Release your inner Reizwitz: making better warhams games

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Traditional Games > Release your inner Reizwitz: making better warhams games

«‹›2 »

lilljonas: May 6, 2007; We got crabs? We got crabs!

There's a game writing thread, but it's all about RPGs. Here is where we create rules with miniatures, which I think is a very different thing.

In the Warhammer thread, we concluded that it is statistically unlikely that a hundred chimpanzees with typewriters could come up with a worse system than Age of Sigmar. But in that case, could a goon possibly make something better?

Tabletop miniatures have a history of home-made games, an aspect of the hobby that was kind of dormant during the GW heydays of the 90's and 10's. The last couple of years have seen a gold rush of new games, as more and more players look for alternative rulesets and model ranges and the difficulties of publishing said rules got lower.

Making your own game can be very rewarding, and it can give you an opportunity to create something that fills exactly that niche that you've been looking for. But it will also show you just how hard it can be to make a ruleset that is both elegant, fun, and leads to interesting games.

This thread is a place to knock around your project among other players and designers, no matter if you look for ideas for scenarios, gameplay balance, mechanics or model ranges to use. It can be a sci-fi game, a fantasy game, or a historical ruleset. It could also be something smaller in scope, such as a campaign for an existing ruleset.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Good stuff:

Rulebook Heavily posted:

I figured in rerolls after dinner.

1d6 system table: "RR" denotes reroll. Ordered from most to least successful.
code:
2+RR =97,2%
3+RR =88,9%
2+   =83.3%
4+RR =75%
3+   =66.7%
5+RR =55,6%
4+   =50%
5+   =33.3%
6+RR =30,6%
6+   =16.7%
So a system that bases its chance-to-wound on nothing more than 1d6 with occasional rerolls can get a pretty wide spread of results. Good news, one-die designers! Now you can put all the complexity into how you arrive at what you need to roll.

Time for the two-step d6 math.
code:
Previous table with no rerolls:

2+/2+       = 69,4%
2+/3+       = 55,6%
3+/3+       =44,4%
2+/4+       = 41,7%
3+/4+       =33,3%
2+/5+       = 27,8%
4+/4+       =25%
3+/5+       =22,2%
4+/5+       =16,7%
2+/6+       = 13,9%
3+/6+       =11,1%
5+/5+       =11,1%
4+/6+       =8,3%
5+/6+       =5,6%
6+/6+       =2,8%
code:
Reroll table:

2+RR/2+  =81%
2+RR/3+  =64,8%
2+RR/4+  =48,6%
2+RR/5+  =32,4%
2+RR/6+  =16,2%

3+RR/2+  =74,1%
3+RR/3+  =59,3%
3+RR/4+  =44,4%
3+RR/5+  =29,6%
3+RR/6+  =14,8%

4+RR/2+  =62,5%
4+RR/3+  =50%
4+RR/4+  =37,5%
4+RR/5+  =25%
4+RR/6+  =12,5%

5+RR/2+  =46,3%
5+RR/3+  =37%
5+RR/4+  =27,8%
5+RR/5+  =18,5%
5+RR/6+  =9,3%

6+RR/2+  =25,5%
6+RR/3+  =20.4%
6+RR/4+  =15,3%
6+RR/5+  =10,2%
6+RR/6+  =5,1%
This table covers rerolls on the second roll as well: a 6+/6+ with a reroll on the first or second number is identical, and a 5+/2+RR is identical to a 2+RR/5+ as well, funnily enough.

Time to go NEXT LEVEL REROLLING; rerolling both dice.
code:
2+RR/2+RR=94,5%
2+RR/3+RR=86,4%
2+RR/4+RR=72,9%
2+RR/5+RR=54%
2+RR/6+RR=29,7%

3+RR/3+RR=79%
3+RR/4+RR=66,7%
3+RR/5+RR=49,4%
3+RR/6+RR=27,2%

4+RR/4+RR=56,2%
4+RR/5+RR=41,7%
4+RR/6+RR=22,9%

5+RR/5+RR=30,9%
5+RR/6+RR=16,9%

6+RR/6+RR=9,3%
So now we have results for no rerolls, rerolling one die and rerolling both. Let's mash them all together in a really ugly way.
code:
2+RR/2+RR=94,5%
2+RR/3+RR=86,4%
2+RR/2+  =81%
3+RR/3+RR=79%
3+RR/2+  =74,1%
2+RR/4+RR=72,9%
2+/2+    =69,4%
3+RR/4+RR=66,7%
2+RR/3+  =64,8%
4+RR/2+  =62,5%
3+RR/3+  =59,3%
4+RR/4+RR=56,2%
2+/3+    =55,6%
2+RR/5+RR=54%
4+RR/3+  =50%
3+RR/5+RR=49,4%
2+RR/4+  =48,6%
5+RR/2+  =46,3%
3+/3+    =44,4%
3+RR/4+  =44,4%
2+/4+    =41,7%
4+RR/5+RR=41,7%
4+RR/4+  =37,5%
5+RR/3+  =37%
3+/4+    =33,3%
2+RR/5+  =32,4%
5+RR/5+RR=30,9%
2+RR/6+RR=29,7%
3+RR/5+  =29,6%
2+/5+    =27,8%
5+RR/4+  =27,8%
3+RR/6+RR=27,2%
6+RR/2+  =25,5%
4+/4+    =25%
4+RR/5+  =25%
4+RR/6+RR=22,9%
3+/5+    =22,2%
6+RR/3+  =20.4%
5+RR/5+  =18,5%
5+RR/6+RR=16,9%
4+/5+    =16,7%
2+RR/6+  =16,2%
6+RR/4+  =15,3%
3+RR/6+  =14,8%
2+/6+    =13,9%
4+RR/6+  =12,5%
3+/6+    =11,1%
5+/5+    =11,1%
6+RR/5+  =10,2%
5+RR/6+  =9,3%
6+RR/6+RR=9,3%
4+/6+    =8,3%
5+/6+    =5,6%
6+RR/6+  =5,1%
6+/6+    =2,8%
If only SA had some kind of "put all of this in a popout block" bbcode function. Anyway, with a maximum of four die rolls you can simulate all of these percentages really easily, and with a lookup you can quickly check which ones are equivalently effective in a play environment and which ones you should be avoiding (11,1% is the chance of killing a space marine by shooting them with a boltgun from another space marine and anything much lower than that gets even more into really boring dice bucket territory).

So now you can tell how many dice rolled in a certain way will successfully "wound" a target in a two-step d6 system. This can be used as a balance point between units of small numbers of elite soldiers VS hordes, good defenses VS bad, etc. etc. I might use this myself, but in case someone else is thinking of a system like this here's the math done for you.

lilljonas fucked around with this message at 21:34 on Apr 10, 2016

# ? Apr 10, 2016 16:39

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 20, 2024 00:31

Nebalebadingdong: Jun 30, 2005; i made a video game.
why not give it a try!?

Here's a problem I was poking at for fun: is there a way to condense warhammer's "roll to hit, roll to wound" into a single roll without sacrificing your weapon skill or the enemy's toughness?

