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.

Hi.

I'm beginning to write a rough version of the core rules of a battle game. I have a fairly strong idea of where I'm going with it but there's a lot of research to do first. The main part of that is compiling and analysing player opinions on existing systems, from the main ones like 40k, Warmachine and Infinity, to anything obscure that involves rolling dice and combating an opposing force. It doesn't even have to be table top, It could be a board game that had some particular mechanic you think worked well.

In summary the game is going to be a D10 based ruleset for generic sci-fi battles. The intent being players of 40k, infinity, or any other system looking for a change can readily use their models, for which I will have provided generic unit stats (without intruding on any intellectual properties of course) There is a shared game round wherein each player puts order markers on their units in secret, and then takes alternating turns to resolve them one at a time. So I've taken a few cues from Infinity, but I've geared it to be played on a scale more akin to 40k, and with a more moderate luck element, and a greater reward for good planning and tactical maneuvering. In short a game of tactics that will be simple enough to get to grips with but have enough options for experienced players to continuously alter their strategy and improve.


As I'm purely hoping to make a rule set (not models or scenery) I'm looking for feedback purely dealing with gameplay and rules, not models or scenery. Specific rules, mechanics, overall game flow, as well as atmosphere, enjoyability, level of rule detail, learning curve, or anything else you love or hate about that game system. EDIT: It's not my intent to mash this stuff together. I just want pointers to good elements of games so I can analyse them in developing my own (unable to find the time to properly read through the entirity of all the decent rule sets out there, let alone play the games themselves).

Any feedback much appreciated. Feel free to leave any thoughts outside of the above. It's all potentially very useful to me.

Thanks!

Sean

40k:
Pros:
* None
Cons:
* Task resolution slow
* Combat outcomes swingy
* Rules are unclear
* List building stale and unbalanced

Warmachine
Pros:
* Dice results largely centralized.
* Resource management & risk mitigation.
* Clearly written & defined rules.
* Interesting & Diverse list building options
* Great company support & development (see Steamroller & Doug Seacat specifically)
Cons:
* Some results counter-intuitive
* Long player idle times

Infinity
Pros:
* Low task resolution time
* Low player idle times
* Good set of generic actions for units
* Interesting implementation of hidden information mechanics.
Cons:
* Extremely swingy
* Ultra-high terrain reliance
* Individual units don't feel different enough
* Poor company support & development

For me, the best mini game is Warzone. With no alpha strikes the game is more fun. The strategy level difference in single unit activation makes the games more interesting and with the half your army gone before you use it makes 40k kinda lame. I really think the gun and Bow ranges and damage output for Warmahordes is just silly. The guns are worse than BB guns and the people who make that game don't seam to know a thing about guns, soldiers, or archers. I like Epic's scale as you can field tons of tanks and giant robots. There is plenty of room for fliers. The blast markers everywhere make it look like a battle is going on. The second set of rules was the most fun to me. I hate when GW makes units obsolete and cuts them from the game. I also hate when our group gets together to game and there are 6 different miniature games we want to play.

The only problem I see with your question is that what's good in one system may be terrible in another.

For example, one of the best things from the old Epic was order tokens. They not only helped structure the turn, but they interrupted the whole YGIG- but with limited effect. They're great in Epic because they also represent the way it takes an (Epic sized) army time to react- a unit ordered to hold their ground and shoot anything coming close will have to just sit there the whole turn. In a small squad game like Infinity or Necromunda though you don't want that. Individuals can operate independently, not wait for orders from command. So depending on what scale you're at, order tokens or similar are awesome.

Another mechanic I'm super fond of is anything Blood Bowl like in terms of combat. In a lot of systems two models/units just sorta throw attacks at one another and charging of first striking is king. Warmachine is especially guilty of this since they didn't bother to separate Defense into ranged and melee. Ii am personally very fond of the idea that when you go try to hit someone, they will try to hit you back, not wait for you to try killing them THEN have a go back.

