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'm about halfway through the first book. I'm thoroughly enjoying it so far. I've spread the word to a couple of my Scifi minded friends and posted a quick article on my website about Maelstrom's Edge.

I really hope you guys make this thing work big.

I can't wait to see the new models/sprues.

 TheKbob wrote:
Please, please do not put any ambiguity or wiggle room the rules to allow for the finger pointing of players at one another for not playing the game "the way it should be played". I left 40k for many reasons including the allowance of player split of "WAAC" or "cheese". I have full faith in your rules writing ability, just please save alternative game play modes for expansion releases or narrative campaigns.

Have no fear. Everything will be clearly geared towards one set of true 'core' rules, and then narrative/campaign games are on top of that. And in the rules examples, I try to make a point of showing the most extreme application of the rules, so nobody will ever feel like using the rules to their full potential is somehow a loophole or unintended. Obviously I'm sure there will still be some stuff I miss, but there will be every intention to make it feel like everybody is playing with the same set of rules.

Based on my skimming, I'm assuming no true line of sight nonsense, yes?

I've always been someone that believes that aspects of true line of sight need to be included in a miniature game because once you remove them you're essentially then playing a game which could be made with 2D discs on a table. The whole point IMHO of having 3D models on a 3D table is to be able to leverage that unique fact.

However, I do think there is a LOT that can be done to make the process of using true line of sight a lot less painful and remove a lot of ambiguity, and I hope you'll find the rules I've written do just that.

What's terrain density looking like, ranging from a Warmachine tournament table to an Infinity city board?

Terrain plays a major role in the game, but not quite as much as Infinity. In addition, since area terrain blocks line of sight like it used to in old-school 40K, you can block off line of sight to whole sections of the table with a few sets of woods.

The model count seems really low for such a large play space (4'×6'), what are the engagement ranges like? 40k (36"+ guns) or like other skirmish games of hovering around 12" guns?

Ranges are close to what you'd expect with 40K, with the exception that any weapon in the game that isn't 'short ranged' is able to fire beyond its listed range (with no maximum), but requires '6's to hit when firing at 'long range' this way.

Is there a speed profile on units?

Yep.

Is there any movement/move/major action dictated by a random distance roll (outside of gaming standards for random deviation on certain ranged actions/attacks)?

The base move rate is fixed (based on the mode's MV characteristic), and this allows the model to move through nearly all terrain freely (with no movement reduction). If the model goes up/down terrain that is 2" high or taller, then the vertical distance (straight up/down) is factored into their movement, in that case.

If a unit elects to not take cover with its move (not end its move in cover), then it gets some random additional movement added onto how far its allowed to move. This bonus distance is rolled for before deciding whether or not you want to have the unit end its move in cover or not.

So in short, you can always count on a fixed minum distance you're going to move, but if you want to have your unit really get somewhere (but not into cover) then you get some bonus extra distance, which is randomized. Kind of the opposite of 40k, where your standard max movement is fixed, but going through terrain randomly drops that down.

Will there be a specifically supported tournament rules set much like Steamroller or Infinity?

It would be nice, but that's putting the cart before the horse. If the game is successful and if everything works out then I'm sure we'll have something along these lines. The mission rules in particular are designed to be perfectly adaptable for this type of thing.

Will units come with rules sheets/cards?

Nothing to announce on this front yet, but that is a goal.

Will competitive play be designed around a unique list format? (two list, specialists, scenario list tailoring, etc?) If not, how are you handling the concept of game balance and poor match ups?

That's the kind of thing that gets implemented when tournament rules are produced (which again is much too early to talk about). However, I have always liked the multiple list concept that PP uses, and that is something that could definitely be utilized.

What is the expected faction depth be like in terms of unique units? Or is this a "too soon to tell" target?

Do you mean unique units in different types of units available? Or unique in like 'special characters' type of thing where you can only include one of them in your force max?