# ? Apr 10, 2016 17:12

Thundercloud: Mar 28, 2010; To boldly be eaten where no grot has been eaten before!

Well since it was our discussion that kicked this off.

Skirmish Sci Fi game that can be played in a reasonable amount of time on a 2 by 2 (name to be decided)

Background
There is an area of space where many of the physical laws of the universe break down. Ships, asteroids, space stations, moons and entire planets from across the multiverse have been drawn into it through the actions of a sun sized machine at it�s centre. For all who have tried to approach the machine, it has been certain death. This area has been called the Abyss.

The act of pulling objects from wherever they belong leaves small tears in the fabric of reality, and probes, followed by small ships, have followed. Some have even been able to return. The varied technologies found in the Abyss are a treasure trove. A mixture of treasure hunters, mercenaries and military special ops teams have been sent in to find items worth bringing back.

Of course, the Abyss is now home to dozens of alien races, along with creatures unimaginable to many. Without a sun the planets drawn into the Abyss slowly die, and the inhabitants of those planets fight brutal resource wars to save their people. A simple ration pack is worth killing for.

The Abyss is a place of unrelenting conflict, as beings fight over food, water, energy, technology, and the exit pods sent through the tears that are capable of making the return journey.

What I'm after

Skirmish game for about a dozen models per side.
Wandering monster mechanics and themed monster lists.
Rules about 12 pages. Add design rules for both forces, weapons and creatures. Add example lists.
Typical board size 2 by 2.
Analagous to kill team.
Dual action/reaction mechanics.
Opposed dice rolls.
Heavily customisable forces.
Lighter vehicles and walkers.
Use any models, any terrain.
Dense terrain required. No unobstructed line of site longer than 12�.

When I say double action I mean 2 actions from a list. You can react to enemy actions within 4" of your, or which involve you being shot at.

Here's the list of actions I've created:

Move
A model moves up to it�s move value.

Attack
A model fires a weapon, or attacks in close combat

Take Cover
A model hunkers down into cover, making it harder to hit.

Ready
A model reloads a weapon, operates machinery, spots for another model, or performs a similar activity.

Charge
A model moves double it�s movement into contact with an enemy model, and attacks it in Close Quarter Combat.

Sprint
A model moves double it�s movement (but cannot end it�s move within 4� of an enemy). It may Take Cover at the end of it�s movement.

React
If an enemy model moves within 4� or the model is fired at by ranged weapons, it may immediately make a Move, Attack or Take Cover action.

Overwatch
A model covers a 90 degree arc and may make a ranged attack against any model that takes an action within Line of Sight in this arc.

Some people in the other thread started talking about infinity. I have never played that or read the rules. This is heavily influenced by Starship Troopers. I haven't read the current judge dredd , but I imagine it is a bit similar.

# ? Apr 10, 2016 17:15

spectralent: Oct 1, 2014; Me and the boys poppin' down to the shops

Nebalebadingdong posted:

Here's a problem I was poking at for fun: is there a way to condense warhammer's "roll to hit, roll to wound" into a single roll without sacrificing your weapon skill or the enemy's toughness?

Sure, having them both as factors of a single modifier.

Alternatively, have a system where you roll strength dice and skill dice for your attack and get partial success with one, and full success with both.

# ? Apr 10, 2016 17:28

lilljonas: May 6, 2007; We got crabs? We got crabs!

Nebalebadingdong posted:

Here's a problem I was poking at for fun: is there a way to condense warhammer's "roll to hit, roll to wound" into a single roll without sacrificing your weapon skill or the enemy's toughness?

Having a "to hit" roll and a "to wound" roll is honestly not that bad, IMHO. The awfulness comes in adding a third, "armour save" roll, that could easily just be a modification to the first or the second roll, cutting down a third of the dice rolls.

In the game skirmish game we're currently working on at the club, we have a single contested roll. This rolls has most of the modifiers, such as outnumbering, flank attacks, etc. The winner of this roll will cause damage depending on how large the spread is on the contested roll. This damage can be affected by some factors, such as armour.

This way you have an attack roll where you get the modifiers that make you more or less likely to win the combat, and you have a damage effect (that doesn't require a roll) where you get modifiers that don't make your less likely to be hit, but less likely to take damage. All in a single roll, instead of three.

lilljonas fucked around with this message at 17:43 on Apr 10, 2016

# ? Apr 10, 2016 17:38

Thundercloud: Mar 28, 2010; To boldly be eaten where no grot has been eaten before!

spectralent posted:

Sure, having them both as factors of a single modifier.

Alternatively, have a system where you roll strength dice and skill dice for your attack and get partial success with one, and full success with both.

That's a good mechanic.

I'm going to steal that. A weapon gets a skill dice and a strength dice, and rapid fire or high explosive get an extra dice.

Then you can oppose it with an armour roll and a cover roll. If you aren't in cover, you don't get that die, if you have no armour, you don't get that die. It gives you a reason to buy armour for everyone, and a reason to hug cover and use the take cover action, which gives you an extra die.

# ? Apr 10, 2016 17:42

Zark the Damned: Mar 9, 2013

Nebalebadingdong posted:

Here's a problem I was poking at for fun: is there a way to condense warhammer's "roll to hit, roll to wound" into a single roll without sacrificing your weapon skill or the enemy's toughness?

Frostgrave does this. However it's designed for one on one combat so I'm not sure how well it'd work for mass combat. Possibly you'd make a single roll for your unit with modifiers based on their average stats and unit size?

The way it works is you and your opponent each roll a D20 and add on your respective Fight modifiers (Attacker rolls shoot instead for ranged combat).

If you roll higher, you hit (in melee if you draw then both models hit!).

If you hit, add on any relevant Damage bonuses to your score (e.g. +2 for a Great Weapon) and subtract their Armour, that's how much damage you deal.

e.g. Your guy has +2 fight and a great weapon and attacks an opponent's thug with +1 fight. You roll a 15 +2 = 17 and they get a 10 +1 = 11, so you hit. Great weapon adds +2 damage so your total is 19, minus their armour of 10 = 9 damage.

---

Alternately, Dragon Rampant deals with hit and damage in a single roll of a bunch of dice. You roll your attacks (typically 12) and every die that equals or beats your fighting score (e.g. 5+ for scrubs, 3+ for elites) is a hit. You then divide your number of hits by the enemy's armour (typically 1 or 2, high armour guys can be 3 or more), ignore the remainder and that's how much damage you deal on the target unit.

e.g. your elite guys roll 12 dice to attack needing 3+ and score 9 hits. The defending unit has 2 armour, so you deal 4 damage. The enemy will then make a courage test because they got smacked around.

# ? Apr 10, 2016 18:01

spectralent: Oct 1, 2014; Me and the boys poppin' down to the shops

Thundercloud posted:

That's a good mechanic.

I'm going to steal that. A weapon gets a skill dice and a strength dice, and rapid fire or high explosive get an extra dice.

