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.

Really rooting for this one... I'm actually surprised the totals aren't climbing faster.

I'll just pop in to say that Tertius it's correct. Horizon Wars takes a very streamlined approach to the scale. A tank is a tank and there's not a lot more you can do with one. If you were a tank, you will know pretty much exactly what it can do.

If you want a more granular game, with varieties of weapon and endless customization, then Polyversal is a great bet. It's a bit fiddlier than Horizon Wars, as far as I can tell with what feels like a much stripey learning curve.

I plan to buy it, too, as I can play two games with one collection of minis. Win!

R.

Thanks guys. We're certainly rooting for it too.

On the learning curve- actually it's very simple. Running 4 games for players this past weekend, I can report that all players picked it right up. There is more to the game we didn't cover for convention play, of course, but they were using the core mechanics and a quick reference sheet very quickly.

On the learning curve:

One of my main design goals was to create a system that covered a huge amount of complexity and variety, but reduced the learning curve so that, once you were actually playing the game, the cards, dice, counters, and quick reference sheets were all you would need. Because the game covers potentially thousands of different unit designs, from untrained militiamen up to skyscraper-sized particle cannon wielding walkers, the complexity had to be present, but operating 'under the hood'. One of my great design inspirations for this comes from a boardgame called "Silent War" which is a solitaire game covering the entire submarine campaign in the Pacific. The amount of data at work in the system is ENORMOUS, but the player's decisions are manageable and the board and pieces convey all of the necessary information needed to make them without having to constantly check the rulebook. It appeals to the undergrad Cognitive Science major in me.

Polyversal accomplishes this through the color-coded dice system, and the combatant tiles. The actual structure of the rules is quite simple. The hardest concept for new players to grasp tends to be the way in which the dice rolls are read for both determining hits and damage. But that takes about 5 minutes to get used to. It's one of those things, like tying your shoes, that is hard to explain in writing, but easy to show in person. From there, players are off and running, because the tiles and dice are color coded. You just look at the color of the weapon stat, the effectiveness stat, and the targeting stat, and grab the same color dice. Easy. The order counters are also icon-referenced on the quick reference sheet, though most players get the hang of these too.

In short, like all wargames, Polyversal has a fair amount of complexity because it represents a very complex thing (fictional future warfare). However, unlike all wargames, the complexity has been, wherever possible, packaged into manageable systems that are easily remembered and followed, allowing for more focus on the gameplay decisions, and less focus on hunting down arcane rules in the book.

In Update 10, we reveal a bit more about the story we envisioned for Polyversal. Check it out here.

Polyversal does not lock you into a particular story or setting. You may generate your own background story, or simply play the game. We do have a story that sets the tone for the conflict we envisioned with Polyversal. It is set between a future, powerful UN that controls the technology required for mass evacuation from a dying Earth, and groups of Opposition Forces known as OPFOR who fight for those who may be left behind.



UN and OPFOR units face off on a city bridge...

Eh. 20-35 USD for a 6mm sci-fi equivalent of a D&D handbook? With "fluff" that's rather uncreative? While there are already well-made, free rulesets for the games which use all the miniatures available so I don't have to generate unit profiles (or hexagonal combatant tiles) every time I want a new model?

That's a pass for me. Maybe if it catches on like wildfire in the local scene, I'll pick it up, but for now I'll just stick to one of the other already established and much more concrete rules systems.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I should add however if I had a massive collection of OOP 6mm sci-fi miniatures games this would be a no brainer buy in for me, but I don't. I'm just getting started and I have a glut of well supported products so it just doesn't make sense for me

See, and for me, making my own unit profiles in a great core set of rules is exactly the level of DIY I want.

I really want to see this fund.

It certainly won't appeal to everyone. I'm not sure I understand the comment about being equivalent to a D&D handbook, or the uncreative fluff comment :/ We've released and worked hard on some videos that preview mechanics in the game that are pretty unique- I'd encourage you to check them out before writing off the game entirely. It works well and has been developed over many hundreds of hours.

With the boxed sets (that actually include a good value for the included miniatures (See update 11))... you don't have to generate any stats. We include all of that for those models on die-cut combatant tiles out of the box.

Further, if you don't want to use the stat generator, you can download tiles generated by others for models you have. There are a lot of people who enjoy the customization aspect of what we're after.

We've been working on this for many years. It can't become well-established if people don't give it a shot...

I have to say that a $25 buy in for a PDF file of the rules from a new company putting out a new product line and ruleset is a bit high from the perspective of a consumer. It's only $5 more to get the phsyical copy at the moment which ALSO comes with the PDF and that feels off. Please not that I do think adding the pdf to the physical pledge is a great idea but the initial cost of the PDF only pledge is simply too high. I realize the PDF copies still depend on paying editors, writers, and artists but there should be a significantly bigger difference between the two than $5 (admittedly an early bird discount but considering only 12% have been redeemed so far it's effectively a permanent discount barring a huge turnaround for the campaign). YMMV but $10-15 max is what I'd pay for a finished at retail PDF of minis rules for a new company/product line/game.

