Switch Theme:

Thinking Out Loud  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Lately I've been thinking about how to play a Warhammer-like game (dudes on a table) without dice, and borrowing a bunch of concepts from Epic: Armageddon.

Units, or collections of models, get chosen by the players to execute sets of actions.

Advance (move toward the enemy, attack)
Double (move x2, attack with penalty)
March (move x3)
Overwatch (attack after enemy move)
First Fire (attack with bonus, or indirect)

Go to Ground (penalty to attacking unit, penalty to attack)
Fall Back (penalty to attacking unit, move away from the enemy)
Stand Firm (no penalty to attacking unit)

Units have directions, relative to the table, including a front (pointing towards the enemy table edge), rear (pointing towards the home table edge), and flanks (side table edges). Single-model units have directions determined by their models.

Attacking a unit from the flanks or rear gives the attacker a bonus.
Attacking a unit that was attacked from a different direction previously gives the attacker a bonus.

Targets occupying cover and/or fortifications gives cumulative penalties to attacking units

And since it popped into my head, here's an idea for adapting some more Warhammer-esque D6 rolling into something more combinatorial: The wound roll number is the amount of fire a unit has to take for that damage to take effect: So if it's a 5+ for a Lasgun to wound a Space Marine, then that's 5 lasgun shots/attacks needed to wound that Space Marine. Penalties and bonuses would shift this number. Remainders would be applied to the unit as blast markers, and blast markers would give the next unit of attackers a bonus to attacking.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






Ah ok, so you're thinking of making 40k but without the dice?

My initial thought (not something that can't be overcome) is the risk of some things being untouchable, and also of some things being entirely useless.

So, for example, if you have a unit with a single lascannon, it becomes impossible to hurt anything as it needs a 2+ to wound, so needs 2 lascannons to deal any damage!

A random thought for cover, which could work really well - what if the different degrees of cover allowed more of the unit to be considered the front?

So light cover might mean instead of making a 45° angle from the corner of a unit, you draw a straight line across their front. Heavy cover makes their sides count as the front, and fortifications makes them count as being attacked from the front from all directions. That way it all rolls up in one single mechanic, rather than extras for cover!


12,300 points of Orks
9th W/D/L with Orks, 4/0/2
I am Thoruk, the Barbarian, Slayer of Ducks, and This is my blog!

I'm Selling Infinity, 40k, dystopian wars, UK based!

I also make designs for t-shirts and mugs and such on Redbubble! 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





@some bloke: That might help players grok cover more easily. I recently changed a mechanic from dividing something to adding it because (and what was I thinking in the first place?!) while the result was the same it was much easier for players to grasp.

The lascannon thing is intentional (although not thought all the way through, obviously). Rather than killing a dude (or putting a wound on a tank) that lone lascannon is going to leave a blast marker for the next 2+ to hit/wound/whatever weapon exploit. By inference I think using dice as blast markers makes sense as helps players understand what kind of fire the unit has come under.

Which reminds me of the actions I'm missing, the Rally and Regroup actions from E:A by which units can shed blast markers.

Regroup (Move, then remove blast markers)
Rally (Remove blast markers, then attack)

So a Tactical Squad of Space Marines (8x Boltguns, 1x Plasma Gun, 1x Lascannon) might attack an identical squad from the front without the target having any blast markers yet (just for a set of known numbers), with 16x S4 (4+) shots, 2x S7 (3+) shots, and 1x S9 (2+) shot. The target squad takes four casualties, and three blast markers (2x3+, 1x2+).

A flanking Scout squad (4x Boltguns, 1x Missile Launcher) then, somehow or other, also attacks from the target's flank with 4x S4 (4+) shots, and 1x S8 (2+) shot. That's a flank bonus (+1) and a crossfire bonus (+1), so it's resolved like a 6x 4+ and 3x 2+. So that'll be 1 more casualty from the boltguns, and two 4+ blast markers, and 4 casualties from the missile launcher thanks to the 2+ blast marker, which is taken away since it's been used to inflict a casualty.

The remaining target unit Space Marine now has 2x 4+ blast markers and 2x 3+ blast markers.

Without the flanking and crossfire bonuses the attack from the Scouts would have been 1 casualty from the boltguns and 1 casualty from the missile launcher.

Had the target unit gone to ground upon the first, Tactical attack, it would have been 15x 4+, 1x 3+, and 0x 2+, causing only three casualties and four blast markers (3x 4+, 1x 3+), and without going to ground against the Scout attack that would have caused 5 casualties (6x 4+ shots with 3x 4+ blast markers, leaving 1x 4+ blast marker and causing two casualties, and then 3 casualties for the 3x 2+ missile launcher shots).