Then you can oppose it with an armour roll and a cover roll. If you aren't in cover, you don't get that die, if you have no armour, you don't get that die. It gives you a reason to buy armour for everyone, and a reason to hug cover and use the take cover action, which gives you an extra die.

The nice thing is it's a good way to have "intermediate" results; you will frequently get partial success and rarely get no or total success. This means your dudes will generally do something, but often not quite as much as you'd like, which is a good place to be for planning.

# ? Apr 10, 2016 18:39

richyp: Dec 2, 2004; Grumpy old man

From ~~WHFB~~Age of Sigmar thread

BattleMaster posted:

I'd actually like to see how Infinity's ARO system would work without the order pool. I like Infinity a lot but I'd like to see people try variations on things it does.

Oh definitely. I could see something a bit more restrictive along the lines of pairs rather than groups that get to share their actions, or 2 part actions that require 2 models such as one 2 part action being marking a target and shooting where one unit marks as the first part of the action and the 2nd model fires using the 2nd part, but still leaving one 2 part action that can be used by either of the models. e.g. combinations for Duo Team:

Sniper team (Shooter and targeter):
- Both models can move and shoot, or move and move
- One model marks a target boosting accuracy for the second model who can fire. (Could be done twice in a turn)
- Alternatively both models can burst fire pistols, costs both parts of action, but accuracy is lower as the target isn't marked.

Human/Droid Shield unit.
- Human shield, increases save/damage reduction for partner. Meat shield can fire but not move, maybe force the opponent to shoot meat shield etc...

Just farting out ideas.

# ? Apr 10, 2016 19:06

spectralent: Oct 1, 2014; Me and the boys poppin' down to the shops

I wouldn't mind seeing sci fi skirmish that was a bit more invested in command and control; alien hive minds and fearless robots could be really dramatic in such a system.

# ? Apr 10, 2016 19:10

Rulebook Heavily: Sep 18, 2010; by FactsAreUseless

lilljonas posted:

Having a "to hit" roll and a "to wound" roll is honestly not that bad, IMHO. The awfulness comes in adding a third, "armour save" roll, that could easily just be a modification to the first or the second roll, cutting down a third of the dice rolls.

In the game skirmish game we're currently working on at the club, we have a single contested roll. This rolls has most of the modifiers, such as outnumbering, flank attacks, etc. The winner of this roll will cause damage depending on how large the spread is on the contested roll. This damage can be affected by some factors, such as armour.

This way you have an attack roll where you get the modifiers that make you more or less likely to win the combat, and you have a damage effect (that doesn't require a roll) where you get modifiers that don't make your less likely to be hit, but less likely to take damage. All in a single roll, instead of three.

The only reason to do three rolls rather than two is to allow for a more granular set of results to design around... theoretically. The easiest way is to compare it to a two-step system so prepare for tables.

To start us off, here are the percentages of a single d6 system in which 1 always fails. Percentages are chance of success.

code:

2+ =83.3%
3+ =66.7%
4+ =50%
5+ =33.3%
6+ =16.7%

There's not a lot of space to work with, but it's pretty simple. What does adding more rolls give us? Well, let's look at a two-step system. 2+/2+ below means "chance to succeed needs to roll 2 or higher, then needs to roll 2 or higher" and so on. I'm not figuring in rerolls yet because :effort:

code:

2+/2+ = 69,4%
2+/3+ = 55,6%
2+/4+ = 41,7%
2+/5+ = 27,8%
2+/6+ = 13,9%

3+/3+ =44,4%
3+/4+ =33,3% (Age of Sigmar's favorite number pre-armor save, exactly equal to 5+ on 1d6: very lazy way to do design math, guys)
3+/5+ =22,2%
3+/6+ =11,1%

4+/4+ =25%
4+/5+ =16,7% (Exactly equal to rolling a 6+ on 1d6)
4+/6+ =8,3%

5+/5+ =11,1% (Exactly equal to 3+/6+, note)
5+/6+ =5,6%

6+/6+ =2,8%

Without figuring rerolls, no roll in this two-step system will ever have a success rate higher than 69,4% or lower than 2,8%. The total spread of possible success percentages is:

69,4%
55,6%
44,4%
41,7%
33,3%
27,8%
25%
22,2%
16,7%
13,9%
11,1%
8,3%
2,8%

= 13 different types of percentages.

This is kind of a weird and eclectic mix of percentage values, some of which you might wish to avoid ever occuring in a game altogether (2,8% is about the chance of successfully making a wound stick on something in 40k that has a rerollable 2+ invulnerable save, and gently caress that poo poo). But even with just a two-step system, we've already got a really wide set of percentage chances to work with and design around, and we can add rerolls into the system at either or both steps to introduce even more numbers, particularly ones that beat 69% and maybe something to fit into the massive conspicuous gap between 41% and 33%. The total amount of possible percentages can be called the "width" of your system; if you deliberately exclude certain extremely low percentages, you're reducing the amount of design space you have to work with to create many different types of possible units, making it less "wide".

Note also, though, that the chance of a roll not being a success goes up the more dice you introduce simply because your system has more points of failure; a 1d6 system has more than a 80% chance of success on one die, which immediately becomes a little tougher to model the more dice you add. This is where the 40k "buckets of dice, two dudes dead, one stood up again" effect creeps in. So why did 40ks designers go with a three-step system? Well. Going by some of the design notes in 3e and from White Dwarf from back when it was at least a vaguely interesting magazine, it's because of these kinds of percentage spreads. With AP values working how they do, 40k already has all of the above two-step spread possibilities baked in and adds a whole bunch more. This theoretically means that the design space in 40k can include an incredibly huge variety of models with different stats! Right? I mean, that was the intent. Let's look at the practice.

code:

2+/2+/2+ =57,7%
2+/2+/3+ =46,3%
2+/2+/4+ =34,7%
2+/2+/5+ =23,1%
2+/2+/6+ =11,6%

2+/3+/3+ =37%
2+/3+/4+ =27,8%
2+/3+/5+ =18,5%
2+/3+/6+ =9,3%

2+/4+/4+ =20,8%
2+/4+/5+ =13,9% (same as 2+/6+ from the two-step system; expect more of this)
2+/4+/6+ =6,9%

2+/5+/5+ =9,3% (We're running into an in-table repeat percentage here already)
2+/5+/6+ =4,6%

2+/6+/6+ =2,3%

3+/3+/3+ =29,6%
3+/3+/4+ =22,2% (might as well roll 3+/5+...)
3+/3+/5+ =14,8%
3+/3+/6+ =7,4%

3+/4+/4+ =16,7% (Finally, we have achieved 40k dice technology that can match rolling a 6+ on 1d6)
3+/4+/5+ =11,1% (3+/6+, 5+/5+; 40k now has three different methods of arriving at the exact same percentage)
3+/4+/6+ =5,6%