Charging... I hate charging, or at least how most games handle it. Charging should be done at the right time, not simply to do it first because bonuses. Many wargames would have you believe that charging uphill into an enemy with pikes in a shield wall is beneficial which is just absurd. Even more absurd when your enemy has automatic weapons.

Fixed values. Such as 3+ to hit, always and forever. No. Just don't. Assume your audience can do basic maths like +1 or -2. The idea that a marine can shoot the rear end of an immobilisied tank 3" away on a 3+ is absurd. But not as bad as the fact he can also shoot the jetbike, partially obscured by trees moving a high speed at maximum range on a 3+. Please don't do this.

Squad members as wound tokens. Don't make generic soldiers wound buffers for special weapons or characters.

Tables - there's nothing wrong with these at all and they can often be a good way to avoid system gaming. For example, say instead of 1 trooper = 2 attacks have 1 trooper add +1 to the unit combat value. Then have a table the charts combat values against each other where as you eclipse your enemy your combat potency rises more sharply. You get to make those extra troops (and their positioning) worth something more when used in concert. Applying more force doesn't just get your more of the same 3+/4+ rolls. You can make things non linear.

Sorry, that's not really game specific, just general thoughts. Hope it helps.

 Kojiro wrote:


Sorry, that's not really game specific, just general thoughts. Hope it helps.

Some very valid points worth considering thanks Kojiro. As it happens I do plan on implementing an order token system so I'm particualrly interested in looking at games that use that mechanic. And yes I'm right with you on the issue of charging and fixed to hit values. The initiative / striking first issue is I think a bit trickier -light / and or nimble units should enjoy some sort of evasive and fast striking ability over something powerful but cumbersome, but at the same time I don't like the severity of that advantage in 40k, where it would seem a space marine captain takes so long to swing a power axe that 10 gretchin can take turns poking him with sticks before he lands a single blow.

Sorry I got sorta distracted there, was rambling.

What I mean with the fast strike/initiative thing was more like Blood Bowl. I can have my guy engage yours, but instead of me swinging first then you swing back (or we swing simultaneously) we actually contest each other. It means initiating a fight is something you do under ideal circumstances rather than 'oh well I have some attacks' might as well throw them out. I like the idea that surrounded or outnumbered troops might form up and wait rather than just trying to slug it out- especially if there is aid nearby.

That sorta comes back to the order system though, and the idea you initiate fights based on how you've maneuvered and how well you've read your opponents intent.

That's actually one thing I find very lacking these days. I really want to look across the table and take on my opponent. I want to be able to say I predicted that move and compensated rather than I selected the right unit during army building and had correct target priority. Above all that's what I really want to do- pit myself against my opponent, not just see who can amass the best probability curves.

I would say one thing games get wrong, almost across the board, is points based list composition/balance. There are other ways of doing it that are undoubtedly better.

What kind of methods do you suggest chaos0xomega? Not arguing or anything, I honestly want to know.

Rules that add nothing to the game but more dice rolls are the kind of thing I hate.

For example, the "roll scatter for all blast markers" thing in 40K is something that has annoyed me since they idiotically brought it into the game in... I want to say 5th Ed.

If you rolled scatter on misses, fine, but the fact that you have to roll for each template is just annoying. Moreso when you have units with lots of blast markers. Place template, calculate hits and then multiply by the amount of markers that hit - that was simple and took no time at all.

Same goes for any psychic power where you have to roll To Hit after passing the psychic test. You're just adding another step to something that should be simple.

Any game where a failed terrain check somehow means you impaled yourself upon it. Stop that, it's ridiculous.
If I fail to drive over a bank in my car, the car doesn't explode, it just stops.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Rules that add nothing to the game but more dice rolls are the kind of thing I hate.

For example, the "roll scatter for all blast markers" thing in 40K is something that has annoyed me since they idiotically brought it into the game in... I want to say 5th Ed.

If you rolled scatter on misses, fine, but the fact that you have to roll for each template is just annoying. Moreso when you have units with lots of blast markers. Place template, calculate hits and then multiply by the amount of markers that hit - that was simple and took no time at all.

Same goes for any psychic power where you have to roll To Hit after passing the psychic test. You're just adding another step to something that should be simple.