Of course, in between being attacked by the Tactical Squad and the Scout Squad maybe the target Tactical Squad had an opportunity to do something. I like giving players both the opportunity to push momentum and the opportunity to interrupt that momentum at some variable cost.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






That all makes sense. How will you be combatting the difference in armour saves and AP?

currently boltguns wound orks and marines both on a 4+, so armour needs to be accounted for or all that power armour's not doing zip!

You're essentially going for 5 different tokens (2+ - 6+) which will then all add up to cause damage. I wonder if there's a way to combine this (whilst keeping the charts familiar) so that they can add up - EG one 2+ token is equal to 2 3+ tokens is equal to 3 4+ tokens etc..., that way you could have 1 2+ token and 2 3+ tokens and that's a hit.

Actually, the final result of that can be simplified that a token can count as any size larger than it is - so a 2+ can stand in for a 3+, 4+, 5+ or 6+ token, and a 5+ can also be a 6+, and so on. It might seem a waste, but it could prevent excess tokens building up, and prevent one unit having 2+, 3+, 3+, 4+, 4+, 4+, 5+,5+,5+,5+,6+,6+,6+,6+,6+ tokens and still taking no damage! As such, a unit with a plasmagun and 4 bolters might score one 2+ token with the plasmagun, and then 3 4+ tokens with boltguns, and it all can add up to one damage, if they choose to. I'd have a "sweep up" phase at the end of a turn to round up any damage that has been dealt, to avoid excessive token build up. So they might walk around with the above set of "all the tokens", but then round that to 3 wounds (2 makes 6 6's, 3's make 5 5's and 4 4's)

Letting them keep them is going to prevent units with lots of 2+ weapons dominating the ones with the odd special weapon, whilst rounding up at the end would stop tokens sitting around all game!


For AP, I wonder if there's any mileage in making AP affect the token put down. If the AP reduces the armour to 0, then the token put down is one better, and for each additional point of AP, it makes it one better again, to a maximum of 1+ (just deals a damage, not tokens needed). So perhaps, after the AP is applied, the final armour is added to the token?

EG a bolter (AP-1) wounds a guardsman for a 3+ token. The save of 4+ becomes 5+, which adds 2 to the token, so the token gets changed to a 5+. So it takes 5 AP-1 bolter shots to kill a guardsman, which for marines seems about right (approx. 3 hits, 2 wounds, 1 failed save). A melta (AP-5) shooting a marine (3+) would wound on a 2+, and then drop his save to -1, so it drops to a 1+ token, outright killing a marine.

You could re-do the armour saves to be inverted (6+ = Armour 1, 5+ = armour 2, 4+ = armour 3, etc.) and then have AP reduce the armour by that much, so if it drops to 0, that's +1 to the blast token, and then for each -1 after it gains another blast token. So an AP-3 weapon shooting armour 2 (5+) would get +2 to the blast token, so if it wounded on 4's, it's now a 2+ blast token (so will kill them off easier). This would probably be easier than trying to "reduce" armour by increasing the value, which we do now!

Then you have accuracy to factor in as well, or an Ork shoota is on par with a space marine, which is somewhat odd... Not sure how you'd get around that one. But we've got AP, saves, Strength & toughness all rolled up thus far, so that's a good start!







12,300 points of Orks
9th W/D/L with Orks, 4/0/2
I am Thoruk, the Barbarian, Slayer of Ducks, and This is my blog!

I'm Selling Infinity, 40k, dystopian wars, UK based!

I also make designs for t-shirts and mugs and such on Redbubble! 
   
Made in gb
Stalwart Tribune





For a game done well without dice. have a look at the Gloomhaven mechanics (it is more along the lines of D&D, but with cards/actions), but it might give you a few ideas?

Praise the Omnissiah

About 4k of .

Imperial Knights (Valiant, Warden & Armigers)

Some Misc. Imperium units etc. Assassins...

About 2k of  
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





@some bloke: I think leaning more towards the E:A way of doing these things might be best because there it's roll to hit, and the target rolls to save. There's a whole business of AI/AT/AA vs Macro Weapons vs Reinforced Armour too, but that can be ignored because it's not the core loop.

I think having the penalty to attackers for a Go to Ground (or similar action) depend on an armour score rather than a straight +1/-1 like flanking or crossfires might be worth the extra brain-power. One does feel, somehow or other, that units should sometimes have the choice to tank the shots and expect to come out okay (at least for a while). Exactly how, I'm not sure.

I'm happy to have Shoota Boyz have a firepower of 3 like an Imperial Guardsman rather than futz around with too many shifts required by a 5-step process like 40k. I'd much rather have the game be about trying to out-play an opponent than trying to represent things like that. In fact, having weapons described by their #+ rather than an abstracted Strength might be better than borrowing the 40k SvT chart.