3+/5+/5+ =7,4% (Another in-table repeat)
3+/5+/6+ =3,7%

3+/6+/6+ =1,9%

4+/4+/4+ =12,5%
4+/4+/5+ =8,3% (Exactly the same as 4+/6+)
4+/4+/6+ =4,2%

4+/5+/5+ =5,6% (in-table repeat)
4+/6+/6+ =2,8% (identical to 6+/6+)

5+/5+/5+ =3,7% (in-table repeat)
5+/5+/6+ =1,9% (in-table repeat)

5+/6+/6+ =0,9%

6+/6+/6+ =0,5%

Without even gathering all of these results into a spread, you can already spot the problems. The core system means success is unlikely from the outset for every initial die rolled, and at the extreme ends results tend to cluster at ridiculously low percentages - to 40k's credit, the designers have realized this and prevented those results from occurring very often. However, that means that a huge portion of the "different" results the three-step system gives you are effectively unusable. On top of that, 40k's designers have also decided to all but eliminate the ability to hit someone on a 2+ in many instances, so that's an entire battery of percentages simply gone from the table as well. Lots of results are repeated which means that nominally different units are actually identical on paper, and the actual "width" of unit stats is relatively small. And on top of all that, the only way to introduce greater chances of success is to add rerolls on top of rerolls, which adds more rolls to an already roll-heavy system.

The end result: a system where almost all unit stats cluster around a very small set of "core" values (3 and 4 in stat values for 99% of units) that can only dig itself out of its own design hole by making you roll more dice. All this work results in a spread which in practice is, if anything, slightly smaller than the two-step one which can already cover a lot of the percentages anyway.

What if you want to model armor as separate from toughness etc. etc, though? 40k does that pretty easily, but you can probably arrive at some kind of system to do it with two dice if you stop and think about it. It'll at the very least be simpler to design around.

Rulebook Heavily fucked around with this message at 19:16 on Apr 10, 2016

# ? Apr 10, 2016 19:13

Dr Hemulen: Jan 25, 2003

Thanks for starting this thread, I hope something awesome comes out!

I've been working on a game for a few years, maybe this will be the inspiration needed to get it written down and playtested a bit. It's a sci-fi "skirmish" game in the same way that 1st ed 40K was a skirmish game, so 4-5 small squads on each side and maybe a few vehicles. The basic goal is to make something that feels realistic and is also fun.

Features:

-"Time management" system, which works on a pr. unit basis. You can do lots of stuff, do one thing well, be ready to react or a combination of these.
-Turn based, but with reaction to enemy moves with the above system
- Basic "to hit" and "saving throw" mechanics, but complexity and number of dice rolls will scale with the point cost of the models. For example really tough models (marines and such) get to make a "to wound" roll also.

I don't have any fancy world building stuff, the basic idea is just to make 40K equivalents, but try to make the whole thing work like in the fluff.

I'll post a google doc of an alpha version as soon as possible.

# ? Apr 10, 2016 19:15

Thundercloud: Mar 28, 2010; To boldly be eaten where no grot has been eaten before!

Well I've just tried a quick 3 identical models per side game with the opposed rolls mechanic, and it lasted two turns. If you have each model having one damage point it is over quick.

I used success = 5+ roll.
Shooting skill and Weapon Strength both d8.
Armour D8, being in cover D6.

In the game I will make light cover D6, medium cover D8 and fortifications D10.

However the mechanics worked. You don't want to be out of cover, just like real life.

Ready to write up attack, damage and cover mechanics.

# ? Apr 10, 2016 19:27

Dr Hemulen: Jan 25, 2003

Yeah, people on open ground should be dead meat if shot at.
I like your dice shift mechanic, reminds me of Stargrunt.

# ? Apr 10, 2016 19:35

spectralent: Oct 1, 2014; Me and the boys poppin' down to the shops

HardCoil posted:

Yeah, people on open ground should be dead meat if shot at.
I like your dice shift mechanic, reminds me of Stargrunt.

This was one thing that left me a bit cold about CoC, as much as I love it; people in the open are surprisingly resilient, though I assume they're meant to be throwing themselves at the floor when shot at.

In general, I think things like vision and command and control elements could be interesting to play with in a sci fi or fantasy game, and I feel like a lot of games ignore them beyond "take a pinning check at 25% casualties" or "roll for running down if you break" type stuff.

# ? Apr 10, 2016 19:40

Dr Hemulen: Jan 25, 2003

Yeah, but it can also be overdone. Again, in Stargrunt, you have to deal with treating ALL casualties, and the consequences for squad morale if that doesn't happen. I guess this is very realistic, but I imagine it bogs the game down quite a lot if you IG blob has to halt and deal with bandages and IV's everytime somebody gets hurt.
What exactly do you mean by command and control? The old Epic game had secret order counters you placed by each unit putting them into a specific "mode" for that turn. This would confer bonuses and weaknesses depending on what you chose.

# ? Apr 10, 2016 19:56

lilljonas: May 6, 2007; We got crabs? We got crabs!

Nice to see more prospective games being hinted at!

I have two games, one that is chugging along pretty decently that I'm a collaborator on, and another one that is far from even having an embryo of a game.

First one is a generic skirmish combat system, initially starting with a Viking themed setting:

- The game should be playable in 45-90 minutes, depending on scenario. The game is focused on small warbands of up to a dozen models, playable on a normal kitchen table, and not require tons of terrain. We need a filler game or a game that we can play on a weekday when we don't have time to play a big battle.

- The game should represent how combatants in close combat skirmishes are moving. In a lot of skirmish games your models will simply stand face to face and attack, until one model is killed. Pushing, turning, falling and such manouvers should be a common result of combat.

-The game should make the players have to make tactical decisions. Both in movement and in the actual combat. There should be other options than just running and attacking, and there should be a mechanic so that you can't do all of it all the time: some kind of alternative ways to affect your opponent's models, and some kind of order mechanic.

-The game should be built to work for campaigns. The campaign should avoid creating invincible teams or wipe teams out completely, and there should be alternative campaign actions other than fighting.

-The game should be generic enough that we can make it work in other settings, both historical and mythological/fantasy.

It all started when we were looking for a good alternative to Chain of Command and Field of Glory, which both take quite some time to set up and play. We tried SAGA, but when a lot of players didn't find it to their tastes, we started brainstorming about what we wanted in a game. We pretty much came up with the list above, and got to work.

We're at a point where the core rules are pretty decent, though we're still coming up with questions during playtests. Next step will be to work on the campaign rules, where we have a foundation (shamelessly heavily influenced by King of Dragon Pass rather than, say, Mordheim). We settled on a Viking themed setting to start out, as we thought it really fit the idea of a close combat-centric game, and the influence from KoDP.

Other steps:

- Buy and paint a bunch of viking miniatures for a proper campaign playtest.

- Build some Dark Age terrain to go with above mentioned vikings.

We'll probably go with monsters and poo poo as well, to make sure the rules work for them. So I'm planning to build a Sea-themed warband of Vikings who worship Nj�r�r, and unwittingly start to attract various aquatic themed monsters such as Sea Trolls.

My second game is about 16th century East Asian galleys, because I want to build tiny cubic ships like these...