Couldn't agree more.
If the game is supposed to tell a story, make it snappy for feth's sake.

 thegreatchimp wrote:
I'm beginning to write a rough version of the core rules of a battle game. I have a fairly strong idea of where I'm going with it

OK, that's all well and good, but you need to give more of a design brief of what your game is going to be, if not an actual working draft of how it will play. Also, the whole best/worst thing is in the eye of the beholder. I think 40k is grossly overcomplicated, but others love the specialness of each model.

As Kojiro points out above, something that works for one game doesn't necessarily work for another.

For instance taking the random order activation dice of Bolt Action (perhaps the most interesting talked-about aspect of that game) and placing it into Warmachine, replacing it's IGOUGO turn setup (which in general is not liked), would ruin Warmachine. 2 of Warmachine's main focuses are complex combos and tight tournament play, and pretty much anything but an IGOUGO turn setup goes against these.


Picking out the best aspects of several games and then making a game based on those probably won't give you a good game. Instead, setup your own design goals, and how you want it to play/feel, then look and choose specifics based on that.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:


OK, that's all well and good, but you need to give more of a design brief of what your game is going to be, if not an actual working draft of how it will play. Also, the whole best/worst thing is in the eye of the beholder. I think 40k is grossly overcomplicated, but others love the specialness of each model.

I hear you John.

Yes I agree completely. It's all down to opinion. But if I can figure out majority opinions on certain elements of certain games then that's going to influence what I pursue and don't pursue. I've read up a lot on other tt game systems but haven't actually played any besides WHFB and 40k, so feedback on those other systems in particular is crucial.

In summary the game is going to be a D20 based ruleset for generic sci-fi battles. The intent being players of 40k, infinity, or any other system looking for a change can readily use their models unit, for which I will have provided generic unit stats without intruding on any intellectual properties. There is a shared game round wherein each player puts order markers on their units in secret, and then takes it in turns to resolve them one at a time. So I've taken a few cues from Infinity, but I've geared it to be played on a scale more akin to 40k, and with a more moderate luck element, and a greater reward for good planning and tactical maneuvering. In short a game of tactics that wil be simple enough to get to grips with but have enough options for experienced players to continuously alter their strategy and improve. I'm only writing up the bones of the game while researching. After that I'll be playtesting the hell out of it and then writing up something that I can present.

OK, got it. You're at the early conceptual stages for your 28mm wargame, and wanting to branch out. That's cool.

d20 is good, and you may want to look at the free D&D SRDs for inspiration. WotC put a lot of effort into them, and their system scales from little animals to huge dragons. Sorta.

From what you've shared, I'd suggest you start mapping d20 stats for the range of things that you expect to see in your game. What does an infantryman look like. What does a Dreadnought / Monster look like? How about a Knight Titan? (If they're going to be in there).

The orders are nice, and they suggest tokens / cards.

Really, I suggest you download *ALL* of Age of Sigmar. It's free and it's clean. Also get the Infinity and Warmachine / Hordes rules. I think you can download those for free, too. Finally, try to hunt down Flames of War and X-Wing. Then play a small skirmish with each. As those are the most popular minis games, you should be able to better see which mechanics are good / bad for how you want your game to work.

Then, see if you can find the (free) living rulebooks for the Specialist Games like Epic / BFG / Necromunda / Mordheim / Blood Bowl. And work through them, too.

Probably a week per game system, once you playtest each a few times.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
OK, got it. You're at the early conceptual stages for your 28mm wargame, and wanting to branch out. That's cool.

d20 is good, and you may want to look at the free D&D SRDs for inspiration. WotC put a lot of effort into them, and their system scales from little animals to huge dragons. Sorta.

From what you've shared, I'd suggest you start mapping d20 stats for the range of things that you expect to see in your game. What does an infantryman look like. What does a Dreadnought / Monster look like? How about a Knight Titan? (If they're going to be in there).

The orders are nice, and they suggest tokens / cards.