But where one would want some stuff to be able to tank shots, made rolling Toughness and Armour together to determine the number of blast markers required for a casualty is quick and dirty.

Speaking of which, I agree on the tokens being useable by attacks with a larger size. Makes a lone lascannon hit possibly mean something, and that possibility adds some nice player agency and uncertainty.

@The Forgemaster: I've read it. I've even made my own card-driven game.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






Ah ok, so it's roll to hit, roll to save sort of thing now?

I felt like the blast tokens approach was a more unique way of doing it, and directly combats any elements of luck in the game, making it entirely about tactics.

If you do swing back towards dice-free gameplay, the tactical aspect of the game needs to work off resource management to create variation without randomness - if everyone has an exact 12" charge range, players will stay 12.5" apart. Allowing them to spend command point style resources to increase that distance can make the game a lot more enjoyable!

I'm not sure what the firepower stat is going to refer to?

12,300 points of Orks
9th W/D/L with Orks, 4/0/2
I am Thoruk, the Barbarian, Slayer of Ducks, and This is my blog!

I'm Selling Infinity, 40k, dystopian wars, UK based!

I also make designs for t-shirts and mugs and such on Redbubble! 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





It's funny how some ideas unlock others though, and something that was drifting unconnected around my skull yesterday was how to give players both the opportunity to push momentum and the opportunity to interrupt that momentum at some variable cost.

Interruption-wise, there's Overwatch. Once some acting unit has made a move (actions can have from 1-3 moves) the Overwatching unit can shoot at them. That requires a player giving up a unit's other options for a move action. I think allowing units addressed by attacks the options of Go to Ground or to Fall Back (with Stand Firm being the default, and the required if the unit has already executed another action).

So somehow or other one player goes first. They pick a unit, declare an action, resolve the action, and then add a 1 blast marker to it. If that action addressed another unit that took the option of Go to Ground or Fall Back, then the player gets to pick another unit. If the only respond to the declared action is to Stand Firm, then the other player gets to pick a unit for an action, resolve the action and add a 1 blast marker.

So you have players offering moves (Advance, Double, March, etc) and responses. Players can think ahead to interrupt moves, or give up their next move to interrupt attacks. Units can lose members suddenly, or due to attrition.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@some bloke: No, still no rolling, but the there's just the allocation of attacks to targets, and the target's response, like how there's only the rolling of hits and saves in E:A (instead of rolling to hit, to wound, to save, ignore wounds, etc).

So yes, the idea is to make it entirely about tactics rather than rolling lots of dice. I mean, dice are still involved as blast markers, but then we all have lots of dice around so it won't require special equipment.

Nominally a Shoota might give an Ork Boy a Firepower of 1x 3 (1 shot, Strength 3), where a Space Marine might have an Target of 6 (Toughness 4 + Armour 2), thereby requiring six Shootas to inflict one Space Marine casualty if Firepower 3 vs Armour 6 is 6+ (using the Warhammer 5th edition to wound chart to find the number of shots to casualty conversion).

I think it's an interesting point about distances, so it might be interesting to take the 1+ blast marker for making an action and allow players to buy small bonuses using that 'stress' mechanic. Things like 'move an extra inch' or 'add one strength to a shot' and so on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Okay, organizing my thoughts so far:

The Game
Players control collections of units. Units are groups of models. Units have directions, relative to the table, including a front (pointing towards the enemy table edge), rear (pointing towards the home table edge), and flanks (side table edges). Single-model units have directions determined by their models. Players attempt to win by scoring points (destroying enemy units, capturing objectives, etc).

Turn Sequence
To take a turn a player:
1. Declares an order for one of their units.
2. Resolves the actions in that order. The other player may interrupt the resolution of actions in the order. Resolve the actions in that response.
4. Assign a blast marker (1+) to the ordered unit.
5. Determine who gets the next turn. If an attack action was interrupted by a Go to Ground or Fall Back response, the attacking player may start again at Step 1. Otherwise their opponent takes a turn, starting at Step 1.

