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.

AlexHolker, I love your sketch and really think your clean style would be a boon to the campaign*, but in Epirian scale she would turn out less J-Law and more Rhea Perlman.

Which would actually be pretty awesome.


*Can you do a sketch of the Kaddar Nova that doesn't look like [I tried four times to end this sentence without hurting someone's feelings]?

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
*Can you do a sketch of the Kaddar Nova that doesn't look like [I tried four times to end this sentence without hurting someone's feelings]?

Sure, I can do that one next.

 MajorTom11 wrote:
I dunno now having looked at it in that way, it is pretty unfair in my view to pick on them for the poseability

No one was picking on anyone for the poseability of the model. I was talking about the person who assembled it with its feet facing sideways. Much like your "brave but not well executed" example, it has a great paint job, but the pose doesn't really do the model any favours.

Looking at that model, I can already see plenty of articulation and possibilities for some very nice posing. The only thing that doesn't lend itself to over the top dynamic posing is the static head, but that can be compensated for with correct weight/balance distribution considered while posing... things like which hip is higher when you are walking with your right foot forward... or how much or little your waist twists when firing a weapon, or how you brace when holding a heavy object in each hand. All the same tricks animators use to convince you a drawing has weight and mass.

Exactly! Which just goes to show the amount of artistry involved in posing a figure well: giving it weight and momentum. Appropriate that you should mention animation, which literally comes from the latin word for life/soul. That is what figures need to have. If models are assembled without that level of attention to detail, then it is little wonder that people will roll up and say that something looks "off".

I read the short story The Shipyard, as well as the novel excerpt. I would like to share what I thought of it.

I can't really say much about the novel excerpt, so I won't. The story seems interesting enough, but the pacing of the paragraphs could use some more polishing. It felt kind of monotonous. The characters sound like real people, so they should be easy to read about.


The writing in The Shipyard was noticeably less clunky. I think practice, honest feedback (i.e., not from close friends), and varied reading to absorb different styles will really improve this author's wordsmithery in the next few years. There seems to be a bit more confidence in the writing style, although still room for more exploration of technique. I can add a bit to this later, if anyone is curious. Essentially, some exposure to Strunk and White, Stephen King, David J. Schow, Annie Proulx, and so on couldn't hurt. The prose was better than some I've read some fairly prolific tie-in fiction writers' earlier works.

The characterization was good, in that I could comfortably read about Alana and become engrossed in her interactions with her bots and her internal self-justification. I liked the emotional connection she had with the drones, the way she responded to the refugee camp and the way she dismissed any moral misgivings as they began in a very human manner. Exactly the kind of protagonist I want in a little short story; someone I can care about in broad strokes without so much backstory as to crowd out the action. The drones were also very endearing. The hint of Old Dan and Little Ann dynamic between the older bots was very welcome, and I would have liked to have seen this developed a bit more.

The world building was just the right amount for a story so short, although I feel it could have been paced better to avoid clumping up some of the more emotional spots. Not sure I like how the Gnolti (Gnick Gnolti?) as they are presented. The alien seemed kind of random, and his presence was brief and singular enough that it was more distracting than enlightening. His background would have fit in better outside of the middle of an action sequence, in my opinion. Anyway, I'd love to read about a variety of places and the people who live or work in them, but I guess I'll have to wait for the novels. Love the small nuggets we got about the actual shipyard, its production capacity and how it operates. It helps sell the Epirians as a multi-planetary industrial concern and not a bunch of rent-a-cops.

Finally, I want to remark on how this works as tie-in fiction. I find that successful tie-in fiction is a very different creature to successful science fiction. The goal is completely different, so the tools and metrics are completely different. This story helped flesh out a faction I previously knew little about by showing us a bit of the daily routine of an Epirian Contractor, including her concerns and duties. The story gave a hook for action, an attempt by the Broken (and Karists?) to destroy critical Epirian infrastructure followed by the cleansing of a sympathetic refugee camp. The writing built on the strength of the universe, such as it is in this infantile state, by using backstory and the separate factions to give the character some internal conflict, giving the world a feeling like a bigger sandbox. The story did not have to establish special rules or waste time delineating how their ftl is different, simply focusing on a small slice of life. It seems like good tie in fiction will play around in an established sandbox, poke around the edges, deepen the notable spots, and explore the emotional reasons someone might want to play there in the first place, and this story managed a good bit of that considering its brevity and shallow source material.


Hopefully the next story will expand more on the different factions, what motivates them and how the characters go about their business. I really don't have a solid grasp on what Karists actually believe or why they do what they do as individuals. The Broken must have a ton of great stories and internal conflicts to explore. Also, I would love to read some great action scenes that just might inspire some modelling.

I will chime in here because why not. I used to play 40k and I used to post here but I don't anymore. In this post I will talk about ME and 40k, starting with the rules because that's really the main thing imo.

Rules
I can't wait to play ME. If the whole kickstarter was just a rulebook, I would still pay 90$ based on the sample rules, because I dig them hard. I thought I'd left wargaming behind me, but this system with its suppression mechanics, command points, skirmish scale and overall simplicity just WHISPERS TO MY SOUL. I have a feeling this is the system I'll still be using in 40 years when I'm retired and can play games all day with my poor grandkids. Why you're all arguing about "fluff" is just beyond me. Frankly it's like the ME rulebook is the second coming of christ and you're all complaining that he's got the wrong hairdo.
Things I love about the rules:
+suppression makes the game realistic and deals with the 40k problem of everything being dead bottom of T2
+reinforcements does this plus makes your small model count bigger, lets us have casualties without necessarily emptying the board
+squad leader facing turns me on
+suppression tokens will make the board look alive
+simple realistic assault
+objectives counting every turn means action from start to finish
+no superheavies, fliers or lords of war
+more things
Things I wonder about the rules:
+why not force casualties from the front?
+why aren't units chased off the board?
+will there be assault factions?

Models
My first reaction was, who cares about the models everyone will just use GW dudes anyway. I looked at them and they didn't really strike me. But they are growing on me and now I can't wait to see the karist soldiers painted black and drybrushed steel. Overall I like the models so far - I like the drones and robots, the angels someone said look like nightmare psycho fish and I agree. However, the tempests and epirians don't really do it for me. I have some hopefully constructive observations and questions on the matter.
Epirians:
- They have no pouches, backpacks, tools, anything. if they're engineers, how about some voltmeters, wrenches, shovels, toolbags, pouches? I think it would really make them look more realistic and more like ordinary guys, just evoke so much more sympathy.
- They're really wide at the shoulder, more like superheroes than engineers. I feel like they would look awesome with empire flagellant arms - sinewy, malnourished, vietnam veteran like. This too would make us feel for them.
- With the cap they're taller than the karists. I guess I'm thinking of them as guardsmen/marines, are we not to do that? why do karists then have more mass? any comment there?
+ I like the chaps
Tempests:
- Their armour is just really trying so hard. I understand they're supposed to have a crusader type vibe but layered plate became obsolete hundreds of years ago. With the hard sci-fi theme why not make them more rounded and bullet-bouncy-offy?
- There's just a lot of breaks but no colour breaks. i don't know if that makes sense, maybe they'll look better painted different
- Why not use the same karist rank models with bigger guns like a devastator squad?
+ I like the backside

Universe
Personally this doesn't matter at all to me. I can forge my own narrative and don't need ward, abnett, cruddace etc to write a backstory to my space battle or tell me where my space men are from. When people say the "fluff" for ME is "nothing special", I really don't understand how that can influence their opinion towards the tabletop wargame. Someone said it "wasn't NY Times bestseller level" - if you feel that way why not pretend your models are vampires and werewolves from twilight? : )

Honestly from what I heard so far the ME universe seems like it'll be a lot more interesting than 40k anyway. I am sick to death of super special super grim superhero space marines and hilariously stupid orks. With planets spending decades at the "edge" before possibly being destroyed or not, I'm excited to have the focus of the setting be tied to social change and disaster politics rather than pathetic lovecraftwank.