...and crash them into each other. And there are no rules for that. I really have no idea what kind of game mechanics to base this on, especially not if I go for including Korean turtle ships, which tended to just demolish anything they met. And that written sources on Asian naval warfare are a bit lacking, to say the least.

But I'm thinking of a system where crew motivation plays a big part. Basically the ships had two primary ways to attack: through shooting with handguns/bows, and through boarding. Bigger ships ended up having cannon as well. If I can get a system where you have to try to get your boarding ships into combat, without losing too much crew and/or motivation from incoming fire, while at the same time trying to keep your shooting ships out of harms way but close enough to cause harm, all while this chaos can have detrimental effects on your ships' speed (since they're all rowed).... maybe it can be fun to play?

# ? Apr 10, 2016 20:03

spectralent: Oct 1, 2014; Me and the boys poppin' down to the shops

HardCoil posted:

Yeah, but it can also be overdone. Again, in Stargrunt, you have to deal with treating ALL casualties, and the consequences for squad morale if that doesn't happen. I guess this is very realistic, but I imagine it bogs the game down quite a lot if you IG blob has to halt and deal with bandages and IV's everytime somebody gets hurt.
What exactly do you mean by command and control? The old Epic game had secret order counters you placed by each unit putting them into a specific "mode" for that turn. This would confer bonuses and weaknesses depending on what you chose.

Yeah, stuff like that, and other systems like Bolt Action's pinning and Chain of Command's... everything. Essentially, it seems to me that morale preparedness for battle and the effects thereof are the main ways of doing things in actual warfare. Very few people are killed in combat in regimented battle, for example; most are killed when men break and flee. In modern warfare, small arms aren't primarily there to kill people; they deny them ground, pin them down, force them back, and ultimately make them unable to carry out orders. Far more people are killed by artillery. Yet, most wargames I know have the complete opposite of this: The game is primarily about killing dudes, and sometimes you get a morale bennie thrown to you if a unit is run down or pinned. I'd like to see a game that goes for the reverse of that, where you're primarily about messing with your opponent's ability to do stuff and actually killing dudes is an occasional bonus. Vision is similar; in most games I'm aware of you know exactly what your opponent's dudes are doing and where they're going. I wouldn't mind a game where you move tokens around before revealing them as they come into contact, or a game with a system like Ambush Alley's irregular movement where guys out of sight can move to other spots out of sight.

# ? Apr 10, 2016 20:14

Spookyelectric: Jul 5, 2007; Who's there?

The reason I stopped playing Warhammer and many other tabletop games was because of a near lack of interactivity between players.

I would end my turn, tell my opponent to begin his turn, walk down the street to Taco Bell to buy lunch, walk back to the store with my food, see that my opponent was still moving models or otherwise taking his turn, eat my lunch, finish my lunch, and chat a bit with the guys before I was ever called upon to do anything. No reactions to what he did during his turn. No contesting his rolls with my own abilities. No strategy other than a blind rush forward into melee and an occasional shot. The closest thing to interactivity I ever really experienced was either confirming that something was within range of my units or rolling saving throws. A lot of times I just watched as he counted hits, consulted charts, and threw dice. On my turns, he was equally as disengaged. It was just a very dissatisfying experience.

Maybe Warhammer got better. I'm not sure. I moved on to Warmachine and found it to be generally better about interactivity and a much faster game. When my local game store closed I just stopped playing mini games entirely.

To my mind, what a good miniatures game needs is a healthy dose of player interactivity and strategy. There should never be a point during the game where I feel I can walk away without consequence. I should be as interested in my opponents' moves as I am my own. I should feel that I can do something about his actions. I should be able to react and counter things. My plans should completely fall apart in one move, and regardless it should not feel as though the game is "finished." There should always be a chance to do something.

And throughout it all, turns should be decided without a lot of unnecessary math or excessive rolling of dice.

I want to play a tabletop game like that!

Spookyelectric fucked around with this message at 20:22 on Apr 10, 2016

# ? Apr 10, 2016 20:19

lilljonas: May 6, 2007; We got crabs? We got crabs!

spectralent posted:

Yeah, stuff like that, and other systems like Bolt Action's pinning and Chain of Command's... everything. Essentially, it seems to me that morale preparedness for battle and the effects thereof are the main ways of doing things in actual warfare. Very few people are killed in combat in regimented battle, for example; most are killed when men break and flee. In modern warfare, small arms aren't primarily there to kill people; they deny them ground, pin them down, force them back, and ultimately make them unable to carry out orders. Far more people are killed by artillery. Yet, most wargames I know have the complete opposite of this: The game is primarily about killing dudes, and sometimes you get a morale bennie thrown to you if a unit is run down or pinned. I'd like to see a game that goes for the reverse of that, where you're primarily about messing with your opponent's ability to do stuff and actually killing dudes is an occasional bonus. Vision is similar; in most games I'm aware of you know exactly what your opponent's dudes are doing and where they're going. I wouldn't mind a game where you move tokens around before revealing them as they come into contact, or a game with a system like Ambush Alley's irregular movement where guys out of sight can move to other spots out of sight.

This is a point we have considered in our skirmish viking game. Our goal is that actually killing opponents won't be the be-all and end-all: making them yield, too tired to continue fighting, or simply scare them off the field should be a common way to win, which I don't see that often in skirmish games.

# ? Apr 10, 2016 20:19

richyp: Dec 2, 2004; Grumpy old man

Spookyelectric posted:

To my mind, what a good miniatures game needs is a healthy dose of player interactivity and strategy. There should never be a point during the game where I feel I can walk away without consequence. I should be as interested in my opponents' moves as I am my own. I should feel that I can do something about his actions. I should be able to react and counter things. My plans should fall apart in one move without deciding the game. There should always be a chance to do something.

And throughout it all, turns should be decided without a lot of unnecessary math or excessive rolling of dice.

I want to play a tabletop game like that!

[url]http://static.infinitythegame.com/archivo/descargas/\[ENG\]_Rules.pdf[/url]

"It's always your turn" (tm)

# ? Apr 10, 2016 20:22

Spookyelectric: Jul 5, 2007; Who's there?

richyp posted:

[url]http://static.infinitythegame.com/archivo/descargas/[ENG]_Rules.pdf[/url]

"It's always your turn" (tm)

At last.

# ? Apr 10, 2016 20:22

lilljonas: May 6, 2007; We got crabs? We got crabs!

Spookyelectric posted:

To my mind, what a good miniatures game needs is a healthy dose of player interactivity and strategy. There should never be a point during the game where I feel I can walk away without consequence. I should be as interested in my opponents' moves as I am my own. I should feel that I can do something about his actions. I should be able to react and counter things. My plans should fall apart in one move without deciding the game. There should always be a chance to do something.

And throughout it all, turns should be decided without a lot of unnecessary math or excessive rolling of dice.

I want to play a tabletop game like that!

I think that alternating actions is a good solution to this. If I move one guy, and you move your guy, and so on, and everyone fights after that is done, there's a lot more thought to put into what I move, and in which order.