Orders
  • Advance (move toward the enemy, attack)

  • Double (move x2, attack with penalty)

  • March (move x3)

  • Overwatch (attack after enemy move)

  • First Fire (attack with bonus +1, or indirect)

  • Regroup (Move, then remove blast markers)

  • Rally (Remove blast markers, then attack)


  • Responses when a unit is attacked:
  • Stand Firm (no penalty to attacking unit, default response)

  • Go to Ground (penalty to attacking unit, penalty to attack, interrupts overwatch order)

  • Fall Back (penalty to attacking unit, move away from the enemy, interrupts overwatch order)


  • Attacks
    1. Declare a target unit within range and line of sight of at least one of the acting unit's model's weapons. Weapons have a number of shots.
    2. Compare the Firepower of the attacking weapons to the Target number of the target unit to determine the conversion of shots to casualties and blast markers. If Firepower = Target, 4 shots; Firepower = Target +1, 3 shots; Firepower >= Target +2, 2 shots; Firepower = Target -1, 5 shots; Firepower <= Target -2, 6 shots.
    3. Add any blast markers on the target unit to the attacking unit's shots to determine casualties suffered by the target unit. A smaller blast marker can be used as a larger blast marker (e.g. a 3 blast marker can be used as 4, 5, or 6).
    4. Remove casualties.
    5. Convert any shots that did not add up to a casualty to a blast marker, leave unused blast markers on the unit. A shot that needed three more like itself is a 4, a shot that needed another like itself is a 2.

    For example firepower 3 vs target 5 would require 6 shots to produce a casualty.

    A target unit with two 6 blast markers would only require 4 shots at firepower 3 vs target 5 to produce a casualty.

    A target unit with three 6 blast markers would only require 3 shots at firepower 3 vs target 5 to produce a casualty and leave one 6 blast marker left over if the unit is not destroyed.

    Attacking a unit from the flanks or rear gives the attacker a bonus, +1 or +2, to the shots/blast markers required for a casualty.
    Attacking a unit that was attacked from a different direction previously gives the attacker a bonus, +1 to the shots/blast markers required for a casualty.

    Targets occupying cover and/or fortifications gives cumulative penalties to attacking units, -1 or -2.

    Targets going to ground gives cumulative penalties to attacking units, -1.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    Also, it might be clearer to move away from 'shots' and call them 'blasts'?

    This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2021/07/28 18:11:15


     
       
    Made in us
    Decrepit Dakkanaut





    Here's an addition, things players can do if they add a "1" blast marker to a unit:

  • Move slightly further (+2" if movement is in inches, or +5cm)

  • Move between models in an enemy unit

  •    
    Made in us
    Decrepit Dakkanaut





    Units are made of models, right? So how do models and units interact? I think starting at the 1:1 model-to-unit ratio might be handy, but then the whole business changes if it's extended from that direction. Conversely all units have the capability of being single-model units. Just stuff to be aware of.

    Speaking of, so far we need some sort of Movement stat, a Toughness (Toughness/Armour/etc), a Leadership stat to represent shedding blast markers, and some stats for weapons including a Range (distance to closest model in target unit), Strength (cross-referenced with Toughness for value of blasts/shots), Firepower (number of blasts/shots), and presumably some sort of typology or trait-based cruft for 'flavour' (3"/5" blast markers, teardrop templates, etc).

    Coincidentally, the shedding of blast markers would be done 'highest' first, so like if a unit has a Morale of 5 then a Rally/Regroup order is going to see 5 blast markers removed, starting with the 6s, then 5s, 4s, etc.
       
    Made in ca
    Decrepit Dakkanaut





    On an entirely different note, I was jabbering about something to do with Epic Space Marine (2nd edition) when it occurred to me that I could look something up and check. It's a super-simple game, reading that old rulebook from 1991 and thinking about how Titans were broken up into chunks (not particularly well, but the concept is sound enough) and it made me think about how Warhammer things like rolling to hit and to wound and to save and rolling for damage and rolling to ignore the hit were handled as just rolling to hit and rolling to save.

    I was likewise reminded that the S/T interaction from Warhammer, the to-wound roll, was supposed to represent doing enough damage to put a guy down, and that it was kind of equivalent to rolling for damage on the 40k 5th edition damage table, in that you were either so badly wounded you were out of commission or damaged but still able to keep fighting at some reduced capacity.

    Which is interestingly parallel to the notion of splitting a big model up so that it acts like a collection of smaller models. In some cases if you can't put a shot through that frontal armour then you want to go for the treads or foul the turret, or otherwise non-lethally neutralize an antagonist.
       
    Made in us
    Decrepit Dakkanaut






    SoCal, USA!

    Nurglitch wrote:
    play a Warhammer-like game (dudes on a table) without dice,


    If you intend deterministic resolution, what level of playability should exist between players of significantly different skill levels?

    Chess is diceless, and it's a boring win for the one, and a very frustrating loss for the other.

    If you intend to move to alternative randomizer (cards, chits, RPS), then you're simply trading one mechanic for another, and the only question is what level of complexity / aggregation / abstraction you like to see trading speed vs detail.

       
     
    Forum Index » Game Design
    Go to: