't want an assault to be a move and attack- that makes it twice the value of a move/attack action. It needs to be differentiated in some way.

4)What action do units already engaged perform? Is it assault? Bear in mind the idea that one side makes all it's swings then the other side does so in their turn is an artefact of UGOIGO.

1) It would be independently. Order will be determined by either the model's dexterity or something else that is so far undefined (though I'm leaning towards Dexterity so that faster models go first).
2) I'll have to read up on Solos, but right now it's all at once, barring enemy actions.
3) Right now it is essentially move+attack. One thing I didn't mention is that once you've engaged an enemy model you can't simply attack then walk away, you're in the fight until one of you is killed or you have an ability to break off. So you could shoot + charge, move + charge, but you can't charge first and do another action in the same turn. if you charge first you lose out on both movement and shooting, which isn't bad for melee units but could be bad for shooty units.
4) If a model is engaged they stay engaged unless they have something allows them to disengage before their opponent is killed. And no, Dexterity determines the order of swings.

Once I have the basics all covered I'll post them here for further scrutiny! I love the questions and suggestions so far. My intent with this game is for it to be easy to learn and play using whatever models you want in whatever setting you want, though it will have a defined world that most of the action happens on.

 McNinja wrote:

1) It would be independently. Order will be determined by either the model's dexterity or something else that is so far undefined (though I'm leaning towards Dexterity so that faster models go first).
2) I'll have to read up on Solos, but right now it's all at once, barring enemy actions.
3) Right now it is essentially move+attack. One thing I didn't mention is that once you've engaged an enemy model you can't simply attack then walk away, you're in the fight until one of you is killed or you have an ability to break off. So you could shoot + charge, move + charge, but you can't charge first and do another action in the same turn. if you charge first you lose out on both movement and shooting, which isn't bad for melee units but could be bad for shooty units.
4) If a model is engaged they stay engaged unless they have something allows them to disengage before their opponent is killed. And no, Dexterity determines the order of swings.

I'm a little worried you're making Dexterity into a god-stat. If it determines (an uninterrupted) order of activation, order of attacks and I'm guessing accuracy of said attacks you're starting to make it the only stat worth having. This is assuming it plays no role in defense either.
Solos act like anyone else except independently. The idea though was that if the chain is uninterrupted there's little difference between having two actions to spend on move/shoot/fight and having Run, Advance and Charge except that the later encapsulate their own rules and meanings while the former will need special exceptions. For example if you want a charge bonus it will have to be an addendum to a combat action made after a move action- and another if you want charge moves to be faster or similar.
Ah now we get interesting. Are you locked into the move attack only? Can you attack- become unengaged- then move/shoot? There's no point having generic actions if you have to spend them in a particular fashion.
Being locked into combat is a good idea, and a bad one. No Guardsman would want to turn his back on a marine- his already slim chances would become even worse. Conversely a terminator should be ignoring that grot furiously chewing on his greaves. Likewise a said terminator would have an extremely hard time forcing a howling banshee to fight on his terms- if she wants to stay outside of thunderhammer range she probably can and she's too deadly- even for a terminator- to simply turn his back on and walk away. But just because she can dance away from him doesn't mean she's fast enough to get away from a DE wytch.

 McNinja wrote:
Once I have the basics all covered I'll post them here for further scrutiny! I love the questions and suggestions so far. My intent with this game is for it to be easy to learn and play using whatever models you want in whatever setting you want, though it will have a defined world that most of the action happens on.

I'm not trying to be overly critical or disparaging- I've put in more than a little time on this kind of project myself and my criticisism is meant as constructive. I hope it helps!

Dexterity isn't going to be a god-stat, as you put it. It functions a lot like initiative in 40k, but it doesn't affect close combat hits. I'll have to see if I want it to play play a role in defense, I haven't quite gotten there yet.

Once a model is in combat, they're there until the enemy model is slain, so if they're slain in the turn they initiate combat, they could then move and shoot. If you're in combat with a far weaker opponent, chances are that you put yourself there to kill that model.

 McNinja wrote:
Dexterity isn't going to be a god-stat, as you put it. It functions a lot like initiative in 40k, but it doesn't affect close combat hits. I'll have to see if I want it to play play a role in defense, I haven't quite gotten there yet.

I would recommend tieing a few things as possible to as few stats, without spiraling into too many stats.