Really, I suggest you download *ALL* of Age of Sigmar. It's free and it's clean. Also get the Infinity and Warmachine / Hordes rules. I think you can download those for free, too. Finally, try to hunt down Flames of War and X-Wing. Then play a small skirmish with each. As those are the most popular minis games, you should be able to better see which mechanics are good / bad for how you want your game to work.

Then, see if you can find the (free) living rulebooks for the Specialist Games like Epic / BFG / Necromunda / Mordheim / Blood Bowl. And work through them, too.

Probably a week per game system, once you playtest each a few times.

Good thinking, I probably should play each of these games rather than just reading the rules. I've already read through Infinity, 40k Heralds of war, & Deadzone. I'll check out AOS and Warmachine next.

Regarding writing up the uinit stats for D20, I was considering picking up a copy of Rogue Trader, as I've been led to believe that unit profiles are given in great detail. Reckon it's worth buying for this purpose?

Tabletop miniatures wargames are, in rules terms, terribly conservative compared to other gaming forms, heavily driven by its need to model actual soldiers on a fixed-space tabletop environment. Fog of War and linmited intelligence, so often critical to actual battles, is often absent or weakly represented. If you're only familiar with 40k, Warmachine, etc, I'd suggest the following - they may knock your socks off. They may be a bit out there, but it's worth seeing the range of possibilities, and you may like some of the mechanics.

If you can't find the game or don't want to pay the money, try to catch some AAR vids on youtube.

Phil Sabin's Simulating War. Sabin is a professional wargame simulator and academic, and writes the most amazing book on considerations and mechanics for playing wargames. His focus is on building simple, easily made tabletop or face-to-face games that reward repeated play with an exploration of tactical depth. The book starts with a consideration of the representation of the kind of tactical environments that can be simulated, then dives straight into "what goes on the map?". Inspired.

Stargrunt II from Ground Zero games. Twenty years old, free download and a VERY smart ruleset. The basic unit of action is the fireteam, not individual figures and better abilities are represented by bigger dice.

Ambush Alley by Ambush Alley Games. The original game of troops vs insurgents is a great, tight game with innovative mechanics, but I think it's OOP. Force on Force is the modern version of the game, but a long, dry read and their actual SF game, Tomorrow's War, is possibly in danger of choking itself to death. But clever mechanics - good use of reactions (probably overuse), worth a read.

Chain of Command by Too Fat Lardies. WWII platoon-level game, but an innovative action mechanic and a desire to model combat as a command-driven environment where effectiveness is degraded by contact with the enemy. Probably the opposite of generic though.

Crossfire. Again WWII, but this time no weapon ranges or fixed turns.

Remember that a generic ruleset still has to make decisions - a game that models Infinity, where standing out in the open is rapidly fatal, may not work for 40k melee-heavy forces. In fact 40k has to reduce the range on the shooty massively to give them a chance

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

From what you've shared, I'd suggest you start mapping d20 stats for the range of things that you expect to see in your game. What does an infantryman look like. What does a Dreadnought / Monster look like? How about a Knight Titan? (If they're going to be in there).

This is an excellent idea, and an opportunity to really decide on the scale of your game.

For my money though, I'd set a limit on the size of the models. There's a problem evident in things like Str D weapons- notably that they simply break the scale of the game. It's right there in the rules - this goes off the charts so we'll make a new rating for it. I can completely understand if you want to be fully compatible with 40k but I think if you do that you'll be aping some of it's errors, notably in scaling.

Are you planning to have squad based mechanics or individual troopers? Try to limit rules to the lowest level of action- that is if you have individual models, then it matters what each soldier has, in which hands. If you have squads with squad level rules, don't get bogged down with whether or not private Bob has a pistol and a sword.

The games you mentioned are all completely different in every aspect, I think it would be better if you made a brief with the most important aspects of what you want to deliver and then look for similar games.

And indeed playing a game is way different than sterile reading its rules, sometimes what the game designer wants is apparent only when you play the game.

(Bit of a necro, but rather than make an entirely new thread in this sub-forum....)

 Buttery Commissar wrote:
Any game where a failed terrain check somehow means you impaled yourself upon it. Stop that, it's ridiculous.
If I fail to drive over a bank in my car, the car doesn't explode, it just stops.