EDIT: just curious but if the karists believe the maelstrom is good, why don't they just hop right in?

Similarities to 40k
This game reminds me of wh40k and I don't see why that is a problem. Let's be real here, we all play or played 40k and we all know it's getting messier and more expensive fast. If we can all start playing something better where tactics matter more than money then why not? So what if the ME universe had an AI war? Other than perhaps worrying about GW filing IP lawsuits why does this matter to you?

edit:made easier to read

Almarine wrote:

+why not force casualties from the front?

Because realism-wise it's a silly mechanic (the closest guy isn't automatically the guy who catches the bullets) and gameplay-wise it just bogs things down with individual model micromanagement to try to manipulate casualty removal.

Casualties from the front is one of the things I dislike the most about current 40k.

EDIT: just curious but if the karists believe the maelstrom is good, why don't they just hop right in?

Part of their belief is that you have to prepare yourself spiritually for Ascension, so just throwing yourself into the Maelstrom doesn't cut it.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
AlexHolker, I love your sketch and really think your clean style would be a boon to the campaign*, but in Epirian scale she would turn out less J-Law and more Rhea Perlman.

The sketch was meant as a deliberate rejection of aspects of the first round of models that I didn't like, hence the round cap, the smaller shoulder guards and the absence of "Epirian scale".

*Can you do a sketch of the Kaddar Nova that doesn't look like [I tried four times to end this sentence without hurting someone's feelings]?

Here's the rough version of the sketch. Is this the kind of thing you were looking for?

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

I hope you and your friends will give Spiral Arm Studios your input. I think you make a lot of very important points about pointless token moving that doesn't add any decision making to the game.

It's now been a while since we read and discussed the rules, but:

Is there anything in the basic rules that allow you to decide whether or not you shake off STs at the end of the turn?
...or that would disallow you from doing so?

IIRC, the answer is no.

Therefore, automatically removing ST's just means that the game mechanics give you too many ST's to begin with.

So, if that is correct then it exposes the real issue with the game:
not only is the ST economy inflated, it is not in service to tactical choice
The only roll it seems to play is being an obstacle; and yet this is apparently the central mechanical premise.
Contrast it to Bolt Action, where a pin marker makes you consider how to spend an order die very carefully.

It seems the only reason that the ST economy is inflated is to shoehorn the ST's into the Willpower vs ST "discipline" check - IE, the illusion of elegance. An unwieldy mechanic has been introduced that involves additional paperwork so that it fits into a template that it doesn't need to fit into.
In the goal to create a single unified "Versus Roll", some rules have become overcomplex to fit that unified mechanic. The ST system is a perfect example of that.
The only way the ST's fit into that is by having so many that the double Versus Roll mechanic "works". Bolt Action works on a bell curve of two dice, so a few pins can mean a huge difference. Conversely, Medge requires less/greater/double, so a handful of ST's can mean nothing, you need two handfuls for it to mean something.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

Almarine wrote:

+why not force casualties from the front?

Because realism-wise it's a silly mechanic (the closest guy isn't automatically the guy who catches the bullets) and gameplay-wise it just bogs things down with individual model micromanagement to try to manipulate casualty removal.

This is primarily why the reason that 180 in a non-individual model-activating skirmish wargame is poor design.

Is the game a 1:1 skirmish game? Then individual targeting. If it's not, then the unit is a "cloud" - the models are not stone statues, and are actively moving and doing stuff in their area of control. This 180 business implies that the models are indeed stone statues instead of the unit acting like a 20th century and later military unit. If the rules designers want to emulate outflanking, it should not be to shoehorn the models into a regiment-based mass-combat front/side/rear, but emulate it via abstraction - additional sources of incoming fire throughout the turn, etc. I hate to keep bringing up Bolt Action, but this is where BA excels. Due to your morale check in BA being a bell curve - and each source of fire on a unit providing one pin - the unit coming under fire from multiple sources will most likely go Down and be unable to activate. A unit that has been given an order (for example, from being given an order to activate, or having gone Down from failing a morale check) is far easier to assault in a close quarters firefight.

 judgedoug wrote:

Is there anything in the basic rules that allow you to decide whether or not you shake off STs at the end of the turn?
...or that would disallow you from doing so?

IIRC, the answer is no.

Therefore, automatically removing ST's just means that the game mechanics give you too many ST's to begin with.

So, if that is correct then it exposes the real issue with the game:
not only is the ST economy inflated, it is not in service to tactical choice
The only roll it seems to play is being an obstacle; and yet this is apparently the central mechanical premise.
Contrast it to Bolt Action, where a pin marker makes you consider how to spend an order die very carefully.

It seems the only reason that the ST economy is inflated is to shoehorn the ST's into the Willpower vs ST "discipline" check - IE, the illusion of elegance. An unwieldy mechanic has been introduced that involves additional paperwork so that it fits into a template that it doesn't need to fit into.

In the goal to create a single unified "Versus Roll", some rules have become overcomplex to fit that unified mechanic. The ST system is a perfect example of that.
The only way the ST's fit into that is by having so many that the double Versus Roll mechanic "works". Bolt Action works on a bell curve of two dice, so a few pins can mean a huge difference. Conversely, Medge requires less/greater/double, so a handful of ST's can mean nothing, you need two handfuls for it to mean something.

(yakface here) First off, thanks as always for the feedback.

I'd start by saying this: I do not believe there is a holy grail of perfect game design, if there were then someone would have created the perfect game and everyone would agree that was it. In truth, every person finds certain elements more important than others in their games, and because of that, some players tend to gravitate towards the rulesets that best meet their particular desires.

IMHO, good game design is about more than a bunch of mechanics that each provide the widest array of results with the fewest amount of rolls possible. The actual process of trying to remember rules, the process of rolling dice, the process of moving models, etc, all matters, and all comes together to make a game as a total package good or bad for each individual player. So for example, I find the actual action of rolling six-sided dice to be enjoyable, much more enjoyable then say D8s, D10s and so on. Perhaps it comes from nostalgia from playing board games as a kid that used D6s, maybe it comes from enjoying playing craps in Vegas, or mabye its just the way the dice feel and roll in the hand...I really don't know, but the fact is that I would much rather deal with two separate sets of D6 rolls compared to a single D10 roll that provides roughly the same set of outcomes.

I know there will be a lot of people out there who read that, shake their head and feel like I've got it totally backwards. I totally understand their mentality and it is part of why I think it is great that there are so many different rulesets out there so that people can find the one that fits their needs/desires.

But along that same train of thought, it is important for me to have a game with as much of a unified rolling mechanic as is humanly possible. There is no question that such a thing was/is a primary goal for me. So once I recognized that as a goal it absolutely was about figuring out a way to implement that goal within the many other constrictions I had to face.

As you point out, there are many other ways you can implement a suppression system that, in isolation, would be simpler and require less individual suppression tokens to track (although do remember that we have different sized 1,3,5 & 10 STs to make it quite easy have that much suppression on a unit). Believe me, while creating the game I tried implementing many such systems. At one point, the entire ST system was a totally different type of roll using (surprise, surprise) a 2D6 roll. But a writing a game ultimately comes down to what areas you want to push the complexity into...having a more simple system of less suppression tokens meant that there was a separate type of roll in the game, which meant an added set of complexity there. Players had to either memorize how that separate type of roll was handled or had to consult a separate chart/rulebook to remember it if they forgot or were unfamiliar with the rules.