 McNinja wrote:
Once a model is in combat, they're there until the enemy model is slain, so if they're slain in the turn they initiate combat, they could then move and shoot. If you're in combat with a far weaker opponent, chances are that you put yourself there to kill that model.

Well.. maybe. If I can jam a 40pt model with a 2pt grot you can bet I'll do that, especially if it keeps them off the objective.

Is your plan for melee then to be like Warmachine where only the acting model makes attacks or a more 'merged' combat where everyone fights at their Dex/Init level?

 McNinja wrote:
Rules and unit stats will be very clear. I'm not one for ambiguity or making it "cinematic."

How should I go about whole "I go, you go" thing? I have haves couple ideas:
1, movement phases are are simultaneous, and combats are figured out via initiative.
2, more like infinity where one player has the turn but but the opponent can still react in it.
3, something else.

I'm going to go with #3.

Something no one has seen yet. Be creative, do your homework, think about what you DON'T like about existing game turn sequences, and how you'd change it up - then find a non-cumbersome, non-record keeping intensive, unique, and elegant way to do that.

Fit it with a good genre, and you're on to something.


... this is of course, the hard part.


If you're going to go with the tried and true "knowns", I like Infinity's approach the best, with close second being alternating activations, distant 3rd UGOIGO.

Be careful about copying anyone's rule mechanics - they are copyrighted. It's okay to take inspiration from them, but you can't plagiarize them wholesale (or even rebrand them) - it's illegal. No one owns UGOIGO, but if you use the Reactive Order system and just call it something else, i'd expect a legal letter from Corvus Belli.

Take inspiration from something, but find a way to make it unique and elegant.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 McNinja wrote:

Once a model is in combat, they're there until the enemy model is slain, so if they're slain in the turn they initiate combat, they could then move and shoot. If you're in combat with a far weaker opponent, chances are that you put yourself there to kill that model.

Don't do this. There should be a method of getting oneself clear of a melee that one doesn't want to be in, even if that is (and should be) inherently risky to do so.

Don't ever railroad your players. Don't ever create a situation that can easily be gamed. Don't paint yourself into a corner. Don't underestimate players abilities to manipulate the rules to unintended advantage. I used to be an Infernal for Privateer Press, and it astounded me how people would twist rule interactions for the smallest or biggest amount of gain. By saying "chances are if you engaged a model , you meant to kill that model" underestimates people's use of the rules in unintentional methods to gain in-game advantage.

Saying "once your in melee, you're there until slain" is both counterintuitive (people can run from a combat), and opens potential for abusive, anti-thematic shenanigans (i run dudes into melee just to tie them up, etc etc... hard to put into words as your game is not fleshed out, but this absolute stance opens the door for abuse).

Your game should have a method of leaving combat, and it should be risky for a model to do so, but possible. Otherwise you have a situation where everything you design you'll have to think "can someone get advantage from this on the basis that i've made it impossible in my ruleset to leave melee". You will also REALLY have to watch the melee power of your models. A single unbalanced power-wise model in melee combat could throw the entire balance of your game off kilter.

Be careful doing stuff like this if you're serious about designing this game. I would figure out the probability mechanic you are going to run with first, and your statistic system's mechanics before you begin fleshing out phase of game strictures and stipulations like this.

Just some friendly advice from someone who has worked on professional game design in the past.

 Haight wrote:

Don't do this. There should be a method of getting oneself clear of a melee that one doesn't want to be in, even if that is (and should be) inherently risky to do so.

I would also strongly echo this. PP uses a 'free strike' method where a model can attempt to leave combat but risks getting hit in the back. The strike is both easier to land than normal and does more damage so it's usually done in desperation but two things that always irked me were a) your melee skill had no bearing on your ability to disengage b) a model could strike as many people as it liked under any circumstances. A) is partly the fault of PP using a single DEF stat for ranged and melee- a Stormguard, elite knight of the Cygnar army should be harder to hit with a sword than he is to shoot. B) is usually not an issue is 1:1 fights but it gets silly when while under threat from six pikemen a guy finds the time to hit that 7th pikeman that wandered too close going for a different target.

I'd recommend a skill check of some sort.

Seriously mate, I'd strongly suggest you take a look at the DnD combat system, as it sounds fairly close to what you are wanting to do.

There are no "god stats", once in melee, a character CAN leave it, though it does have some risks, if done wrong. There are points where ranged and melee characters stand out, etc.

