Starter for ten...

Page 1 of 3 1, 2, 3  Next

Go down

Starter for ten...

Post by S W Dickson on Sun Dec 13, 2009 11:40 am

Okay, I'm gonna throw this out there for discussion. A base concept for actual rules using the humble D6 as the basis.

Turn Sequence -

1. Movement
2. Attacks

Oooh! Simple.

All movement and subsidiary events take place in segment one.
All combat and shooting events take place in segment two, in no particular order.
We will deal initially with basic human equivalent infantry.

MOVEMENT

Each player rolls a dice, the highest roller gets first movement.

An infantry model may move up to 6 inches per turn (in a normal move). It does not matter which direction the model is facing, as they can easily turn and face any dangers they come across.

If they will cross terrain features that may slow them down, they roll a D6 and move that distance. This represents the possibility of making a leap or other heroic maneuver through/over the terrain, to getting stuck/slowing down in/before the feature. This includes such terrain as hedges, walls, ruined buildings, steep hills, marshes, shallow rivers etc.

The model may also make a "charge" maneuver, which will bring it into combat with an enemy model. This effectively doubles the range of the model to 12 inches. If the charge is over a terrain feature that would normally slow it down, then it would roll 2D6 and add the results, then move up to that distance. This is to represent such an aggressive move going horribly wrong as they trip and fall flat on their face or something suitably embarrassing. A charge maneuver must be directly, in a straight line, towards an enemy model, that must be seen before the charge begins. Any model that makes a charge maneuver may not take part in any form of shooting attack. They must also keep moving until they reach their full charge distance, or until they reach their target, whichever is first. This represents a mistimed charge, leaving the charger in the midst of a possibly overwhelming enemy force.

If you contact an enemy model, or come within 1" of it, you are seen as being "in combat radius". At this stage, normal ranged attacks become pointless, and therefore only melee combat may occur. You may not move past a model at this range and must defeat it to continue on. This is known as being "locked in combat". Any model that moves more than 6 inches to "enter" combat (this will mainly mean charges) will be prone to being fired at by enemy models. Any enemy that may (under normal conditions - see shooting rules) shoot the model, may do so now rather than in the Attack phase. If they choose to do so now, they may not shoot in the Attack phase. If they shoot now, they only hit their target on a D6 roll of a 6. This represents the hastily aimed shots of panicking defenders shooting at fast moving targets.

If you have a unit of models, they will move within their own combat radius (1") of each other, and make rolls for cross terrain moves as one. They do not leave their members behind.

Once all your moves are completed, play continues to your opponent, who repeats the process.

ATTACKS

To determine who proceeds with their attacks first, roll a D6 as before, the highest roller going first. For melee attacks, both players fight at the same time, but the first player must complete all their shooting before their opponent commences their shooting attacks.

Attacking covers both ranged and melee attacks. These have no set order, as the game may make it apparent which you, as the player, should do first form a tactical standpoint. To make it easier to read however, the rules detailing ranged attacks will e presented first, with melee second.

1) Ranged attacks -
You must be able to see your target. Your target must be within the range of your weapon/ranged attack. You must name your target before measuring.
To hit your target, you must roll the number as indicated on your models profile, or higher. If your weapon/model has more than one attack, you may roll a dice for each attack, as a separate "shot".
If you hit your target, you must see whether you have injured it or not. This is known as damage. To roll for damage, you must compare your attack power on your models/weapons profile, and compare it to the defence rating of your opponents model. With these numbers, you must then check the table for your damage infliction. If you score equal to or more than what is required, your opponent takes damage. Most models have only one damage point, and are therefore removed as a casualty. If your opponent has more than one damage point, then they lose one from their profile. Once a model reaches zero damage points, then it is removed as a casualty.
You may not target a model that is "in combat".
If your shot will bisect the combat radius of a friendly model, then you must also not shoot at that target.
Remember that any models that shot in the movement phase may not shoot in this phase.
Some ranged weapons (such as crossbows and trebuchets) do not allow movement in the turn that they shoot.

2) Melee Attacks -
You must indicate which melee you are going to fight first.
The melee skill of your models involved in the fight is important now. Roll the number of dice indicated by your models melee attacks rating number, and roll your dice, comparing your results to the melee table. If you score high enough to hit your opponent, then roll to damage as with shooting, except comparing your melee strength to your opponents defence rating. You may find that your opponent will also inflict damage on your model. Remove your models if they are reduced to zero damage points.

Control of shooting then passes to opponent. You do not fight any melee twice in one phase.

End of Turn
After both players have taken their full Attack phase, it is time for the next turn.

_________

That's about it so far. I've not gone into huge detail, and left a lot open for changing. The tables referred to will be made once we decide how to progress from here. If you feel like playtesting, just play with 4+ as a default winning 50/50 roll. Clarifications will be needed to clear up some stuff. But I reckon this begins the long process.
The 6" as basic movement is purely because of the D6 - I'm open to centimetres, but it seems so short! Inches are just much more elegant.

_________________

content entered on http://herebedragons.darkbb.com by S W Dickson is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.5 UK: Scotland License.
avatar
S W Dickson
Admin

Posts : 228
Join date : 2009-12-06
Age : 40
Location : Terra Incognita

View user profile http://herebedragons.darkbb.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Starter for ten...

Post by S W Dickson on Sun Dec 13, 2009 12:01 pm

MS RS MP RP DR DP Ag M
Human Warrior 5+ 4+ 2 1 2 1 2 1+

An example table for a standard human warrior with basic leather armour, a sword and a bow and arrow.

MS = Melee Skill
RS = Ranged Skill
MP = Melee Power
RP = Ranged Power
DR = Defence Rating
DP = Damage Points
Ag = Agility
M = Morale

_________________

content entered on http://herebedragons.darkbb.com by S W Dickson is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.5 UK: Scotland License.
avatar
S W Dickson
Admin

Posts : 228
Join date : 2009-12-06
Age : 40
Location : Terra Incognita

View user profile http://herebedragons.darkbb.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Starter for ten...

Post by sucramreverse on Sun Dec 13, 2009 10:43 pm

are we rolling for who moves first each and every turn? and then rolling for who attacks first too? so the phases would be like:

Movement;
player 1
player 2

Attack;
player 1
player 2

did I understand that right? if so, why are we splitting it this way instead of;

Player 1;
movement
attack

Player 2;
movement
attack

??? The latter seems a bit more intuitive and less rolling and reliance on dice for luck. the way you describe it, someone could be lucky and always roll to move/attack first.

other than that

Movement:
Basic infantry movement looks good, I like the simplicity of the charge movement. couple things though;

combat radius, if I have a unit of 10 (random number) models and only one model ends up being inside the combat radius of an enemy model, is the whole unit engaged and able to roll for hits and damage in the next phase, or just that sing model, and single enemy model?

Any model that moves more than 6 inches to "enter" combat (this will mainly mean charges)

What about later unit types of models that can move more than 6 inches? shouldn't this say "Any model(/unit?) that makes a charge movement can be subject to 'return fire'"

For needing to be within combat radius of another model in its unit. this should be somewhere further up in those rules. and what happens when this can't be accomplished? I can only think of one such circumstance right now, last turn this unit was attacked and lost the middle members of its long line, ie:

xxxx------------xxxx

(x=living model, - = lost model)
how do you handle this? are you forced to move your models toward each other and sacrifice any forward progress?

Attack:
Shooting:
What do you mean by being able to "see" an enemy model? If this means from your models point of view, it should be clarified a bit.
And again with the model vs unit; what if only one model in my unit can see only one enemy model, can the whole unit still open fire on the enemy's whole unit? if a model fires a weapon at an enemy unit, who takes the hit? does the player have to say which each and every model is firing at?
Also you seem to make reference to both the weapons stats and the model's stats more than necessary, like here:
compare your attack power on your models/weapons profile
Which is it? IMO should be the weapon's profile for ranged, and model's profile for melee. A puny wimp that can't throw a punch(model's profile) might still be able to fire a gun(weapon's profile).

and then you mention a damage table...this is where i digress;
as far as figuring out which hits actually end up doing damage, I was thinking something like the weapon itself has a power rating, which reflects it's sharpness or other ability to penetrate armour/defences. the target model has a defence rating, which reflects what armour it's wearing. So then you take the target's defence, subtract the weapon's power and then add 4, and try to roll higher than the result. ie,