Are there times in MEdge where adding a single ST to a unit has no appreciable effect on if they were to take a discipline check immediately? Absolutely, but because the system isn't completely binary, there are lots of little shades of grey. Yeah, 1 ST added at a particular moment may not have any effect, but when the next enemy unit shoots at that some unit, that extra 1 ST may now make all the difference. So there is still always a reason to fire your last guy in a unit at the enemy, just looking to plink an extra 1 ST onto them, because you never know when that 1 ST will be the difference between a unit having no STs at all (and automatically passing their discipline checks) or having 1 ST on them (and at least needing to roll a 2+ to pass).

You clearly feel that having the complexity of different types of rolls is not a big deal and totally worth it, and I do understand and respect that perspective. Its just for me personally, I find the overall unified game design to be much more important and powerful than having a single elegant, yet fundamentally different mechanic existing within the rules. Its just a difference of opinion on what you find to be more pleasing about a game's rules.

---

Coming back to your particular question about whether a unit gets a choice to shake-off suppression or not, the answer is: kind of. Units as a baseline do automatically shake-off D3 STs at the end of their activation (not the end of the turn). However, if the unit fails their activation discipline check, then they automatically get to shake-off an additional D3 STs (so 2 D3). On top of that, depending on how many STs they have at the time and the proximity of the enemy to them, a unit that fails its activation discipline check usually has the option whether or not to pin themselves. A unit that ends its activation pinned gets to shake-off an additional D3 STs (bringing the total to 3 D3 in that case). On top of that, command models within 18" of a unit can use command points to remove STs from a unit before they take their activation discipline check.

But fundamentally, the way a unit reacts to suppression is the one area where I did not feel it was entirely appropriate to give the player too much tactical choice. This is, more or less, the morale construct of the rules that represents how the models themselves react to the battlefield situation, so it should be, IMHO, kind of out of the player's control at that particular point. However if you're just looking for a unit that passes its activation discipline check get rid of STs on its own, they can always elect to perform a 'dig-in' action, which means they'll pin themselves and then get to shake-off that additional D3 STs (so 2D3 STs total).

---

Is the game a 1:1 skirmish game? Then individual targeting. If it's not, then the unit is a "cloud" - the models are not stone statues, and are actively moving and doing stuff in their area of control. This 180 business implies that the models are indeed stone statues instead of the unit acting like a 20th century and later military unit. If the rules designers want to emulate outflanking, it should not be to shoehorn the models into a regiment-based mass-combat front/side/rear, but emulate it via abstraction - additional sources of incoming fire throughout the turn, etc. I hate to keep bringing up Bolt Action, but this is where BA excels. Due to your morale check in BA being a bell curve - and each source of fire on a unit providing one pin - the unit coming under fire from multiple sources will most likely go Down and be unable to activate. A unit that has been given an order (for example, from being given an order to activate, or having gone Down from failing a morale check) is far easier to assault in a close quarters firefight.

On this point, again from my perspective we'll just have to agree to disagree. I got a lot of inspiration from an older video game called Full Spectrum Warrior, which was originally a game made as a training tool to teach soldiers in the army about some of the basics of standard infantry tactics. The front/rear arcs for a unit are determined by its squad leader, representing the area he is ordering the unit to focus their attention on. That also is the direction that they will make every effort to take cover against. That does not mean for a second that the models in the unit don't count as being able to look around themselves or count as being exactly where they are on the table. In fact, a unit in MEdge is able to fire 360 degrees around themselves, its just if the target is entirely in their rear arc, then that firing is wild (needs 6s to hit), as the unit is reacting to enemy firing at them from a direction they are not focused on.

The idea of unit facing is absolutely an abstraction used to help represent that a unit does have to focus on a general area to cover and it is totally possible to get around the flank of that unit and fire at them from a direction that puts them in dire straights.

Almarine wrote:
Things I wonder about the rules:
+why not force casualties from the front?

Its really a big decision on whether to have casualties to come from the direction of the shooting like 40k 6th/7th edition currently does or whether to allow the owning player (for the most part) to pick their casualties amongst the unit (which is how 40k 3rd-6th edition worked), as that decision will ultimately have a major impact on the way a variety of other mechanics in the game function.

To me, the basic abstraction of: 'imagine one model running over to take the spot (and special weapons and equipment) of another model in the unit that falls' is something that has always worked for me in my head and seemed 'right' since I first encountered it back in 3rd edition 40k. It doesn't make sense to me that you always automatically lose your squad's special weapon because the enemy is firing from the side where that special weapon guy is located. In the movies, most times another guy in the unit runs over and picks up that weapon, and if your mind can wrap around that happening, then it makes sense that you're pulling the guy off that is 'running over' as the casualty and leaving the other guy.

Sure you can build in mechanics like 40k's current 'look out sir' to allow for directional casualties while still allowing specialty models to survive, but I just don't see the real need...if you already have a mechanic in place to reward players for outflanking (as MEdge does), then you don't need to bother with all the crazy complexity involved with rolling individual cover saves, etc, that the current edition of 40k bothers with.

Besides, once you remove that mechanic, players don't have to worry specifically about where models are within the unit, which is another thing that has always annoyed me when I have to pay attention to. In MEdge, range is always measured (for the entire unit) from the closest point of the closest model's base, even if that model is out of line of sight...nice and simple and always the same. Line of sight is always only checked from the squad leader (again, nice easy and simple). So the only real reasons you need to worry about the individual placement of the models within the unit besides the squad leader are:

• To keep the unit within coherency (within 3" of the squad leader).
• To keep half of them in/out of cover in order to keep the unit in/out of cover.
• To keep the unit bunched up or not. Being bunched up naturally makes them vulnerable to blasts, but unsurprisingly makes it easier to fit more models behind/in smaller pieces of cover.
• To keep the squad in general within range of something (again, always measured from the closest model to the thing you're measuring to).

In my playtesting I found this to feel like enough reasons that the individual models don't feel completely unnecessary to the game, while at the same time not making their presence a burden to resolving squad-based gameplay.

+why aren't units chased off the board?

Having units that leave the edge of the table just being gone is a strange abstraction based on that arbitrary edge of the table. In reality, whether a unit was 10 or 20 feet further away from the battle wouldn't suddenly change how they feel about participating in the battle. If an objective happens to be located near a table edge, then why should that suddenly make it more risky for one side to try to defend it (because any retreat move they have to make will end up taking them off the table)?

To me, having units have to flee a certain distance away from the enemy is a much better mechanic because it doesn't rely on that arbitrary line in the sand (the board edge). Instead, the rules really reward units that are forced to retreat to get into cover, so it ultimately plays out the way you'd expect in most cases (the retreating units will try to get to a piece of cover as long as it isn't within 12" of an enemy). On top of that, you are always allowed to destroy a unit in the end phase of any turn if they are too suppressed, for example, thereby allowing you to potentially bring them back as a reinforcement. This represents essentially the same concept (units fleeing off the table), but again is not explicitly bound to that arbitrary table edge limitation.

+will there be assault factions?

I cannot say for certain what the future holds, but none of the factions we have planned so far are what you would consider an assault-based faction (something like most people imagine Tyranids should play, despite the fact that they've actually been pretty darn shooty for quite some time).

The core rules are based around suppression, so to have a pure assault-based army would definitely be a bit of a challenge, although there are plenty of ways I can imagine off the top of my head to still make it fun, so maybe someday if things go great, who knows?