Definitely a concept that keeps resurrecting itself no matter how many systems try to drive a stake through its lingering corpse.

carboncopy wrote:
As Kojiro points out above, something that works for one game doesn't necessarily work for another.
Picking out the best aspects of several games and then making a game based on those probably won't give you a good game. Instead, setup your own design goals, and how you want it to play/feel, then look and choose specifics based on that.

Of interest to this topic and quite a number of discussions in this sub-forum; Wargame Design Series - Updated Index

_
_

 Smilodon_UP wrote:
(Bit of a necro, but rather than make an entirely new thread in this sub-forum....)

Certainly not necroi-ing; I'm only getting started on this project, so all to happy to get additional feedback. Thanks for the link.

One thing I alluded to earlier, and one of my pet peeves with Warmachine (though replicated in 40ks fixed to hit scores) is the absence of split defensive scores. The flaw in Warmachine is that there is a single DEF stat which dictates how hard a model is. The shining example of the flaw here are heavy infantry. Supposedly superlative, best of the best, elite melee combatants are struck all too often. So much so that a kossite peasant or zealot (with a MAT of 4) will still on average hit them.

This kind of follows on to stat lines. Work out what your averages are. So in Warmachine two dice is well know as averaging 7. So your average hit scores etc will all be X+7 give or take. This can help you scale the value of relevant stats too. And it helps you avoid the above flaw as it pertains to elite units like Stormblade and Exemplars, both of whom are examples of bad stat lines.

I'm also a fan of damage types, as a rule. They add an extra layer of depth that .

I'll second the terrain checks that kill you. I wouldn't mind a check that affected the speed of terrain crossing- make it well and the unit passes through at normal speed, make it normally and it slows you down, fail and it stops you for that round, something like that. I would actually like to see more rules that emphasise movement of armies beyond 'ignore terrain' or 'move lots of inches'. Like in Blood Bowl where being fast is good but it won't do you so well if you have to go through 3 tackle zones. After all in historical military combat, the importance of positioning and maneuvering cannot be overstated.

Which leads me to arcs. Please have arcs.

I'll ramble more if it comes to mind.

Too many dice rolls in games is something I dislike. Roll to move, roll to hit, roll to damage, roll, to save, etc. This is especially annoying when you move beyond small groups/skirmishes.

Why have a melee "WS/hit/defense" and "armor" score for a skirmish game anyway? Seems like a D&D holdover. WHFB roll to hit, roll to wound, roll to save is even worse! Shouldn't a melee troop just be rated in Melee- it's overall effectiveness? And if it loses that roll it is/tests as a casualty. Perhaps whether it is a casualty or is driven back is a function of how much it loses by.

Same goes for direct shooting. Generally speaking one of three things happen when someone gets shot out- 1) they are effectively incapacitated or killed 2) the retreat/ duck to cover 3) they continue what they were doing. A shooter's effectiveness should probably be handled by a single roll. Either the shot was effective, or not. Again, seems like it could be measured by the degree of success, not this roll 3 times to see if anything happened mess.

Kojiro: Are you referring to movement arcs? That's all fine and well for large blocks of troops (especially pre WW1), but doesn't fit smaller scales or modern conflict very well. 10 guys running around a board in a square with movement arcs just doesn't feel right. 1000 guys with spears probably wouldn't move any other way!

Steps depend mainly on the feel the designer wants to give, the more the more "simulatory" the designer wants the game to be the less the more "gamey" and abstract.

The units count really dictate how many steps are "too many" 5 units on the table in total like KDM? sure you can have many steps, 20 units on the table? better have 1-3 steps in resolving something tops, more units? 1 maybe 2 steps?

Units can be a single model or a group it does not matter much, but multi model units tend to demand more abstraction.

 jmurph wrote:
Too many dice rolls in games is something I dislike. Roll to move, roll to hit, roll to damage, roll, to save, etc. This is especially annoying when you move beyond small groups/skirmishes.