DR - WP +4 = Roll this or higher to damage
(tough skin)1 - (sharp stick)1 +4 = 4+

of course 4+ means a 50/50 chance of doing damage, which should be something like an arrow piercing leather, or a great-sword cutting through plate-mail.
We could also just include the additional 4 in the equation into the model DR, this would also mean that typically the DR would be a higher number. so

tough skin: DR 5 vs. sharp stick: WP 1
5 - 1 = 4+
(50/50 chance stick will poke his eye out, or give him a fatal splinter, lol)

tough skin: DR 5 vs. battle axe: WP 5
5 - 5 = 0+
(No chance that they'll deflect a battle axe with their skin, silly rabbits)

Magic Chain mail: DR 12 sharp stick: WP 1
12 - 1 = 11+
(you're gonna need a bigger stick to get through that stuff)

Basically, damage tables should be cut, yes? less needing reference material during a game, and only simple maths. without over simplifying at all I think.

[/DIGRESS]

this combat radius blocking a shot, doesn't seem quite right. even in historical battles the first 2 lines fired their guns, with the 2nd line firing over or between the 1st. I think it should simply be if the actual base radius of friendly models is bisected.

now for,
Melee:
Seems you kind of lost inspiration by this point, lol. anyways, how are both sides of the conflict resolving at once? does agility take any role in this? also same thing with the damage table as I said above.
What happens after melee is resolved? if a whole side is wiped out in a blink, does the victor just stand around looking at the carnage in confusion? if one side takes a clear advantage, is the losing side without fear and continue to fight to the last man? if both sides are still able to fight after resolved, are they still locked in combat next turn, or can they move away from the enemy?

and finally, the same profile you have there. With my idea of simply comparing WP to DR to find out damage, I think that the WP should also be associated with the weapon on it's own profile.

so maybe more like

Model/Unit nameTypeMSRSDRDPAgM
Human WarriorInfantry5+4+6121+

Weapon nameTypeWPRange (if ranged)
Bow and ArrowRanged312"

BTW, this would mean if you fired this bow at the warrior, DR 8 - WP 3 = 3+ roll to damage. this sounds about right to me. Of course this would mean a lot of figuring out balancing, but who was really not expecting that?

also the warriors melee would get a similar profile. and in the construction of your models/unit/army you'd be told what weapons the models have access to.

this is all just my 2 cents Very Happy

EDIT: on second thought the turn sequence as you describe actually gives an interesting depth to it, not going to go into detail about the options you leave open for the attack phase this way, but basically I think it might be a good thing. I just don't like that dice roll, but I'm not sure of another way to pull this phase sequence off without it really...
avatar
sucramreverse
Active Member
Active Member

Posts : 129
Join date : 2009-12-08
Age : 30
Location : Your Imagination.

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Starter for ten...

Post by Tevelyn on Mon Dec 14, 2009 12:20 am

I saw your project and read over what you have so far and wanted to add a couple of thoughts.

Why have a static movement of 6"? Especially in a fantasy setting shouldn't long limbed elves move faster than goblins? A system that is using fantasy skirmish as a base should consider a movement stat to help represent different races.

Another thought, while i like d6, how you use them helps to represent your scale. A wargame is a system of averages to represent how your troops act on the battlefield, you're looking at two methods for reaching that average. If you want to have a "heroic" game, with fewer models *say less than 30 per side on average* then you want each model to be rolling multiple dice so that individual models are more likely to be average instead of erratic. If you want to run a more squad based system then you go with d6 for skill rolls and resolve batches of models at the same time.

Think warhammer 40k vs warmachine, warmachine is more heroic, the individual models are more likely to do what they're supposed to, they attack other individual models and things are much more personal. in w40k individual models seldom matter, it's squads vs squads and you're rolling what batches of units do instead of individual models. Which system is better really depends on what scale you want to resolve your game in. Squads or individuals.

Thirdly, the player 1 moves, player 2 moves, player 1 fights, player 2 fights setup is a good idea but it's got a big flaw. Player 1 moves his archers to fire, player 2 moves his goblins to hide behind a tree. Player 2 can see where player 1's troops are and can move his troops to take advantage of this, limiting line of sight, fire lanes, and when you get into other actions it will cut down on player 1's synergy and effectiveness as a whole. You should really look into a confrontation style setup*player 1 chooses a unit, does it's move/action, player 2 does the same* with both players alternating units. You'd need to include some balance factor for the player with less units in his army to keep him from being out maneuvered. The other method is full army turns which has become the standard but really cuts down on the dynamics of the game as a whole.