EDIT: just curious but if the karists believe the maelstrom is good, why don't they just hop right in?

That is a great question! The Karists believe that the Maelstrom is a way for humanity as a whole to ascend to its rightful place and that it is their duty to spread that word to the rest of the galaxy because only people that prepare their minds and bodies will be judged worthy by the Maelstrom and successfully ascend. But beyond that, every single Karist is an individual who has their own level of belief and faith in the cause. It is a whole lot easier to get people to join your cause if your beliefs include the possibility of still ascending even when you die outside of the Maelstrom. Therefore most Karists believe when the Maelstrom takes your remains, if you were committed and prepared when you died outside the Maelstrom, then you still have a good chance of ascension.

So spreading the good word that humanity should not destroy itself in the face of the Maelstrom but instead accept it and embrace its judgement is the primary driving motivator of the Karists, not just to get themselves into the Maelstrom as quickly as possible.

 Spiral Arm Studios wrote:
On this point, again from my perspective we'll just have to agree to disagree. I got a lot of inspiration from an older video game called Full Spectrum Warrior, which was originally a game made as a training tool to teach soldiers in the army about some of the basics of standard infantry tactics. The front/rear arcs for a unit are determined by its squad leader, representing the area he is ordering the unit to focus their attention on. That also is the direction that they will make every effort to take cover against. That does not mean for a second that the models in the unit don't count as being able to look around themselves or count as being exactly where they are on the table. In fact, a unit in MEdge is able to fire 360 degrees around themselves, its just if the target is entirely in their rear arc, then that firing is wild (needs 6s to hit), as the unit is reacting to enemy firing at them from a direction they are not focused on.The idea of unit facing is absolutely an abstraction used to help represent that a unit does have to focus on a general area to cover and it is totally possible to get around the flank of that unit and fire at them from a direction that puts them in dire straights.

Are you saying that you feel this mechanic is realistic to actual warfare? or that you based it on a video game you liked?

 DrNo172000 wrote:
Are you saying that you feel this mechanic is realistic to actual warfare? or that you based it on a video game you liked?

Whoops, sorry about that. I did kind of throw that reference in without finishing why it was relevant. Let me expand a bit:

Full Spectrum Warrior specifically chose to use abstraction not usually found in most video games to force the people playing (originally army soldiers) to learn the basic strategies of squad combat. The game gives you control of at least two fire teams. While you can directly control individual models within the unit, if you're firing at an enemy that is taking cover from the front, you can never ever kill those enemies. While this is obviously not realistic, it forced you to use one fire team to 'pin' that unit behind the cover while you send your second fire team around the flank to kill them.

Since playing that game I've often wondered: Since miniature wargames are already stuck using a bunch of abstractions (just by the nature of moving models around a table, rolling dice to represent shooting, etc.), I wondered why they don't just make things more abstract in certain areas to really enforce some of these basic squad tactics.

When originally designing MEdge, at first I tried to take this concept to the extreme and make it essentially impossible to kill a unit from the front and absolutely force another unit to flank them to kill them, but I did find that it was a bit too punishing for most players to deal with (people like to kill stuff, naturally). Over time and testing, I believe we've found a happy medium that still rewards the basic concepts of suppressing a unit and outflanking them, while at the same time not being completely a slave to it at the cost of having something that is mainly unfun to play.

 AlexHolker wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
AlexHolker, I love your sketch and really think your clean style would be a boon to the campaign*, but in Epirian scale she would turn out less J-Law and more Rhea Perlman.

The sketch was meant as a deliberate rejection of aspects of the first round of models that I didn't like, hence the round cap, the smaller shoulder guards and the absence of "Epirian scale".

I did notice that. But I think we can both agree that the concept art was drawn to a different 'scale' than the miniatures.

*Can you do a sketch of the Kaddar Nova that doesn't look like [I tried four times to end this sentence without hurting someone's feelings]?

Here's the rough version of the sketch. Is this the kind of thing you were looking for?

I like it. The neutral pose allows me to take in the Nova's overall aesthetic, and I like it. The breast plate and cowl/headdress are ostentatiously regal. He reminds me of the Ori space-pope from Stargate. I also notice the gauntlet and wires more when I'm not distracted by the picture, which makes me interested in the posing and modelling possibilities for the eventual minis. Great work. Thanks for making it!

 Spiral Arm Studios wrote:

That is a great question! The Karists believe that the Maelstrom is a way for humanity as a whole to ascend to its rightful place and that it is their duty to spread that word to the rest of the galaxy because only people that prepare their minds and bodies will be judged worthy by the Maelstrom and successfully ascend. But beyond that, every single Karist is an individual who has their own level of belief and faith in the cause. It is a whole lot easier to get people to join your cause if your beliefs include the possibility of still ascending even when you die outside of the Maelstrom. Therefore most Karists believe when the Maelstrom takes your remains, if you were committed and prepared when you died outside the Maelstrom, then you still have a good chance of ascension.

So spreading the good word that humanity should not destroy itself in the face of the Maelstrom but instead accept it and embrace its judgement is the primary driving motivator of the Karists, not just to get themselves into the Maelstrom as quickly as possible.

OK but real life evangelists convert people out of concern for their souls. If you kill someone they don't really have time to prepare their minds and bodies as it were. It just sounds like there must be something more to it or why would the karists go out of their way with this? Are we supposed to question their motives?

edit: and, when do we get to see the kaddar nova model?

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I did notice that. But I think we can both agree that the concept art was drawn to a different 'scale' than the miniatures.

Yes, we can. But the Epirian scale needs to go anyway or else the overly broad shoulders (an exaggeration of a masculine trait) are going to ruin things.

I like it. The neutral pose allows me to take in the Nova's overall aesthetic, and I like it. The breast plate and cowl/headdress are ostentatiously regal. He reminds me of the Ori space-pope from Stargate. I also notice the gauntlet and wires more when I'm not distracted by the picture, which makes me interested in the posing and modelling possibilities for the eventual minis. Great work. Thanks for making it!

You're welcome. I was wondering while I was drawing it whether the Nova's facial injuries - presumably due to exposure to the reactor on his back - were part of the problem you had with the official picture. But I'm glad you found my sketch helpful either way.

Running game play demos at Gen Con is my completely self serving suggestion.

Almarine wrote:

 Spiral Arm Studios wrote:

That is a great question! The Karists believe that the Maelstrom is a way for humanity as a whole to ascend to its rightful place and that it is their duty to spread that word to the rest of the galaxy because only people that prepare their minds and bodies will be judged worthy by the Maelstrom and successfully ascend. But beyond that, every single Karist is an individual who has their own level of belief and faith in the cause. It is a whole lot easier to get people to join your cause if your beliefs include the possibility of still ascending even when you die outside of the Maelstrom. Therefore most Karists believe when the Maelstrom takes your remains, if you were committed and prepared when you died outside the Maelstrom, then you still have a good chance of ascension.

So spreading the good word that humanity should not destroy itself in the face of the Maelstrom but instead accept it and embrace its judgement is the primary driving motivator of the Karists, not just to get themselves into the Maelstrom as quickly as possible.

OK but real life evangelists convert people out of concern for their souls. If you kill someone they don't really have time to prepare their minds and bodies as it were. It just sounds like there must be something more to it or why would the karists go out of their way with this? Are we supposed to question their motives?

I'm pretty sure the answer to question "Are they right about what the Maelstrom is?" is "If we told you the answer, that would ruin the surprise."

But why would you ever need to question someone's religious motivations? You can just flat out conclude that not everyone in a religious organization believes what they're doing; and that some of the people in the organization believe what they're doing is right without question.