I guess regardless, its really too early to say/tell. We'd love to get the factions to a really diverse point in terms of having multiple types of themed armies, etc, but that is all dependent on how well things go, plus how many reources we're able to allocate to putting out new stuff for the existing factions while also working on bringing out new factions, etc, etc, etc.

Are you expecting to grow the game in terms of codex like updates or models for each faction style updates?

No codex style books are currently planned. We do have ideas planned on how to bring out new units for factions without putting out full new books.

yakface - thanks for the explanation on list building.

As a follow on, how do you prevent the list building from being: Must buy Y number of bad unit X so I can get a few of awesome unit Z? Something which requires a couple of bad choices to let you get to the 'awesome' choices.

Also, what weapon rules you've shown look like fun. I like slow moving projectiles that can be used to flush a squad from cover. That'll be fun to play with.

Are weapon types going to be tuned to species / target characteristics. E.g. Gas Grenades vs. EMP Grenades for human / robot targets?


PS. I am glad that you are incorporating terrain and LoS into the game rules. I like that model games make you interact with the game board and the models.

I like the use of terrain for the game. Will terrain be differentiated between concealment and cover? For example, shrubbery/hedge rows = concealment, because they make units difficult to see but don't provide protection because they do little to stop bullets, lasers, etc. In contrast, reinforced concrete walls = cover because they make units difficult to see and also offer protection again bullets, lasers, etc.

I realize that's a bit of minutiae but I think it ties into the use and effectiveness of suppressive fire.

I'm excited to see everything unfold once the ks launches. The squad based aspect is reminding me a bit of playing Brothers in Arms on my XBox back in the day.

I'll be wary of the TLOS-lite aspect, but I'll reserve judgement until I've read them. It's sounds like you're mitigating the "I can see that exhaust tip on a Rhino!" or "shooting through cracks in a ruin" stuff. I like my line lasers very much...

Otherwise, that all sounds great. I hope there considerations made to solid scenario play in the first book as I my latest favorite minis games have all been good without it, but great including it.

Also, I know I'm a big fan of things like War Room and Mayanet. Having a digital list building app for rules reading and scheming makes me stay keyed into a game for a lot longer. I know it's probably a much farther down the road aspect, but it's something that I'd be willing to kick in on Kickstarter towards if it was a stretch goal. It seems like an apt one, too.

Random prior to making decisions is much more palatable to making a decision and having it crushed for a "1".

Thank you for your response,

 darrkespur wrote:


You can read the excerpt from Maelstrom's Edge: Faith on my website at the following link:

http://tomaslmartin.com/darrkenium/2015/4/15/read-an-excerpt-from-maelstroms-edge-faith

Thanks for posting that link, I enjoyed it

@yakface

Just curious, but will the rules have any specific fog of war style since we'll be using terrain to block LOS. I sort of assume games with true LOS will have units not fully knowing what kind of other units they're approaching til they can see em, but I could also easily see the argument that in the far flung future, they have good scanning equipment that levels the playing field in terms of seeing anything not actually hidden specifically with some sort of shielding/cloaking tech.

How will the rules system handle that part of the gameplay? Note: I am not a particular proponent of either style of play, Fog of war vs. open fielding, just interested.

Oh and the kickstarter having a video battle report would be awesome. :p

DrRansom wrote:
yakface - thanks for the explanation on list building.

As a follow on, how do you prevent the list building from being: Must buy Y number of bad unit X so I can get a few of awesome unit Z? Something which requires a couple of bad choices to let you get to the 'awesome' choices.

Here is how list building works, more or less:

You have 5 types of units:

• Command
• Core
• Hammer (specialist/elite units)
• Vanguard (recon/scout units)
• Anvil (heavy hitters)

A force is made up of as many detachments as you'd like. A detachment can have a maximum of 6 units in it, and can never have more of any one type of unit than it has Core units (so you can only include a second Command/Hammer/Vanguard/Anvil unit once you have a second Core unit in the detachment). A detachment must include 1 Command unit, and that Command unit will tell you how many other of each unit type you can then add to the detachment. A standard Command unit would allow 1-4 Core units, 0-2 Hammer units, 0-2 Vanguard units and 0-2 Anvil units (keeping in mind the overall detachment limitations above).