Seconding this. Streamline what you can. If you're dealing with just humans (or toughness analogs) then you can combine hit and wound style rolls into one under the assumption that any solid hit from a weapon *will* hurt. Anything that just nicks, glances or doesn't incapacitate might as well be called a miss. At least on a WM/40k type scale.

I should have been clearer with my WM criticism. The problem with a sing DEF stat is that you end up with special rules to differentiate defensive qualities or wildly inaccurate scores. A Storm Knight or Exemplar may be a bit slower than an unarmoured man, which makes them easier to shoot, but their superlative melee skills should make them harder to hit in melee. On the flip side Satyxis and Daughters may be slight and fast moving making shooting them more challenging, but that doesn't mean they're good at parrying or reading feints. Likewise you get warjacks which are apparently agile enough to run and eve

Kojiro: Are you referring to movement arcs? That's all fine and well for large blocks of troops (especially pre WW1), but doesn't fit smaller scales or modern conflict very well. 10 guys running around a board in a square with movement arcs just doesn't feel right. 1000 guys with spears probably wouldn't move any other way!

I was actually thinking more of vision/firing/melee arcs. Movement should be a little more free. That said, if paintball has taught me anything it's that when you're aiming down a sight your vision becomes pretty damn narrow.

I actually like the idea of an overwatch system that narrows your LOS. Like put a 5" marker down and then draw a line from each edge to the overwatching model. That cone then becomes your overwatch area. That way it's not 'lol I can guard the whole battlefield'. I think it also works well for crewed weapons.

While realistic in some interpretations the tunnel vision corridor has many problems.

Oh no doubt. I'm just a fan of making people commit to certain actions. Not necessarily forcing them to make bad choices, but giving them mode depth to choices. Like a general overwatch, with a wide, front arc area that hits on 6+ or a focused one with the 5" zone that hits on normal BS. Granted that's more book keeping unsuited to higher model count.

But I really like the idea of playing against my opponent. Things like target priority are not player specific- they're mathematical optimums. That is mathematically there will always be a statistically most efficient pattern. While that should exist, I think it should be less important than the maneuvering which dictates what targets you can even select (as opposed to having ranges that cover 90% of the board).

For example in B5 Wars I liked that I had to pick, based on how well I knew my opponent and where he'd deployed his fleet- how he'd allocate his Electronic Warfare. This exercise is purely me vs him- nothing either of us does changes the values present. If I've read his plan right I'll come out ahead. If he's feinting and I don't see it I'll suffer. Is that Trigati really going to try and flank my cruiser? It's going pretty fast but it could pull a sharp turn and flee. It is simply trying to draw my fire from the Sharlin? All the info is there about my opponents plan but it's up to me to read it and respond accordingly.

There's more there than just me picking the right strength weapon to go against certain armour. Does that make sense?

Re: overwatch, why not put down a 45 degree wedge from the shooter, showing where they are overwatching? Rather than a marker in the target area?

Because a 45° wedge is open ended and creates a far larger zone of coverage as you get further away. Effectively your over watcher gets more observant as things become further away and more split up.

And??? I completely fail to see how that's a problem. The overwatch unit is looking in a direction. That's best represented by a wedge.

If the intent is to model staring at a specific spot, that gets kinda wierd.

For example, watching down a corridor or alleyway. If someone moves in front of, above or behind the spot, the overwatcher simply ignores it. If it's a wedge, they're reacted to.

Re: Overwatch, It's funny, you lads must be reading my mind.

I've implemented a flanking mechanic in my system. Basically when a unit finishes its move, it's controller places a marker with a 90 degree arc as they please. This is the squad facing marker. The squad can shoot at, or return fire against enemies present or moving into that arc. Anything that attacks them outside of this will not allow a reaction and their shots will bypass cover (unless of course the squad in question is enjoying all-round cover).

Overwatch allows for more opportunistic fire (can shoot at an enemy unit when it reveals itself, or moves out of cover) but is constrained to a 45 degree cone, and takes a full turn action, i.e. a unit can move & fire, but cannot move & overwatch. Hopefuly this will keep it from being OPd.