"Real life evangelists convert people out of concern for their souls." I think you're forgetting that the different people in a religious community do different things, and have different approaches to accomplishing those goals.

Imagine that you and your friends have either military or paramilitary experience. Maybe even just grew up hunting so you know how to use rifles and such. Now imagine that you find out about a bunch of misguided people that are going to go blow up an important religious site. It doesn't sound like they're willing to listen to reason, and they sound pretty dead set on blowing the thing up. At a certain point, it's realistic to get your friends together, and go defend that religious site from the people that are trying to destroy it.

Sure, you're probably going to try to talk the other side out of violence, if you have a chance. But how likely is that to happen?

Then you can consider the person who decides that they don't want to wait until they die to go to heaven, and convinces a bunch of other people to help them go accelerate the process. Because people who believe in something can still be selfish and imperfect, and want something for themselves more than for the other people that don't deserve it.

Then you get to start asking "Does the evangelist believe in what they're saying, or just enjoy the feeling of convincing other people to follow and support them?" Or "Why do people come together in groups with other people who share their same beliefs? Is there some sort of community bonding and reinforcement going on?"

 Spiral Arm Studios wrote:
But along that same train of thought, it is important for me to have a game with as much of a unified rolling mechanic as is humanly possible. There is no question that such a thing was/is a primary goal for me. So once I recognized that as a goal it absolutely was about figuring out a way to implement that goal within the many other constrictions I had to face.

As you point out, there are many other ways you can implement a suppression system that, in isolation, would be simpler and require less individual suppression tokens to track (although do remember that we have different sized 1,3,5 & 10 STs to make it quite easy have that much suppression on a unit). Believe me, while creating the game I tried implementing many such systems. At one point, the entire ST system was a totally different type of roll using (surprise, surprise) a 2D6 roll. But a writing a game ultimately comes down to what areas you want to push the complexity into...having a more simple system of less suppression tokens meant that there was a separate type of roll in the game, which meant an added set of complexity there. Players had to either memorize how that separate type of roll was handled or had to consult a separate chart/rulebook to remember it if they forgot or were unfamiliar with the rules.

I understand your desire with a Unified Mechanic is to reduce complexity; however, the rules themselves do not reflect the reduction in complexity:

 Spiral Arm Studios wrote:

* Units as a baseline do automatically shake-off D3 STs at the end of their activation (not the end of the turn).
* However, if the unit fails their activation discipline check, then they automatically get to shake-off an additional D3 STs (so 2 D3).
* On top of that, depending on how many STs they have at the time and the proximity of the enemy to them, a unit that fails its activation discipline check usually has the option whether or not to pin themselves.
* A unit that ends its activation pinned gets to shake-off an additional D3 STs (bringing the total to 3 D3 in that case). On top of that, command models within 18" of a unit can use command points to remove STs from a unit before they take their activation discipline check.

Players now have to memorize these additional rules on top of the Unified Mechanic.

But, as you've stated:

 Spiral Arm Studios wrote:
I find the overall unified game design to be much more important and powerful than having a single elegant, yet fundamentally different mechanic existing within the rules. Its just a difference of opinion on what you find to be more pleasing about a game's rules.

Your overriding rules concern is that a unified mechanic is more important than rules elegance.

The primary design decision was a unified mechanic, and the rest of the system appears to have been shoehorned into the mechanic at the expense of elegance.
The ST system is the primary offender of this - the only reason there are so many ST's in play is because they _must_ fit into the Versus roll - less than, equal to, greater than, double.
Because of that design decision, it is now necessary to pack on ST's at a high rate (and therefore have ST's in denominations of 1, 3, 5, 10), and removed many of them throughout a unit's turn (necessitating the several rules listed above in regards to removing them)

 Spiral Arm Studios wrote:
I got a lot of inspiration from an older video game called Full Spectrum Warrior, which was originally a game made as a training tool to teach soldiers in the army about some of the basics of standard infantry tactics. The front/rear arcs for a unit are determined by its squad leader, representing the area he is ordering the unit to focus their attention on. That also is the direction that they will make every effort to take cover against. That does not mean for a second that the models in the unit don't count as being able to look around themselves or count as being exactly where they are on the table. In fact, a unit in MEdge is able to fire 360 degrees around themselves, its just if the target is entirely in their rear arc, then that firing is wild (needs 6s to hit), as the unit is reacting to enemy firing at them from a direction they are not focused on.

That's not how modern unit tactics works. Flanking a modern military unit means attacking them from a direction that they do not have cover. All members of a modern squad are able to competently fight from any direction, due to training. As you said, the front is the direction that they will make effort to take cover against because that is the direction they are moving towards and experiencing fire from. Changing unit facing and formation can be accomplished in heartbeat.

I asked my buddy who has 6 years of combat:
"in reality we do have a frontage based on the formation in use, but that formation can be rapidly changed to a situation. To include a frontage in a mini game is beyond micro management.
Holy feth when we took rounds in Fallujah it was at the rear of the squad behind the squad leader.
Our reaction was swift and not wild, because we we're in a tac column and it maximizes firepower to the flank which is where we took fire from. Rear right flank.
In a mini game I would hope that complex squad maneuvers are abstracted."

This is why I believe enforcing a 180 degree fixed arc forces the unit/models to effectively act as stone statues.

 Spiral Arm Studios wrote:
The idea of unit facing is absolutely an abstraction used to help represent that a unit does have to focus on a general area to cover and it is totally possible to get around the flank of that unit and fire at them from a direction that puts them in dire straights.

Which could simply be accomplished by making cover incredibly effective at stopping rounds (such as in real life) whereas a unit that is actually "flanked" is merely fired at from a direction they have no cover (read: attacking an enemy formation where it would be most disadvantageous for them.) This is the basic concept of fire elements and maneuver elements.

This leads into the next aspect of Medge I disagree with - close quarters assaulting is not nearly deadly enough.

Medge Rules PDF wrote:This makes charging a risky, but valuable tool for pushing enemy units off objectives, out of cover, etc.

In modern combat, most casualties occur in close combat. Squad fire support elements (light machine guns and SAWs) suppress an enemy until another unit can properly assault and slay bodies in very, very short range - at a range where there's no effective cover.

This is the very vital point where Medge could connect these two aspects:
Instead of having an awkward 180 degree frontal arc, continue with the unit abstraction. Make a proponderance of ST's somehow make you easier to be slaughtered in close quarters.
Now you have the simulation of Full Spectrum Warrior that you desire - One fire element pours ST's onto a target unit, the second one maneuvers and initiates a close quarters assault.
This is because, in real combat, being pinned means you can't accurately engage the enemy maneuvering on you.

This also assumes that, again, models are not stone statues, their cloud positioning is not absolute, and you have disregarded the fists-and-swords style fantasy close combat of 40k and adopted the close-quarters firefight of most other non-fantasy wargames (assuming the "hard sci fi" aspect still applies)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It is interested to see new ways that different game systems invent to tackle the question of morale mechanics. Some systems attempt to emulate real world pinning and reactions of infantry, others, like 40k or Warmachine, do no such thing.

I do like that the concept of it in Medge it is a matter of accumulating suppression tokens for various detrimental effects, creating compulsory actions that could involve friendly fire and retreating.

Bolt Action handles it in a different way, as independently sourced fire will cause pinning, forcing tactical decisions on when to assign order dice to activate a unit, as successful activation will reduce pinning. Failing to activate due to pinning will force the units Down, etc.

However, my absolute favorite personal morale system was one that excised it completely.