So the max you can 'spam' a single type of unit is 2 per detachment, and you have to take a Command unit and at least 2 Core choices to do that.

On top of that, most every unit in the game can hold objectives except for the big killy stuff which has the 'kill mission' special rule to emphasize that their job is to go kill stuff and not sit around and hold objectives. So if you want to spam those kind of units, you're going to have a hard time holding objectives (which is a BIG deal in this game).

Beyond that, I'm perfectly fine with players 'gaming the system' to take the 'best' units. Naturally we'll do our best to make sure every unit is viable, and we'll be much more flexible than GW at being able to tweak our unit rules on the fly to adjust balance if things are really off.

Also, what weapon rules you've shown look like fun. I like slow moving projectiles that can be used to flush a squad from cover. That'll be fun to play with.

Are weapon types going to be tuned to species / target characteristics. E.g. Gas Grenades vs. EMP Grenades for human / robot targets?

Yes, I really like how Warmachine has different 'types' of weapons that affect different 'types' of units differently. However, as this is a game wehre we are trying to base it somehwat in a believable reality, that means we probably won't be seeing 'undead' or other more fantasy-style units, which makes having those different types of effects/units harder to pull off.

Therefore, every model has a type (even 'human' is a type) and yes there are weapons that have special abilities that affect organic models differently than inorganic models and vice-versa, exactly as you predicted. EMP grenades do extra damage to inorganic models and choke grenades do extra damage to organic models.

Very nice, although I would suggest not using Hammer and Anvil for unit classifications. It's kinda corny sounding and doesn't seem to fit with the other classifications.

Maybe Spec Ops and Armor? Seems to fit a little better.

Fire support, to replace anvil?

Just makes simple sense, and does what it says on the tin.

Also, aren't Anvils usually tough units that hold things in place for the hammers to do their work? Really strong anvils may krump other units but that term usually says tarpit or shieldwall to me.

I guess maybe I'm just clinging to the fantasy mass battles terminology.

Oh, have we talked about qcb beyond short ranged firefights? Will there be proper assaulting? It seems like we'll have to have it if you ever include angels as a usable unit since they like to bash vehicles to shreds.

 GrimDork wrote:
Also, aren't Anvils usually tough units that hold things in place for the hammers to do their work? .

Speaking as someone who grew up with Looney Tunes, an anvil is more often something big and heavy that you drop on someone when they least expect it...

 GrimDork wrote:
Also, aren't Anvils usually tough units that hold things in place for the hammers to do their work? Really strong anvils may krump other units but that term usually says tarpit or shieldwall to me.

I guess maybe I'm just clinging to the fantasy mass battles terminology.

Oh, have we talked about qcb beyond short ranged firefights? Will there be proper assaulting? It seems like we'll have to have it if you ever include angels as a usable unit since they like to bash vehicles to shreds.

Heh, we actually had a very, very long discussion/argument internally about the titles for the different unit classifications. What we settled on is something that everybody on the team was happy with. Nothing is set in stone yet, but I'd say there are unlikely to change because we already had a lengthy discussion about eactly that.

---

There are close quarters attacks...one of the actions a unit can choose to perform is a 'charge' which allows them to make a double move (double their MV characteristic), move into base contact with an enemy unit and then make a close quarters attack against them.

However, as the game is primarily focused on shooting, but also to keep the mechanics all in-line with each other, close quarter attacks are handled roughly like a special round of shooting. The main difference being its the only type of shooting that you can use melee weapons (and you can only use pistols and melee weapons in a close quarters attack) and its the only type of shooting that can potentially force an enemy unit to retreat. So it has a very specific role in the game...if you really need to push an enemy unit off of an objective RIGHT NOW, for example, then a close quarters attack is what you're going to use to do it.