I really dig the idea of Defense - Power + Roll = damage. It's simple, it doesn't require a table and it's fast. It's basically the same system warmachine uses but it's also the most simple dice mechanic for resolving damage around.

Other things to think about when trying to write a mini's system, do you use true los or area terrain? A combination of the two? You should also think about playing an existing game and running 1" squad coherency and think about if thats what you want. 1" is a pretty good number for combat but it's going to be a pain placing units within 1" when you're dealing with terrain.

Just putting some thoughts out there for you guys.

Thanks for the attention

Tev

Tevelyn
Member
Member

Posts : 6
Join date : 2009-12-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Starter for ten...

Post by Zinkala on Mon Dec 14, 2009 10:15 am

Here's a few ideas from me. Use them or not as you will. With the game I'm playing most now this is how the basic turn goes.
Initiative - players roll and whoever wins gets to choose to go first or second.
Movement - first player moves all his models, second player moves all his models. Could easily have alternating moves by model or unit.
Missile - first player goes through his units picking targets and shooting, second player does the same. Shooting is considered simultaneous so that all "live models" at the start of the phase get their shot. Then they die Razz remove all casualties.
Melee - same as missile with both sides giving and taking damage at the same time with some allowances for different initiative from weapons, ie spear is long and gives a chance to wound without the defender getting his attack.
Morale - units that need to test roll to see if they run or not.

Hitting and damage are calculated without charts, your skill shows what you need to hit. Damage is worked out by taking the level of armour - the strength of the attack. So a naked model that is hit is wounded while one with armour gets a certain level of save if the attack strength doesn't totally reduce it.

For LOS I would say it depends on the scale of the game. If it's unit based (Warhammer for example) then Area LOS makes more sense. A unit within a certain area of terrain gets any bonuses/negatives for that. If it's a skirmish style battle with individuals or small groups running around then I prefer true LOS with some allowance for the fact models can't hunch over/crawl/lay down/etc very easily.

d6 are always good but it does limit the range of abilities you can give easily. If you want more variation you need different dice. I'm not so fussed about stuff like this as I'm not sure you need to have a dozen skill levels for every stat.

For movement I'd go with varying rates for different units. ie dwarf 4", elf 7", human 6". I like that better than "everbody moves 6" except the ones who get to move a randomly determined amount further".

That's enough for now.

Zinkala
Member
Member

Posts : 8
Join date : 2009-12-14

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Starter for ten...

Post by Kane on Mon Dec 14, 2009 10:31 am

One thing I would like to see thrown in their is the failed charge. I think War of the Ring got this perfect. You roll a D6 to charge. If its a 1, the unit is too disorganized to get moving. A roll of 6 does just the opposite and gives you a bonus to your attack roll for the turn. Anything else and you add a modifier depending on unit type (i.e.; +2 for infantry, +6 for cavalry) to the die roll and that is your charge distance.

Agree on an easy to remember formula for causing damage.

As for who does what when, I actually prefer the War of the Ring sequence. Each turn, you roll for who has priority. This person goes first for each action. So, player with priority moves, then other player. Priority player shoots, opponent shoots. Priority player charges, opponent charges. Thats another thing. I like the stand and fire, but I think their should be a shooting phase. Anyone who shoots during the shoot phase could not also stand and shoot.

Kane
Member
Member

Posts : 27
Join date : 2009-12-14
Age : 40
Location : Seattle, WA, USA

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Starter for ten...

Post by S W Dickson on Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 pm

Lot's of good points made there. It was really a basic to pull apart, and boy, where's the superglue?

It's certainly needs a lot of text clarification and explanation on some points. (sounds so good in your head)
I worked on a couple of damage charts/combat charts and the breakdown of what the stats mean at lunch today, and have found my elegance wanting today.

Just to clarify a couple of nuggets that I can reword immediately without recourse to a total redesign, and more in keeping with what was in my head at the time.

1) Shooting through a friendly models 1" radius - If you're model is not in the same "squad", and you must determine whether if they are in the way of the shot or not. This allows ranged squads to shoot as one, but if your hero is making a dashing charge at the enemy commander ahead of them, they won't want to risk hitting their boss!

2)The shooting power statistic - yep, I was getting ahead of myself - the strength of the ranged attack shoulda been quoted as purely from the weapons statistic, not the model itself. I was thinking of fire breathing beasties and what their statline may look like - the strength perhaps coming from the base model - silly idea.