I may sound like a pessimist but I see this campaign going the way of others following the trend of preemptively cancelling before inevitably failing in order to re-evaluate.

 frontlinegeneral wrote:
a D&D handbook

Dungeons and Dragons is a build-your-own character, bring-your-own-miniature balancing system for a fantasy group role-playing setting. Polyversal is a build-your-own-profile, bring-your-own-miniatures balancing system for a combined arms, science fiction head to head competitive setting. Surely you see the similarities?

or the uncreative fluff comment :/

Sorry to hurt your feelings, but when I purchase a $35 hard copy of a rulebook, I expect a certain standard of fiction writing and supporting artwork. The artwork looks very good, unfortunately this "universe" of our own Earth, 100 years in the future, where resources are running out and NATO led UN pushes back Pan-eastern coalition forces is trite and uninspired. I'm pretty sure it's the exact plot of Battlefield 2142. (they even had walker vehicles and grav tanks too) Which was an amazing game by the way. I'm not saying the fluff is bad or unbelievable. Just uncreative.

worked hard

It works well and has been developed over many hundreds of hours.

We've been working on this for many years.

I admire the hard work and dedication, I never called that into question. I just wanted to add to this discussion about your new product that the market is currently flooded with choices and I find it difficult to swallow the price tag for something I may never use.

With the boxed sets that actually include a good value for the included miniatures...

This, to me, is the most revolutionary and creative thing I'm seeing being done here. A cooperative effort between games companies that would normally be "competing" for the same buck. I think it's ingenious that by providing this coherent single ruleset for all their miniatures that they have set aside promotion of their own game systems to work together and make a better overall environment for gaming (and 6mm sci-fi in specific) if I could fund that idea and show GW and Privateer Press and Hawk and Spartan Games and Prodos and every other company that they can work together and be very successful, then I would give a lot of money to this campaign. But that's not what it's for, it's for a rulebook that I'm not particularly keen on.

you don't have to generate any stats. We include all of that for those models on die-cut combatant tiles out of the box.

Further, if you don't want to use the stat generator, you can download tiles generated by others for models you have. There are a lot of people who enjoy the customization aspect of what we're after.

I think it's cool that I can customize my units. I do that a lot in other war games. I take a plasma gun instead of a flamer in 40k or a Sabre tank instead of a Rapier tank in Dropzone Commander. The idea of being able to take different options in a unit isn't alienating. The problem lies in new unit creation with very little restriction. I'm not saying that GW or a dedicated player base can or can not create balanced units, but even AoS with its lack of points or balancing systems still only allows certain units to be equipped with specific options. Every skeleton can't be equipped with the staff of Nagash. So why can every VTOL in Polyversal take a battery of class 5 railguns? Does that make sense to a reasonable player? No. But for some reason there are people out there that abuse rules to make the most powerful armies possible and ruin the fun of the game for everyone else. And that makes it very hard to play a competitive game using rules that say "well if you paid the points for it and you have a model, you can make it have whatever you want". absolute power corrupts absolutely and absolute customization is no different.

With math and the internet and people with too much time on their hands, it won't be long before someone figures out the optimal min-maxed hexagonal combatant tile battlegroup that can be spammed for a low cost

I'd encourage you to check them out before writing off the game entirely.
It can't become well-established if people don't give it a shot...

I don't think the game is bad, nor have I written it off as unusable. The combat system is very good, I know for a fact without using it because someone I know used a nearly identical dice mechanic in his RPG that he created and it worked amazingly well when I playtested his game.

Unfortunately (or fortunately, however you look at it) there are already a multitude of great ideas and systems in this hobby that compete for my already very limited time and money and the time and money of the people I game with. Trying to drum up interest in another brand new and admittedly good idea takes even more time and money than simply sustaining the ones that we have already become involved in. It would be a risk not only to pledge to the kick starter but that I would be singlehandedly "kickstarting" this game in the local scene and I'm not willing to take that risk for the little reward value that I feel I would get in the end. Now if one or two people brought it up to me that they would be interested in funding the kick starter or using these rules, suddenly the risk would be much less and the perceived value would be much higher.

I've probably rambled too long and missed the mark on a lot of this. I just wanted to provide some helpful feedback rather than "lul ur game sux" because that was not at all what I intended originally. I want your idea to be successful, as I want all new wargame ideas to be successful. But I personally have some doubts that impede my desire to give you my time and money and that I think would be constructive to add to the discussion.

Not to end on a sour note, I think the Kickstarter page itself is very well done. It's professional and inviting and interesting and definitely one of the better I've seen. Keep up the good work and don't get discouraged by my negative raving and ranting.