But a close quarters attack is incredibly periolous unless the enemy unit is sufficiently suppressed, becuase they get to fire a round of defensive fire as you charge in and then if they don't retreat from the close quarters attack, they get to make their own round of close quarters attacks right back at your unit. So your charging unit stands a really good chance of being totally wiped out if you're charging an enemy unit that isn't suppressed enough.

Sounds not dissimilar to how infinity handles CC. Seems proper for a SciFi game.

I'm sure I'll get used to the unit designations, anvils certainly tend to hurt things if imployed as weapons

 legoburner wrote:
Just the Epirians have robots at this time, as they have some pretty key synergies both on and off the battlefield with their robotic charges. There will be bipedal, quadrupedal and airborne robots (we aren't joking when we say they are the robot faction!)

Tracks are better than legs for drones. If it was me, I would produce a plastic kit that can be used to build either tauric-type drones (like the T-1 or Johnny 5) or tankette-type drones (like the TALON) using the same tracked base. Legged robots should be left for the sort of true AI that is smart enough to take advantage of having a humanoid shape.

 AlexHolker wrote:
Tracks are better than legs for drones..

That really depends on the sort of terrain they're designed to handle. And their normal function... Tracks are bulklier, and less suited for, say, going up stairs or particularly rough ground.

One more rules question if I may:

A few times, you've mentioned Defensive/Reactive Fire, and given the impression that it's something everything has to consider when moving/acting. Is this going to be something similar to Infinity's AROs, where an enemy that can see you move can take a shot at you in your turn, or more of an abstract buff/debuff (eg Defensive Fire reduces your unit's accuracy/RoF ect)?

 Paradigm wrote:
One more rules question if I may:

A few times, you've mentioned Defensive/Reactive Fire, and given the impression that it's something everything has to consider when moving/acting. Is this going to be something similar to Infinity's AROs, where an enemy that can see you move can take a shot at you in your turn, or more of an abstract buff/debuff (eg Defensive Fire reduces your unit's accuracy/RoF ect)?

Nope, its incredibly simplified. You only get defensive fire if an enemy unit fires at your unit while within 6" of it (short range) or charges your unit. There are a few other special circumstances where defensive fire occurs, but it is always tied to your unit being attacked at close range or being moved 'through' (for those units that are able to push through an enemy unit).

Ah. So is it a separate shooting attack made first, or is there opposed rolling?

 AlexHolker wrote:

Tracks are better than legs for drones. If it was me, I would produce a plastic kit that can be used to build either tauric-type drones (like the T-1 or Johnny 5) or tankette-type drones (like the TALON) using the same tracked base. Legged robots should be left for the sort of true AI that is smart enough to take advantage of having a humanoid shape.

That's a cool idea.

And if the guys don't produce a sprue it's something that could be done as a conversion I imagine (rules allowing obviously)

 insaniak wrote:

 AlexHolker wrote:
Tracks are better than legs for drones..

That really depends on the sort of terrain they're designed to handle. And their normal function... Tracks are bulklier, and less suited for, say, going up stairs or particularly rough ground.

That is simply untrue. Tracked robots are perfectly capable of ascending stairs without losing traction - at worst, you would require the ability to angle the "torso" of a tauric robot to keep the center of gravity above the tracks.

I'm surprised and excited! Looking forward to this.

 AlexHolker wrote:

That is simply untrue. Tracked robots are perfectly capable of ascending stairs without losing traction - at worst, you would require the ability to angle the "torso" of a tauric robot to keep the center of gravity above the tracks.

I didn't say that they were incapable of it... just less suited for it.

@yak: very excited to hear about the way CC appears to work. We don't need another "drive me closer, I want to hit them with my sword" style game where shooting is just what you do if you are not close enough to charge yet.

Can I ask where did you guys get your inspiration from or will I Have to do that by private message?