3) Turn sequence, I did in fact mean for each phase (movement and attacks) to have their own "initiative" roll. Looking at it, it does seem quite random, though the concept was from a desire to see an ebb and flow of battle e.g. An charging force suddenly caught on the back foot as the defenders take the initiative to unleash a full salvo from their guns. Purely experimental of course.

4) Movement - yep, it's a tricky one. Many a debate surely will be had with that. I don't pretend to know all the answers. I like the variance in movement distance, and was thinking how to bring Agility into the equation. So yeah, the desire for elegance caught up with me there.

5) Attacks phase is a mess. Yes, yes it is. Having re-read it, it's like the ramblings of a madman. It has no defineite structure. A bit too freeform jazz. Going to rethink.

Okay, more than anything, I want to get the movement phase sorted. I like the idea of a charging D6 roll. I also like race specific movement ranges, but am unsure how that'll translate well for terrain features. May work with D6" up to maximum movement - if your model has a 5" move, roll a D6, on a roll of a 6, you still only get to move 5" - would work reasonably, as slower creatures tend not to be slowed much further, whereas fast ones can stumble or get stuck a lot easier.

Anyway, that's my thoughts just now. Gonna have a go at a redraft/rethink, and also pop in my flawed statlines and charts for appraisal.

_________________

content entered on http://herebedragons.darkbb.com by S W Dickson is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.5 UK: Scotland License.
avatar
S W Dickson
Admin

Posts : 228
Join date : 2009-12-06
Age : 40
Location : Terra Incognita

View user profile http://herebedragons.darkbb.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Starter for ten...

Post by Kane on Mon Dec 14, 2009 2:12 pm

Sounds like you have some solid changes in mind. Could have charge range be D6+Agi+Troop modifier (so cavalry could have a bonus without having insanely high Agi).

Kane
Member
Member

Posts : 27
Join date : 2009-12-14
Age : 40
Location : Seattle, WA, USA

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Starter for ten...

Post by sucramreverse on Mon Dec 14, 2009 2:39 pm

could maybe the Agility stat be a modifier for the 6"? say a human has an Agility of 0, so he can move 6" + 0" = 6", while a faster model has an agility of 2, so moves 6" + 2" = 8".
Just an idea, and may or may not work with the D6" charge.

(I kinda like the idea of 2D6 charge over difficult terrain ending in 2" due to the whole squad tripping over themselves, LOL)

Also for the turn sequence, The way it's set up gives advantage to whoever moves second, and whoever attacks first.

Player A vs. Player B, Player A rolls higher

Player A moves his squad into prime position for shooting down an enemy squad
Player B sees this and moves his squad out of reach or behind cover

(lets say Player A rolls higher for the attack sequence as well, but I think we can get rid of this roll and just continue alternation)

Player A fires his weapons however he can, maybe he had another squad of archers to the side which are now in range of the enemy's cowards. player engages a melee combat and wipes out a squad of enemy archers that were a danger to his units.
Player B now has to cope with his loses, even though he could have minimized them in his movement phase by retreating, hiding, or other means.

Basically I think this is how it should be, rolling for whoever goes first each turn to symbolize the ebb and flow and which person gets to attack and which defends.


ALSO, if you decide to split the Attack phase, make the melee first. If I have a squad get wiped out in combat I want to shoot down the enemy victors. Think about it, and you'll see that the other way around (range first) doesn't leave a lot of target priority options open.
avatar
sucramreverse
Active Member
Active Member

Posts : 129
Join date : 2009-12-08
Age : 30
Location : Your Imagination.

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Starter for ten...

Post by Kane on Mon Dec 14, 2009 2:55 pm

Melee before ranged does not make sense realistically, though. You always fire your bows before sending your troops in. Otherwise you risk hitting your own men. The arrows were always about softening up an enemy for the charge or thinning the charging horde.

Kane
Member
Member

Posts : 27
Join date : 2009-12-14
Age : 40
Location : Seattle, WA, USA

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Starter for ten...