I guess I'm thinking old-school D&D before it was turned into a miniatures game for the sake of selling miniatures ... I haven't played that game since before then, when it was a 'RPG'.

We've put out there what we can. All of the stuff you're expecting costs money- except the rules- which costs time- we've developed and tested them over 4 or so years for free... with the exception that time is money too.

I personally don't think that less than the cost of a tank of gas or the price of a delivered pizza is too much to pay for a solid rulebook- we're talking over 140 pages with a fully documented (no black box) design system. The problem with PDFs is... no one wants to pay for anything that's a download or electronic only. The cost you're supporting with a PDF is granted not a production cost- except for the editing, layout, artwork, and time put into it. There are others who also think it's too much- so- maybe we've completely missed the mark.

As far as points-breaking and such-- yes-- you can create 1 massive thing that you field, but, the difference is the effectiveness system. If you field that massive 'thing'- even within the rules of the design- it will be a massive target and will be taken out or rendered ineffective actually fairly quickly. The game doesn't reward massive targets- it makes them easier to hit. In other words, a Majestic walker in this game cannot walk around taking all kinds of fire for very long without having an issue (immobilization, weapon outs, stress from hits / drops in effectiveness die types... etc.)...

There's a lot more to the story we haven't yet revealed- and lots of ways players can take it. I'm personally not familiar with Battlefield 2142. Ultimately, we want to have a wiki-type site where campaigning and creativity from players helps drive the story and system, as mentioned in update 10.

Thanks for the feedback.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 warboss wrote:

I may sound like a pessimist but I see this campaign going the way of others following the trend of preemptively cancelling before inevitably failing in order to re-evaluate.

I am not canceling the project early. It will either make it or it will fail. I hope it makes it so we are not delayed in getting the game out. Yes, it does a lot, but, we're thinking big for 6mm.

It's not my first Kickstarter. For other games (WWII-based card wargames), I've run 4 kickstarters. 1 failed. I let it fail. I re-launched later and it was a success (and raised more than the original goal).

So yes, this could fail, as with any Kickstarter. I hope people will join in and prevent that from happening.....

We've got more than 40 days left. Most KS projects run for 30. So, I see it as a head-start to that final 30 days that really counts. The 60 has given us time to adjust some things, offer more, clarify some things, and keep pressing forward.

Thanks for taking a look.

Bocatt: Thank you for your comments. I'm sorry the storyline doesn't appeal to you. I found that a near future setting was more interesting and a bit of a change from the high-space-fantasy LOTR-in-the-stars many of us have been enjoying for the past 30 years. Personal taste being what it is, I know that the story will not appeal to everyone. If you prefer to play out games in another existing storyline, you can do that. If you want space-elves versus robot space zombies, Polyversal covers it.

As for a min-maxing superplayer, yes, you are absolutely right. Someone could crack the system and field an all-cheese force that the point-system doesn't perfectly balance. I have yet to play a game where that wasn't possible. I have worked to minimize it, but it is possible, given the thousands of possible unit combinations. Polyversal is not intended to be a hardcore tournament game. If you, like me, don't like playing against min-maxers, the solution is not to. If your opponents are min-maxers, Polyversal may not be for you.

I accept your criticism of the games generic flavor. That is the point of the game system. We offer a setting for those new to 6mm gaming, but leave it open for those bringing their own forces and backgrounds. It is not for everyone.

I've found that the best way to deal with min-maxing in generic rulesets is to have one person design all of the units for both sides. The other player then gets to choose which force he wants to play. This keeps the level of min-maxing equal for both sides and keeps things balanced.

I finally went and watched the video. I have to say I'm impressed with the rules and what seems to be a well thought-out system.

As to those commenting on the price I agree that $25 seems a bit high for a PDF when the Printed rulebook is only $30. Still, if it's a good game and you're also funding the development of the online unit creator, the price doesn't seem too bad.

In the end I decided not to fund, but that's mostly because the club is currently already juggling two small-scale rulesets and because of my partially irrational hatred of chits. Still, I wish the creators all the best and I hope this reaches it's goal. This may not be my flavor, but I'm inspired by the increasing number of open/generic/flexible games like this that have been coming to market in the last few years.

On the tangential issue of min-maxing, it's possible in nearly all games and almost a given in those with unit creation mechanics. However, it is not an issue if one or more of the following are adhered to.
-Agree to army lists and/or force selection guidelines ahead of time.
-Have one player select the units in play based on the narrative of a given scenario.
-Have a group of players who are in-tune with the gentleman's agreement nature of these kinds of rulesets.

Rules Lawyers and WAAC players are not well suited for these kinds of experiences, but for those looking to game with unique forces and scenarios games like Polyversal are a welcome alternative.

edit: Sorry about the thread necro.. I posted in the wrong polyversal thread and meant to post in the new one (but quote from this one). Mods, feel free to nuke this post.