Starship Troopers, by Andy Chambers, dealt with the question morale by leaving it entirely up to the player. The system was so refined that it absolutely punished your mistakes. The morale of your models was handled entirely by you. I have never experienced fear in a game until I was playing SST, and that fear translated into protecting your models by voluntarily retreating them, or by you making mistakes that would doom them. That was a beautifully elegant way to handle morale.

Most small special case rules are memorized just fine through play.

They'll sometimes be missed, but it's not a deal breaker, and usually the opponent reminds you. Break tests or similar checks, for example, in many games are a special case that you have to look for.

Whether a game has morale effects or not is not an issue of better or worse. SST didn't have a morale system because it was the type of game that didn't need one. Maelstrom's Edge has a suppression system because the designer thought it needed one.

A see this long back and forth between you two right now more as a matter of preference, rather than superiority of systems, or adherence to realism.

 judgedoug wrote:

That's not how modern unit tactics works. Flanking a modern military unit means attacking them from a direction that they do not have cover. All members of a modern squad are able to competently fight from any direction, due to training. As you said, the front is the direction that they will make effort to take cover against because that is the direction they are moving towards and experiencing fire from. Changing unit facing and formation can be accomplished in heartbeat.

I asked my buddy who has 6 years of combat:
"in reality we do have a frontage based on the formation in use, but that formation can be rapidly changed to a situation. To include a frontage in a mini game is beyond micro management.
Holy feth when we took rounds in Fallujah it was at the rear of the squad behind the squad leader.
Our reaction was swift and not wild, because we we're in a tac column and it maximizes firepower to the flank which is where we took fire from. Rear right flank.
In a mini game I would hope that complex squad maneuvers are abstracted."

This is why I believe enforcing a 180 degree fixed arc forces the unit/models to effectively act as stone statues.

One quick correction there JudgeDoug, when I said that maneuvering on a unit where they did not have cover is what modern flanking is, I meant it more as a simplification. Enveloping a unit is more or less about fixing a unit in place and then attacking them with a maneuver element in a position that is more advantageous for you. That's essentially what that video game was trying to teach. The take away should be the necessity of fixing a unit in place not that a unit has an assigned sector of fire that somehow makes them unaware of their surroundings and makes them upon changing that sector of fire shoot wildly. Only terribly trained units like Iraqi Army would have that problem.

 judgedoug wrote:

However, my absolute favorite personal morale system was one that excised it completely.

Starship Troopers, by Andy Chambers, dealt with the question morale by leaving it entirely up to the player. The system was so refined that it absolutely punished your mistakes. The morale of your models was handled entirely by you. I have never experienced fear in a game until I was playing SST, and that fear translated into protecting your models by voluntarily retreating them, or by you making mistakes that would doom them. That was a beautifully elegant way to handle morale.

Interestingly, having an ongoing campaign tends to produce similar effects. That is, if your casualties in a game have an impact beyond the scope of the present game, there is an incentive to preserve your units. That said, stimulating emotional attachment to models/units is also a great way to encourage voluntary 'morale', and tracking the development/progress of a model/unit/character is helpful towards engendering that emotional investment. Pair that with a reasonably brutal/deadly system and you get more emotional reactions during gameplay.

It depends on what kind of gameplay experience you are looking to produce though. Compulsory morale certainly has a place in many game systems, even ones where morale is for the most part voluntary. I personally like morale to be a thing that is specifically done to a model/unit/player, as opposed to a situation that occurs when various factors converge. The wizard casts a spell, the GM decides the players are outgunned/overwhelmed, etc.

 Vertrucio wrote:
Most small special case rules are memorized just fine through play.

Which is precisely my point that when one decides on a Unified Mechanic, while it may seem simple, you often have to break elegance in order for all cases to be channeled through it.

 Vertrucio wrote:
Whether a game has morale effects or not is not an issue of better or worse. SST didn't have a morale system because it was the type of game that didn't need one. Maelstrom's Edge has a suppression system because the designer thought it needed one.

My point was not to say SST was superior, merely that pointing out how elegance can work. By designing the system to be brutal to mistakes (less luck involved, more skill), there was no need for a morale system. A system can be designed to be forgiving of mitakes (less skill involved) but then will need more of an element of luck to create tactical uncertainty. Certainly one style is not superior than the other, as it depends on what the objective of the rules engine is.

 Vertrucio wrote:
A see this long back and forth between you two right now more as a matter of preference, rather than superiority of systems, or adherence to realism.

I disagree.

This discussion is one about good and bad game design, not merely "it's just about personal taste". That would be a different topic. It is possible to like poorly designed games; it is also possible to dislike games that are well designed. That is a matter of taste.

What I see is a system that is hailed as a "next gen, fluid" system (buzzwords) but appears to have been designed as merely to be "better than 40k".
However, countless other systems have been designed already that are "better than 40k", and have avoiding the pitfalls that Medge appears to be stepping into.
Medge may be "40k + 1" but a thorough examination of other miniatures games rules (of which there are many, excellent rulesets by many small publishers) would reveal that there are already other systems written that do what Medge wants to do with less paperwork and complications.
Being "40k + 1" may make it ahead of 40k, but when other systems are "40k + 2" or greater, it puts it generations behind.

I think, at it's core, Medge has some good intentions and the seed of good design. However, I think there are some bad design choices that have been made beyond the core "seed".

Let me clarify:

Flanking in the sense I am talking about is just using one element to maneuver into close combat while another element pins the target. None of that requires facing. All you need to have flanking in a game is a mechanic where one element keeps the target from moving while another element moves in. The most basic mechanic would be cover. Because as a mechanic, cover protects you from incoming fire. So you have a tough choice under fire between moving out of that protection or being pinned down - and of course moving out of protection makes you vulnerable to death. But cover is obviously not the only mechanic that can allow flanking - suppression is another one - suppressing a unit that does not have cover. A pinned unit in the open is going to get molested by HE - Heavy molesting.

Thing is, MEdge does not use its suppression mechanic to add flanking into the game.

It has another mechanic, squad facing - that creates flanks: attacking a unit from behind its 180 degree facing is flanking in MEdge. So it's a basic misunderstanding of what flanking is.
In MEdge, you could "flank" a unit that you have not suppressed, pinned, forced into cover, etc, etc.

The unit facing thing could be taken out. What would be lost? (not a rhetorical question)

Essentially in real life you have two options to unpin yourself. Move or return a heavier volume of fire. Because pinning is about accomplishing two things: Fixing a enemy in place and reducing their ability to return fire.
Medge actually is the opposite; you are rewarded by becoming more pinned: "Units as a baseline do automatically shake-off D3 STs at the end of their activation (not the end of the turn). However, if the unit fails their activation discipline check, then they automatically get to shake-off an additional D3 STs (so 2 D3). On top of that, depending on how many STs they have at the time and the proximity of the enemy to them, a unit that fails its activation discipline check usually has the option whether or not to pin themselves. A unit that ends its activation pinned gets to shake-off an additional D3 STs (bringing the total to 3 D3 in that case)."

So instead of making a gameplay decision, you just wait for the steps of the game to go on.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DrNo172000 wrote:
That's essentially what that video game was trying to teach. The take away should be the necessity of fixing a unit in place not that a unit has an assigned sector of fire that somehow makes them unaware of their surroundings and makes them upon changing that sector of fire shoot wildly.

I agree. The importance of having Fire element pinning while Maneuver element outflanks (attacking an enemy formation where it would be most disadvantageous for them); NOT that the Target unit has an artificial 180 degree arc.

In MEdge, firing from an enemy's rear arc does exactly two things:

1) It reduces their cover value by 1 (they remove one less hit than normal).
2) If the unit has front/rear Armor Value (only big models tend to have that), you user their rear AV.