# ? Apr 10, 2016 20:22

Thundercloud: Mar 28, 2010; To boldly be eaten where no grot has been eaten before!

Here is a first draft attack phase. Not being in cover means you're toast, as you only roll one defence dice.

So when you take fire you have the option to take cover, and roll three defence dice, but that removes your actions that turn or one of your actions the following turn. You can take the hit, hope you survive and don't get suppressed, and react by shooting back. This gives the defenders choices. The attacker wants to maximise the number of shots put into a target, because you may only suppress on the first shot, but that increases the score the defender needs to get for successes to 6+.

Mechanically this works. It pushes towards small fire teams of 2 or three models so you can pile on the suppressions and successes. But does it give players enough to chew on as a basic mechanic? Thoughts?

Attack Phase

A model using this action makes an attack against an enemy model or other eligible target. A shooting attack that is not in range reduces the dice the player rolls for shooting value by 1 (a D8 becomes a D6) to represent reduced accuracy at long range.

Shooting

Each model has a shooting value, which gives you the dice you roll for the shooting value. Each weapon has a strength value, giving you the second dice that you roll for the shooting attack.

The enemy model will roll dice for their armour value and any cover that they are in. If the model has chosen to react by �Taking Cover� they roll an additional cover dice. If they Take Cover when they are not in cover they gain a D6 cover dice to represent them hitting the dirt.

To score a success, the dice must have a result after any modifiers of 5 or more.

Close Quarters Combat

Each model has a fighting value. This is the dice rolled for the attack. The strength of any close quarters weapon the model has is also used. It is opposed by the defending models armour dice. Once the attack has been resolved, the defending model then attacks back.

Example

Terry�s Spess Marine has a shooting value of D8, with a weapon strength of D8. He rolls two D8s to attack. He is firing at Percy�s Mercenary Grunt, who has an armour of D6, and is in light cover. Percy rolls two D6s to defend.

Terry rolls a 5 and an 8, getting two successes.
Percy rolls a 4 and a 6, getting one success.

Damage

When a model is attacked, if there are more successes for the attacker than the defender, the defender may take damage.

1 success � the model is shaken and Suppressed.
2 or more successes � the model takes a point of damage. Some models may be able to take more than one point of damage.

Suppressed � a model that is Suppressed loses one action from their next turn (for example, if they had not taken their turn in the current turn, they would lose one of their actions). A model may be suppressed twice in the same turn. A suppressed model also subtracts 1 from all dice rolls.

# ? Apr 10, 2016 20:23

Jeb Bush 2012: Apr 4, 2007; A mathematician, like a painter or poet, is a maker of patterns. If his patterns are more permanent than theirs, it is because they are made with ideas.

Spookyelectric posted:

The reason I stopped playing Warhammer and many other tabletop games was because of a near lack of interactivity between players.

I would end my turn, tell my opponent to begin his turn, walk down the street to Taco Bell to buy lunch, walk back to the store with my food, see that my opponent was still moving models or otherwise taking his turn, eat my lunch, finish my lunch, and chat a bit with the guys before I was ever called upon to do anything. No reactions to what he did during his turn. No contesting his rolls with my own abilities. No strategy other than a blind rush forward into melee and an occasional shot. The closest thing to interactivity I ever really experienced was either confirming that something was within range of my units or rolling saving throws. A lot of times I just watched as he counted hits, consulted charts, and threw dice. On my turns, he was equally as disengaged. It was just a very dissatisfying experience.

Maybe Warhammer got better. I'm not sure. I moved on to Warmachine and found it to be generally better about interactivity and a much faster game. When my local game store closed I just stopped playing mini games entirely.

To my mind, what a good miniatures game needs is a healthy dose of player interactivity and strategy. There should never be a point during the game where I feel I can walk away without consequence. I should be as interested in my opponents' moves as I am my own. I should feel that I can do something about his actions. I should be able to react and counter things. My plans should completely fall apart in one move, and regardless it should not feel as though the game is "finished." There should always be a chance to do something.

And throughout it all, turns should be decided without a lot of unnecessary math or excessive rolling of dice.

I want to play a tabletop game like that!

That's probably the best feature of X-Wing compared to, say, warmachine (which I also like, but does result in spending too much time waiting for other people's turns). The amount of time you spend watching your opponent do stuff while you twiddle your thumbs is smaller than any other minis game I've played.

# ? Apr 10, 2016 20:25

richyp: Dec 2, 2004; Grumpy old man

Jeb Bush 2012 posted:

That's probably the best feature of X-Wing compared to, say, warmachine (which I also like, but does result in spending too much time waiting for other people's turns). The amount of time you spend watching your opponent do stuff while you twiddle your thumbs is smaller than any other minis game I've played.

Yep. Either some kind of reactive based play (Infinity), or unit level initiative/skill level (X-Wing) seems like the best way to keep both players engaged at all times rather than doing the weekly shop/watering plants/twiddling thunmbs while your opponent moves all 500 models along a tape measure and rolls 3 sets of dice for every hit.

# ? Apr 10, 2016 20:30

spectralent: Oct 1, 2014; Me and the boys poppin' down to the shops

Not to keep on about it, but "how many dudes do you get to move" is a big thing in Chain of Command too.

One idea I have liked the idea of is have a unit card for everyone, which get shuffled together, friend and foe. Then, flip cards for who goes. It seems like a nice randomised system; though I also keep thinking cards might be more useful as a data-keeping device...

# ? Apr 10, 2016 20:33

lilljonas: May 6, 2007; We got crabs? We got crabs!

We're going for a kind of inbetween: you get a random number of activations, but an activation is not necessarily "move and attack with one dude". So you're not screwed if you get fewer activation, but you are restricted in how detailed your plan is. So an activation could be "tell all henchmen in command range of my leader to attack that dude", which will get a lot of things done, or it could be "move my archer along that hedge, and then spend a second activation to put him in hiding in that window", which is more detailed, but also costs more activations and only moves one guy.

So it's kind of a mix of CoC and Infinity.

# ? Apr 10, 2016 21:10

Rulebook Heavily: Sep 18, 2010; by FactsAreUseless

Rulebook Heavily posted:

I'm not figuring in rerolls yet because .

I figured in rerolls after dinner.