I see alot of reference to various works but the one that jumps out to me is actually Old Man's War in some interesting way.

 Asherian Command wrote:
Can I ask where did you guys get your inspiration from or will I Have to do that by private message?

I see alot of reference to various works but the one that jumps out to me is actually Old Man's War in some interesting way.

Never ask a writer where he gets his ideas. That's just rude.

Every concept has already been done in one way or another; all that remains is finding a new take on an existing idea. Just because a concept seems familiar does not mean it was inspired by any specific story.


Besides, it was totally Peter F. Hamilton.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 judgedoug wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Voracious Maelstrom Hedge,

excuse me,
Vorpal's Maelstrom : The Edge Miniatures Game
which I wrote in 1987
and is based entirely upon playing squads of The Edge from U2 slaying Maelstrom Press music critics with his Vorpal Guitar

Another example: Judgedoug's game is clearly similar--suspiciously so--to the board game B52 Stratocaster: Operation Rolling Stone from 1977, yet you don't see me calling it a blatant rip-off, no matter how obvious it may be to everyone.

 AlexHolker wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 AlexHolker wrote:
Tracks are better than legs for drones..

That really depends on the sort of terrain they're designed to handle. And their normal function... Tracks are bulklier, and less suited for, say, going up stairs or particularly rough ground.

That is simply untrue. Tracked robots are perfectly capable of ascending stairs without losing traction - at worst, you would require the ability to angle the "torso" of a tauric robot to keep the center of gravity above the tracks.

epirian robots are mostly based on mining and terraforming related designs in which the artwork simply looks much better without tracks, clambering over big piles of rubble, destroyed buildings, etc. We tried tracks on the early iterations of our robotic design but things almost always ended up looking like Johnny 5 as you say, and would have meant locking in to a very incompatible silhouette with the rest of the range. On top of that, there is much less room to experiment with tracks than legs. I know someone will want to post links to a dozen nice, variable tracks from across the gamut of sci-fi in response to this, but designs have to be considered relative to our artist capability and budget to employ ranges of artists too, so we are also angled in our choices more towards what they can make look awesome, based on the opinions and preferences of our team and testers.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
Can I ask where did you guys get your inspiration from or will I Have to do that by private message?

I see alot of reference to various works but the one that jumps out to me is actually Old Man's War in some interesting way.

Never ask a writer where he gets his ideas. That's just rude.

Every concept has already been done in one way or another; all that remains is finding a new take on an existing idea. Just because a concept seems familiar does not mean it was inspired by any specific story.


Besides, it was totally Peter F. Hamilton.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 judgedoug wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Voracious Maelstrom Hedge,

excuse me,
Vorpal's Maelstrom : The Edge Miniatures Game
which I wrote in 1987
and is based entirely upon playing squads of The Edge from U2 slaying Maelstrom Press music critics with his Vorpal Guitar

Another example: Judgedoug's game is clearly similar--suspiciously so--to the board game B52 Stratocaster: Operation Rolling Stone from 1977, yet you don't see me calling it a blatant rip-off, no matter how obvious it may be to everyone.

It is?

Thats wierd most artists point to their inspirations of their work quite easily.

But that may be a game designer shtick. As the artists I know and the writers I know easily say "Yeah this is my inspiration."

Very excited to see this in action! I second the notion of a video bat-rep on the KS and am very interested in seeing an actual game played through.

Very excited to see the legs separate on a few of those sprues. I love it when I can reposition anything and everything on a model without busting out the razor saw or clippers. I hope you have the same kind of philosophy when it comes to the robots. I for one would welcome a higher complexity over more static poses.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Never ask a writer where he gets his ideas. That's just rude..

I don't know that I'd call it 'rude'... but it's not always an answerable question, as a lot of the time that inspiration isn't necessarily a conscious thing.


I think it was Stephen King who once answered that question in an interview by claiming that he picked up his ideas from a little store down the road...