#1 is necessary concept to employ IMHO because of the abstraction of area terrain needed for in miniature games. But be aware that there is a rule in place where if the unit is taking cover behind actual obstacles (solid-type terrain) then you can completely deny them cover by getting to a position where you can completely see the models (the actual rule is obviously more precise).

So a unit in area terrain that is being fired at from behind still gets the benefit of being a fleeting target (doubling their EVS characteristic when fired on) and still will get to ignore 1 hit (assuming it is standard terrain with a cover value of 2 to start with).


Being pinned has one positive element:

1) The unit has +1 added to its cover value, or counts as being in area terrain with a cover value of 1 if not in any actual cover.


But it has two negative elements for being pinned as well:

1) It can only fire at the closest enemy unit (even if that unit is behind it and therefore it is wild fire).
2) The result needed for the unit to pass a defensive fire discipline check is one worse than normal (so if it normally needed a 3+, it is raised to a 4+ while pinned).


So when you combine those two things you see:

You do get a bonus for getting behind a unit, but it is not absolutely critical. Also, pinning a unit does give them protection, but leaves them vulnerable to being attacked at short range or in a close quarters firefight (as their chance of firing defensively well is lessened).

And one final piece to the puzzle is that if a unit is performing a 'Hold & Fire' action (where it doesn't move at all), then it can either perform Focused Fire (where its chances to hit are improved) or Suppression Fire. The latter provides a little extra suppression, but the real interesting thing is that the unit being fired at has to take a discipline check after the round of shooting and if it fails, it has to turn to face the firing the unit. This can be used by canny players to get a unit to focus on them (represented by turning to face them) to allow another unit to more easily attack them from their rear arc.


Ultimately if you see MEdge's rules as being deeply flawed or just 40k+1, that is certainly your right to do so. Could we have just tried to use another game system for our rules? Probably (licensing agreements aside), but I've always had a number of elements that I thought would be awesome, and while I have tremendous love and respect for a number of game systems (especially SST and Dust Warfare), they didn't accomplish the goals that I was looking for specifically, nor did I just want to copy another system outright, change the paintjob and call it mine.

I did my best to incorporate all the elements that I think would make a good hardcore squad-based miniature game on a small scale, and I do believe that once it is played and you see all the elements working together it doesn't really feel like 40K at all, but again that's just my personal opinion, which is obviously totally biased. I obviously tried my best and if you think my best sucks, while I certainly I wish I could have made something that speaks to you (and everyone), at the end of the day as someone creating something you just have to make something you think is fun and trust the feedback you get from people around you that you trust.

I certainly have been keeping an eye on Dakka and other forums for the last few years reading what people were looking for in a smaller squad-based ruleset (which people actually do talk about) and I tried to take to heart as much as I could. But utimately I don't think you can design a game completely using public feedback as there are just too many people who want too many different things that it soon becomes mired in the 'too many cooks' syndrome. You do have to trust your gut and hope your core decisions resonate well with most people that try it (and of course, have a public beta at the end for final tweaks and catching the really nasty little loopholes you can't spot being so close to it).

 judgedoug wrote:

 Vertrucio wrote:
A see this long back and forth between you two right now more as a matter of preference, rather than superiority of systems, or adherence to realism.

I disagree.

This discussion is one about good and bad game design, not merely "it's just about personal taste". That would be a different topic. It is possible to like poorly designed games; it is also possible to dislike games that are well designed. That is a matter of taste.

Again, you are equating what is good or bad to you, as good or bad for everyone. The two are not the same.

It's also deceptively difficult to tell what is generally a bad game, or bad mechanic, until you get it on the table and start testing it as a whole. I've literally wasted years of development time on rules and rules sets that went nowhere once I started trying them out.

It's clear that to you, this one mechanic is such an offense that you're willing to hold a several page long argument on an internet forum, and delve into line by line quoting.

But so many others, it's something they'll just try, and if they don't like, they won't buy.

It's at this point where you should probably step back, not because I think you're entirely wrong, but I do think you've hit the point where you're in the stereotypical "internet argument" mode.

Moreover, the rules are set, and are releasing soon. And there were the product of a lot of behind the scenes playtesting too. One does not spend the $20K to $50K USD to make steel plastic injection molds just to release an untested rules set.

 Vertrucio wrote:
One does not spend the $20K to $50K USD to make steel plastic injection molds just to release an untested rules set.

You must have never had the fortune of touching the first incarnation of Myth.

 Vertrucio wrote:
It's also deceptively difficult to tell what is generally a bad game, or bad mechanic, until you get it on the table and start testing it as a whole. I've literally wasted years of development time on rules and rules sets that went nowhere once I started trying them out.

Just want to say this is very true, almost 90% of the time. There are so many mechanics and rules that sound great in concept and on paper but until you actually play, it ends up being a completely different experience. If you were to isolate one rule/mechanic by itself possibly but usually it is affected by multiple rules that create a flow. Theory-crafting can get you so far, even basing experiences of a 'similar' mechanic can only go so far as theory-crafting because it doesn't take in account the whole set of rules together.

I've sat in and participated in dozens of play tests and even reskinned remakes where they've made slight alterations. The game designer feels like it is great, even has a lot of fun playing it but when it gets to a larger audience there is a bigger disparity. That is mostly because "good" and "bad" are subjective to the person and is effected by personal taste.

 Vertrucio wrote:
Moreover, the rules are set, and are releasing soon. And there were the product of a lot of behind the scenes playtesting too. One does not spend the $20K to $50K USD to make steel plastic injection molds just to release an untested rules set.

To be fair (I'm a devils advocate ^_^ ) there are quite a few KS that do just that. It isn't so much that it was untested, it was tested in a semi-controlled environment. It isn't necessarily a bad thing but issues don't tend to become discovered until it is released into a larger audience that has people who try to break the rules, seen and played by people who aren't necessarily the target market (assuming WH40K skirmish), etc. The best tests are to send to gamers, who aren't necessarily miniature wargamers and not give them any information; Can they play it just by reading the rules without any help? Did they have fun despite not being their main thing? What did they like or didn't like from it?

Too often companies and new game developers tend to spend a lot of testing with select test groups which provides slightly skewed or biased information. It isn't necessarily a bad thing per say as they tend to be the target group, but just saying just because rules are tested doesn't necessarily make them not flawed.

I'm a more of wait and try it person, not sure if I'll like the system or not. From what I have seen of the rules so far it isn't my cup of tea. I do like the Hunter bots and the terrain sprue, but other than that .. the main reason I'm backing is to support Dakka. I also tend to like to support new developments like this as opposed to simply looking for the latest Mantic/CMoN style KS to make money.

 Spiral Arm Studios wrote:
#1 is necessary concept to employ IMHO because of the abstraction of area terrain needed for in miniature games. But be aware that there is a rule in place where if the unit is taking cover behind actual obstacles (solid-type terrain) then you can completely deny them cover by getting to a position where you can completely see the models (the actual rule is obviously more precise).

I'm actually intrigued for you to expand upon this. Medge is a system where only the Leader's positioning matters - would it not make most sense, in keeping the idea of that Leader being the Absolute Point for measuring, facing, etc, that the terrain the Leader occupies will be what the unit has? In which case it's very easy to define types of cover when a single model is the representation of the unit.

That brings me around to another question. I don't understand the constants of cover in Medge? Can you expand on the design process for cover removing a set number of hits? I thought that was odd, that a 1-man unit and a 10-man unit would benefit exactly the same way (removing 2 hits) due to cover.

 Spiral Arm Studios wrote:
And one final piece to the puzzle is that if a unit is performing a 'Hold & Fire' action (where it doesn't move at all), then it can either perform Focused Fire (where its chances to hit are improved) or Suppression Fire. The latter provides a little extra suppression, but the real interesting thing is that the unit being fired at has to take a discipline check after the round of shooting and if it fails, it has to turn to face the firing the unit. This can be used by canny players to get a unit to focus on them (represented by turning to face them) to allow another unit to more easily attack them from their rear arc.

See, this is interesting to me. Suppression Fire exists to add more ST's to the ST-system and exists as a mechanic counterpoint to a mechanic that doesn't need to exist (unit facing). As stated, firing in a unit's rear are only does two things: 1) It reduces their cover value by 1 (they remove one less hit than normal), 2) If the unit has front/rear Armor Value (only big models tend to have that), you user their rear AV (mostly not applicable to infantry, the core of the game system). This entire mini-game of game mechanics would be rendered unnecessary, if, for instance, there was one type of normal shooting that did either damage OR suppression based on the unit being in cover or not. This would emphasize the Fire aspect of the Full Spectrum Warrior Fire and Maneuver system you are emulating, while simply making it very awful (read: easy to be killed) when engaged in close quarter combat while you are suppressed; that would be the Maneuver element.

 Spiral Arm Studios wrote:
Ultimately if you see MEdge's rules as being deeply flawed or just 40k+1, that is certainly your right to do so. Could we have just tried to use another game system for our rules? Probably (licensing agreements aside), but I've always had a number of elements that I thought would be awesome, and while I have tremendous love and respect for a number of game systems (especially SST and Dust Warfare), they didn't accomplish the goals that I was looking for specifically, nor did I just want to copy another system outright, change the paintjob and call it mine.

That accusation or argument has not been made. Medge is obviously unique - I don't believe it's core mechanic exists in any other game, to my knowledge, and bears a similarity to Rackham's AT-43 and Confrontation Age of the Ragnarok core dice mechanic, but again, only a passing resemblance. I do like it's core mechanic, just not some of the design implementations and sacrifices to elegance that have been made for the sake of unified mechanic.

 Spiral Arm Studios wrote:
I certainly have been keeping an eye on Dakka and other forums for the last few years reading what people were looking for in a smaller squad-based ruleset (which people actually do talk about) and I tried to take to heart as much as I could. But utimately I don't think you can design a game completely using public feedback as there are just too many people who want too many different things that it soon becomes mired in the 'too many cooks' syndrome.

Which roughly translates to "I made the game I like and sorry if you don't like it". Which is understandable, but I only began talking about the rules because the implication was that you guys were asking for people to read and respond about the rules. If every discussion of the rules will end in this fashion, then clearly every decision has already been made and the desire for feedback is at least marginally disingenuous.

Let me re-iterate. I think the core mechanic is a good idea. I was hoping the ruleset was not so far along is to be immutable. I still feel it's possible for a system to have both a unified mechanic and be elegant.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vertrucio wrote:
It's clear that to you, this one mechanic is such an offense that you're willing to hold a several page long argument on an internet forum, and delve into line by line quoting.
But so many others, it's something they'll just try, and if they don't like, they won't buy.
It's at this point where you should probably step back, not because I think you're entirely wrong, but I do think you've hit the point where you're in the stereotypical "internet argument" mode.
Moreover, the rules are set, and are releasing soon.

There are many, many rulesets I read and get a taste of and decide not to buy.
Just because you tire of a discussion - one that was invited by the creators - does not mean I should cease the discussion. You are not obligated to read the thread that is aptly titled "Maelstrom's Edge Discussion".
If you believe the discussion of universal mechanics versus elegant mechanics, abstraction versus literal rules, etc, to be about something I've taken an offense to, you have misunderstood everything that has been said.
We have a unique opportunity to talk to, discuss, question, the design methodology of a rules designer for a soon to be published miniatures rules set, and to waste this opportunity when discussion has been invited is absurd.
Especially since we're on Dakka - the miniatures gaming forum.

 Vertrucio wrote:
And there were the product of a lot of behind the scenes playtesting too.

That is an assumption.

 judgedoug wrote:
I'm actually intrigued for you to expand upon this. Medge is a system where only the Leader's positioning matters - would it not make most sense, in keeping the idea of that Leader being the Absolute Point for measuring, facing, etc, that the terrain the Leader occupies will be what the unit has? In which case it's very easy to define types of cover when a single model is the representation of the unit.

That brings me around to another question. I don't understand the constants of cover in Medge? Can you expand on the design process for cover removing a set number of hits? I thought that was odd, that a 1-man unit and a 10-man unit would benefit exactly the same way (removing 2 hits) due to cover.

I was really keen not to make a game where it should just be played using a single model to represent an entire unit, as I feel like other games have done that at 28mm (made the additional models in the unit more or less irrelevant). So the squad leader model in MEdge determines the squads front/rear arc, is used to check line of sight for the unit, and his WP characteristic is used for the squad's discipline. But everything else is determined by the unit as a whole.

Cover is abstracted that way for a variety of reasons, a couple of the more important being:

1) When you have an alternating activation system, one of the ways people can 'game' it is to take forces filled with MSU. Other games have used a variety of methods to help mitigate this as I'm sure you know. In MEdge, the cover system makes it rather difficult (but not typically impossible) for a small unit to actually kill models in cover...they just suppress them unless they're like snipers or something that is able to ignore cover. That means players are naturally incentivized to take larger squads...or more appropriately they are incentivized to find the right balance between taking MSU to have more tactical flexibility in their force and having larger units do to the heavy lifting of really killing stuff.

2) Weapons designed to take out big targets tend to fire less shots (but cause more damage per hit). When fired against a target in cover, as they get to pick which shots are blocked by the cover, these anti-tank style weapons are the ones that naturally get picked. This really makes a nice divide between heavy weapons designed to take out units in cover and those designed as strike weapons to take out big targets.

Which roughly translates to "I made the game I like and sorry if you don't like it". Which is understandable, but I only began talking about the rules because the implication was that you guys were asking for people to read and respond about the rules. If every discussion of the rules will end in this fashion, then clearly every decision has already been made and the desire for feedback is at least marginally disingenuous.

Let me re-iterate. I think the core mechanic is a good idea. I was hoping the ruleset was not so far along is to be immutable. I still feel it's possible for a system to have both a unified mechanic and be elegant.

The rules are definitely not finalized, but we have to get a beta rulebook out to people very soon so making major changes to the core mechanics at this point would likely mean re-configuring much of the existing rules. Therefore, anyone willing to accept the core rules for what they are (even if they have some issues with them) and give feedback within that scope to help solidify the unit rules and find any major loopholes that can be exploited, etc, is more along the lines of what can actually be incorporated at this point.

 Spiral Arm Studios wrote:

2) Weapons designed to take out big targets tend to fire less shots (but cause more damage per hit). When fired against a target in cover, as they get to pick which shots are blocked by the cover, these anti-tank style weapons are the ones that naturally get picked. This really makes a nice divide between heavy weapons designed to take out units in cover and those designed as strike weapons to take out big targets.

Huh? Do you mean in game weapons?

I'm really very curious as to what the overall design philosophy is for the game, are you attempting to create something that reflects modern warfare? or something else?

EDITED: Also let's say you are hiding behind a bunch of logs and it provides the ability to ignore 1 hit. I fire a dual mode rocket into to it, but because you can ignore 1 hit you ignore my dual mode rocket, is that correct?

Why do I feel this thread is going in circles? Just me?