1d6 system table: "RR" denotes reroll. Ordered from most to least successful.

code:

2+RR =97,2%
3+RR =88,9%
2+   =83.3%
4+RR =75%
3+   =66.7%
5+RR =55,6%
4+   =50%
5+   =33.3%
6+RR =30,6%
6+   =16.7%

So a system that bases its chance-to-wound on nothing more than 1d6 with occasional rerolls can get a pretty wide spread of results. Good news, one-die designers! Now you can put all the complexity into how you arrive at what you need to roll. :v:

Time for the two-step d6 math.

code:

Previous table with no rerolls:

2+/2+       = 69,4%
2+/3+       = 55,6%
3+/3+       =44,4%
2+/4+       = 41,7%
3+/4+       =33,3%
2+/5+       = 27,8%
4+/4+       =25%
3+/5+       =22,2%
4+/5+       =16,7%
2+/6+       = 13,9%
3+/6+       =11,1%
5+/5+       =11,1%
4+/6+       =8,3%
5+/6+       =5,6%
6+/6+       =2,8%

code:

Reroll table:

2+RR/2+  =81%
2+RR/3+  =64,8%
2+RR/4+  =48,6%
2+RR/5+  =32,4%
2+RR/6+  =16,2%

3+RR/2+  =74,1%
3+RR/3+  =59,3%
3+RR/4+  =44,4%
3+RR/5+  =29,6%
3+RR/6+  =14,8%

4+RR/2+  =62,5%
4+RR/3+  =50%
4+RR/4+  =37,5%
4+RR/5+  =25%
4+RR/6+  =12,5%

5+RR/2+  =46,3%
5+RR/3+  =37%
5+RR/4+  =27,8%
5+RR/5+  =18,5%
5+RR/6+  =9,3%

6+RR/2+  =25,5%
6+RR/3+  =20.4%
6+RR/4+  =15,3%
6+RR/5+  =10,2%
6+RR/6+  =5,1%

This table covers rerolls on the second roll as well: a 6+/6+ with a reroll on the first or second number is identical, and a 5+/2+RR is identical to a 2+RR/5+ as well, funnily enough.

Time to go NEXT LEVEL REROLLING; rerolling both dice.

code:

2+RR/2+RR=94,5%
2+RR/3+RR=86,4%
2+RR/4+RR=72,9%
2+RR/5+RR=54%
2+RR/6+RR=29,7%

3+RR/3+RR=79%
3+RR/4+RR=66,7%
3+RR/5+RR=49,4%
3+RR/6+RR=27,2%

4+RR/4+RR=56,2%
4+RR/5+RR=41,7%
4+RR/6+RR=22,9%

5+RR/5+RR=30,9%
5+RR/6+RR=16,9%

6+RR/6+RR=9,3%

So now we have results for no rerolls, rerolling one die and rerolling both. Let's mash them all together in a really ugly way.

code:

2+RR/2+RR=94,5%
2+RR/3+RR=86,4%
2+RR/2+  =81%
3+RR/3+RR=79%
3+RR/2+  =74,1%
2+RR/4+RR=72,9%
2+/2+    =69,4%
3+RR/4+RR=66,7%
2+RR/3+  =64,8%
4+RR/2+  =62,5%
3+RR/3+  =59,3%
4+RR/4+RR=56,2%
2+/3+    =55,6%
2+RR/5+RR=54%
4+RR/3+  =50%
3+RR/5+RR=49,4%
2+RR/4+  =48,6%
5+RR/2+  =46,3%
3+/3+    =44,4%
3+RR/4+  =44,4%
2+/4+    =41,7%
4+RR/5+RR=41,7%
4+RR/4+  =37,5%
5+RR/3+  =37%
3+/4+    =33,3%
2+RR/5+  =32,4%
5+RR/5+RR=30,9%
2+RR/6+RR=29,7%
3+RR/5+  =29,6%
2+/5+    =27,8%
5+RR/4+  =27,8%
3+RR/6+RR=27,2%
6+RR/2+  =25,5%
4+/4+    =25%
4+RR/5+  =25%
4+RR/6+RR=22,9%
3+/5+    =22,2%
6+RR/3+  =20.4%
5+RR/5+  =18,5%
5+RR/6+RR=16,9%
4+/5+    =16,7%
2+RR/6+  =16,2%
6+RR/4+  =15,3%
3+RR/6+  =14,8%
2+/6+    =13,9%
4+RR/6+  =12,5%
3+/6+    =11,1%
5+/5+    =11,1%
6+RR/5+  =10,2%
5+RR/6+  =9,3%
6+RR/6+RR=9,3%
4+/6+    =8,3%
5+/6+    =5,6%
6+RR/6+  =5,1%
6+/6+    =2,8%

If only SA had some kind of "put all of this in a popout block" bbcode function. Anyway, with a maximum of four die rolls you can simulate all of these percentages really easily, and with a lookup you can quickly check which ones are equivalently effective in a play environment and which ones you should be avoiding (11,1% is the chance of killing a space marine by shooting them with a boltgun from another space marine and anything much lower than that gets even more into really boring dice bucket territory).

So now you can tell how many dice rolled in a certain way will successfully "wound" a target in a two-step d6 system. This can be used as a balance point between units of small numbers of elite soldiers VS hordes, good defenses VS bad, etc. etc. I might use this myself, but in case someone else is thinking of a system like this here's the math done for you.

# ? Apr 10, 2016 21:21

Thundercloud: Mar 28, 2010; To boldly be eaten where no grot has been eaten before!

Is there somewhere I can get something that gives me probability distributions for different die?

The game I'm designing will be using poly dice (D6, D8, D10, D12) and I will be basing the points system on how likely you are to get successes (5+) on rolls. So a D8 in a slot is worth twice what a D6 is, whereas a D10 is worth three times and a D12 4 times).

I just need a way to run through all the math.

# ? Apr 10, 2016 21:28

spectralent: Oct 1, 2014; Me and the boys poppin' down to the shops

That poo poo looks worth putting in the OP, Rulebook; might not be overly complex math but having it there for reference is greatly appreciated.

# ? Apr 10, 2016 21:29

lilljonas: May 6, 2007; We got crabs? We got crabs!

spectralent posted:

That poo poo looks worth putting in the OP, Rulebook; might not be overly complex math but having it there for reference is greatly appreciated.

Done and done.

# ? Apr 10, 2016 21:35

Rulebook Heavily: Sep 18, 2010; by FactsAreUseless

Thundercloud posted:

Is there somewhere I can get something that gives me probability distributions for different die?

The game I'm designing will be using poly dice (D6, D8, D10, D12) and I will be basing the points system on how likely you are to get successes (5+) on rolls. So a D8 in a slot is worth twice what a D6 is, whereas a D10 is worth three times and a D12 4 times).

I just need a way to run through all the math.

The math: [Number of possible die results] (6 for d6, 8 for d8 etc) minus [number of die results that do not succeed] (always 4 for this system); take result and divide that by [number of possible die results] again.

so:
d6; (6-4)/6, or 2/6: =33,3%
d8; (8-4)/8, or 4/8: =50%
d10: (10-4)/10, or 6/10: 60%
d12: (12-4)/12, or 8/12: 66,6%

If you wanted to run a success number of 4+ instead, you'd just subtract 3 instead in the formula. 6+, subtract 5 and so on. In fact, let me do that quick to see what happens because I'm kind of interested.

4+ system:
d6 = 50%
d8 = 62,5%
d10 = 70%
d12 = 75%

6+ system;
d6 = 16,6%
d8 = 37,5%
d10 = 50%
d12 = 58,3%

In every case, the biggest jump in success is always from d6 to d8, with each step above that producing diminishing results, but still pretty noticeable. The exact amount jumped up per step is different in each too. That could affect how you want to price each step, I guess!

e: also, anydice.com is still the tool of choice for a lot of people to give you quick tables and probability curves if you can learn its syntax, which I never seem to.