The folks posted previously have pretty much hit on what I like to see in a tabletop game.

Specifically on personal preferences I want a solid rule set first of all that isn’t so ambiguous you end up getting into heated arguments just to interpret the damn thing mainly due to some a-hole wanting to skew it to their favor.

Secondly I like a turn method that will rid old and tired IGOUGO style games for good. This turn order to move, shoot and assault is obsolete and uncreative to say the least. I like to see something of a hybrid between Dropzone Commander and Infinity to alternate between groups and have reactions to move things along.

Lastly I want fluff that isn’t some overused grim dark future BS. We get enough of that garbage from GW. Throw some Steampunk in or maybe a Cold War-esque game in the 1980s. Anything that isn’t WWII, Post-Apocalyptic or Warhammer related.

Hi all.
I agree that the rule set should be written with CLARITY , BREVITY, and elegance.

The most complex game play can be achieved with straightforward rules using the most appropriate game mechanics and resolution methods.

In fact I my perfect game rule set would be ANTI 6th ed 40k.

Swap the complication for complexity, confusion for clarity, and rules bloat for brevity.

When people are talking about interaction , whether to use cards or multiple dice.
Why not cover the bulk of the in game action using the unit stats?

Compare stats to find the Dice score required to succeed, or use the stat directly as a base score to succeed with modifiers.
EG Armour Value 3 Armour Piercing 7, need '5+ to save.' (AV + D6 to beat AP of weapon hit.)

Stealth value 5+, the attacker needs to roll 5+ to hit this model with ranged weapons.(Modified by cover ,range, equipment etc.)

If you put these values on a unit card along with any special abilities , it makes game play a lot faster, due to NOT having to look things up as you try to play the game...
Using cards for missions and events in a strategic way works excellently IMO.

List building that is easy and not dependent on units, so theirs no difference between a fluffy and competitive list, list building grinds my gears

 mitch_rifle wrote:
List building that is easy and not dependent on units, so theirs no difference between a fluffy and competitive list, list building grinds my gears

I actually enjoy list building, but, especially in 40k, there are just so many units that are simply not close to competative (that one guy who runs all Chosen and Warp Talons won't be winning anything soon), so that's definitely something I want to fix.

 McNinja wrote:

 mitch_rifle wrote:
List building that is easy and not dependent on units, so theirs no difference between a fluffy and competitive list, list building grinds my gears

I actually enjoy list building, but, especially in 40k, there are just so many units that are simply not close to competative (that one guy who runs all Chosen and Warp Talons won't be winning anything soon), so that's definitely something I want to fix.

I find GWs list building pointless and prone to abusive, lists are a functioning machine and as with every machine the less components the better and more efficient, Infinity, warmachine and why not the deathwing expansion of the original space hulk have got it right, you should not give the player the ability to tweak every single aspect of everything, nor supply a huge pile of components, its impossible to make them balanced with each other (many "parts" are left to misuse just by reading them, so why include them) and after few reads the optimal configurations are discovered anyway, so the vast amount of choices is an illusion anyway, the second part of the issue is the more choices you give to the player the more difficult is the game to balance, giving your player a variety of fixed choices to chose from is an ideal mix of keeping player choice restricted enough to have a meaningful chance to balance your game and enough choice to keep your player base interested.

Meaningful choices are in the works

I've gotten the first four races down, though only in draft form. I'm taking a large codex I wrote for 40k and turning it into the first four army books for my game.

As soon as you have a playable beta get it out there. You'll be stunned how quickly a new set of eyes can break what seem like perfectly sound rules to the writer.

 Kojiro wrote:
As soon as you have a playable beta get it out there. You'll be stunned how quickly a new set of eyes can break what seem like perfectly sound rules to the writer.

Seconded.


Anyone who knows anything about professional playtesting knows that the moment you release your game to the public, you have several order of magnitudes more people looking at it than you can possibly hope to have with Playtest.

Put a beta out with a call to arms to "Break this game!". They will. Trust me.

It should probably also be said that when they do break your game- and they will- to take it in stride. Any problem can be fixed and the point of a playtest is to find them. When you put out a beta be sure to mention to the playtesters that in addition to wanting them to find flaws you're happy to accept suggested fixes. Even if you don't use them the different way of looking at the problem is very helpful.