# ? Apr 10, 2016 21:49

Rulebook Heavily: Sep 18, 2010; by FactsAreUseless

To kill this thread even harder, poster Dagon and I went to some trouble to make and even playtest a hack of Bolt Action named Bolter Action which didn't get super far, wasn't completed and probably wasn't balanced. A lot of it was reworking existing mechanical concepts from Bolt Action, derive their points costs formulas and rebuild 40k stuff in the system instead. Because it was a fan project with two people who got busy or sick or otherwise life'd, it died. With Antares now out, someone else can pick up and rework the torch if they like.

Bolter Action everyone. The most complete and playable armies are Tau and Imperial Guard.

# ? Apr 11, 2016 01:02

richyp: Dec 2, 2004; Grumpy old man

On the miniature side of things, I've found http://miniset.net/sets/show-40 to be great in finding models and a great way of piecing together units using models from various manufacturers. It's a giant repository/database of photos' of pretty much every model in existence from all different manufacturers, the search is bit meh but there are category filters.

There are 22 pages of miniatures if you search for "skeleton" for example.
Searching for Orc will return a lot of pages but as it uses substring searching you're going to get "Sorceror" too.

Still it's a nice site and might help people find models for warbands.

# ? Apr 11, 2016 08:36

lilljonas: May 6, 2007; We got crabs? We got crabs!

richyp posted:

On the miniature side of things, I've found http://miniset.net/sets/show-40 to be great in finding models and a great way of piecing together units using models from various manufacturers. It's a giant repository/database of photos' of pretty much every model in existence from all different manufacturers, the search is bit meh but there are category filters.

There are 22 pages of miniatures if you search for "skeleton" for example.
Searching for Orc will return a lot of pages but as it uses substring searching you're going to get "Sorceror" too.

Still it's a nice site and might help people find models for warbands.

Cool, I'm on the hunt for nice vikings/dark age warriors.

# ? Apr 11, 2016 09:44

Dr Hemulen: Jan 25, 2003

Does anybody have thoughts on squad coherency in sci-fi games? I get that it's almost impossible to make stuff work without it when you are running 20+ models, but is the 2" 40K standard coherency too tight? It seems pretty unrealistic that people try to pack that densly.

# ? Apr 11, 2016 19:05

Hedningen: May 4, 2013; Enough sideburns to last a lifetime.

Nice thread idea. Definitely bookmarked.

As for my own heartbreaker project that has languished for years, it's a martial arts-skinned skirmish game that uses mah-jong tiles for a random number machine (or a few decks of cards slapped together if you don't have tiles). The basic mechanics are inspired by the whole Malifaux flipping mechanics, but tiles in the hand are "set" on a model for reactive moves. There's also a vague parrying mechanic that I've worked on involving mah-jong's rules - if someone plays a tile and you have two of the same suit and number, you get to cancel the action. It plays decently fast, but I'm still hitting some stumbling blocks on things.

I've thought about a campaign-based system for a generic point-buy - you have a gang of dudes, and they get more martial arts-y as time goes on - but the nature of the genre thinks that some unique effects could be good to represent stuff like ancient Chinese sorcerers, combat styles, and so forth. I'd love any suggestions for what could be good.

# ? Apr 11, 2016 19:31

lilljonas: May 6, 2007; We got crabs? We got crabs!

HardCoil posted:

Does anybody have thoughts on squad coherency in sci-fi games? I get that it's almost impossible to make stuff work without it when you are running 20+ models, but is the 2" 40K standard coherency too tight? It seems pretty unrealistic that people try to pack that densly.

Could you link it to experience of the troops? Crappy grunts need to be closer to the sergeant or equivalent, while super duper space paratroopers can spread out more, and function more independently?

And mahjong skirmish sounds cool as well. I've been thinking about making a hanafuda (tiny card deck with various flowers and poo poo) based system for samurai skirmish, but I realized that most people have no idea how to read those cards. Using kabufuda, which are simply cards from 1-10, instead of D10s, but then I couldn't find a kabufuda deck, so that project fell by the wayside.

lilljonas fucked around with this message at 21:30 on Apr 11, 2016

# ? Apr 11, 2016 21:25

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 20, 2024 00:31

Hedningen: May 4, 2013; Enough sideburns to last a lifetime.

lilljonas posted:

And mahjong skirmish sounds cool as well. I've been thinking about making a hanafuda (tiny card deck with various flowers and poo poo) based system for samurai skirmish, but I realized that most people have no idea how to read those cards. Using kabufuda, which are simply cards from 1-10, instead of D10s, but then I couldn't find a kabufuda deck, so that project fell by the wayside.

Yeah, first thing I did after starting on the system was think "How can people without access to this actually try it out?" and came up with the appropriate method of making things work correctly. The math is a bit of a sticking point with me, so I thought I'd ask the thread for help to see if my understanding of it is right.

A mahjong set consists of two broad "groupings" of tiles - the suited numbers and the honors. The suited tiles are simple enough - 4 each with a value from 1-9, in three suits (bamboo, circle, and character) - each tile gives a number corresponding to the value written on it. The honors are where things get complex - there are four winds and three dragons. The dragons were easy - give them a value of ten, and you're set. The winds, however, were something I was trying to think about, and I'm wondering if it's particularly useful or not.

So - most Mahjong sets come with a die to show who the dealing player is. You usually do two rotations around the table for a complete game. In this system, the wind corresponding to the direction of the die is worth 10, the opposite is worth 0, and the other two are worth 5. I think it makes sense as far as a consideration.

As far as math crunching goes, there are 108 numbered tiles, and 28 honour tiles. This can be further divided into 4 sets of tiles of value 1-10, with an additional four set worth 10 and 0 and two sets with an additional value of 5. If I'm looking at this correctly, then the average value should be the gamer-friendly 5.5, with additional neatness added for players who keep track of what's been played every turn.

Oh yeah, to expand the parrying/reversal action concept - say one model attacks another model. You have a pair of matching tiles in your hand, which you can then play to cancel a tile that has been played. If you've got an action canceled and can play the fourth tile, it makes the action succeed. I'm still deciding if it's too powerful to make it an automatic success if you reverse a parry, or whether it would be thematic - it means that having two tiles of the same suit and number is the safest method of attacking, but balancing how models interact is a start to this.

For model characteristics, what do people think is a good balance? Right now, this draft has about six - Move (obvious), Defense (again, obvious), Attack (seriously, kinda obvious), Stamina (wounds), Fighting Spirit (morale/ability to stand up with no stamina), and Chi (crazy bullshit magic) - but I'm really tempted to expand it, but keeping things from being too bloated is always a better way to do things, and I'm not sure if I'm limiting the possibility by sticking to this.

# ? Apr 11, 2016 23:48

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Traditional Games > Release your inner Reizwitz: making better warhams games

«‹›2 »