Post by S W Dickson on Mon Dec 14, 2009 3:28 pm

Just to show you what I was thinking this afternoon for the statline -

|RS|MS|MP|MA|DR|Ag|M|

where
RS - Ranged Skill, MS - Melee Skill, MP - Melee Power, MA - Melee Attacks, DR - Damage Rating, Ag - Agility, M - Morale

Ranged Weapons get a statline of
|RP|R|AP|

where
RP - Ranged Power, R - Range, (AP - Armour Piercing - possibly?)

and these are all numbered 1-6 for variable use/table lookups, and D6+ numbers for unchanging tests, such as Ranged Skill. I think I may have confused the numbering system though, plus not sure if 6 is enough variance for balance. Here is how I distributed the attributes -

MS -
1 = Dog/Wild Animal, 2 = Basic Untrained Human Equiv., 3 = Trained Human Equiv., 4 = Martial Artist Level Human Equiv., 5 = Master Martial Artist, 6 = Multi-limbed Precognitive Highly trained Warrior

Strength equivalencies (MP + RP)
1 = Punch, Bite, Unarmed Human, 2 = Arrow, Dagger, Sword, Lions Claws, 3 = Greatsword, Rifle, Crossbow
4 = Large Caliber Round, Rhino Charge, 5 = Explosive Tank Shell, 6 = High Velocity Solid tank Shell

Defence rating
1 = Bare Flesh, 2 = Light Armour, Leather, 3 = Metal Plate Armour, Chainmail, 4 = Advanced Armour, Ablative, Powered, 5 = Heavy Tank-like Armour, 6 = Thick Concrete Bunker


These were used in the following charts

Melee Skill vs Melee Skill

Equal Values = 4+
Attacker 1 more than Defence = 3+
Attacker 2 or more than Defence = 2+
Attacker 1 less than Defence = 5+
Attacker 2, 3, 4 less than Defence = 6+
Attacker 5 less than defence = if roll 6+, roll again, and get another 6+


Melee/Ranged Strength vs Defence Rating

Equal Values = 4+
Strength 1 more than Defence rating = 3+
Strength 2 or more than Defence Rating = 2+
Strength 1 less than Defence Rating = 5+
Strength 2 less than Defence Rating = 6+
Strength 3 less than Defence Rating = if roll 6+, roll again, and get another 6+
Strength 4 or more less than Defence Rating = No chance


I did muck about with armour piercing weaponry, and providing parrying/armour saves, but got dizzy. I think there's a flaw in the plan, as it's scale seems too narrow, especially if we were to use the same system for vehicles and such.

Just to illustrate, I would give a battle tank a Defence Rating of 5, but with an armour rating of 3+. It would take a double 6 with a bow and arrow (no armour piercing ability) to damage it, but it would still get it's 3+ save. An anti-tank round may have an RP of 5, but an AP of +2 - it'd add 2 to the roll for armour - damaging the tank on a 4+, whilst giving the tank a 5+ save. A warriors shield would allow a 6+ save, advanced armour perhaps 5+.

As we are in the Fantasy/Steampunk section, imagine a cannonshot (RS 4, AP +1) vs a Steamrobot (DR 4, Save 4+)


That was my thoughts this afternoon, but am not sure if it's a path worth following. Currently it looks like the body count will be high in this game!

_________________

content entered on http://herebedragons.darkbb.com by S W Dickson is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.5 UK: Scotland License.
avatar
S W Dickson
Admin

Posts : 228
Join date : 2009-12-06
Age : 40
Location : Terra Incognita

View user profile http://herebedragons.darkbb.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Starter for ten...

Post by sucramreverse on Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:42 pm

Whoa whoa whoa. I think you had a better statline before. this way requires more tables than necessary, frankly made my head hurt. by just incorporating the number needed on the dice in the profile (like MS 5+) then you cut down on a lot of thinking without oversimplifying. after all, all you did was flip the numbers around (1-6 instead of 6+ to 1+), and require a table!

also, by putting the melee weapon's power in the models profile, you take out the differences in melee weapons. A man armed with a stick should be less effective that one armed with a chains-saw ( Rolling Eyes ).

And as for armour piercing values, I always wondered how those work logically. I roll to see if I hit/make contact with your body. I do, so I roll to see if I damage you, based on your defence, I do. BUT WAIT! suddenly your armour magically repairs and blocks the blow also healing your wound, after being damaged!!
anybody care to explain this?

SOOO, the armour value should be in the model's defence rating. A tank would just have a higher defence in my book, since realistically no matter how many sticks you hit that tank with you are never going to destroy it. You'd need the right weapon, which would have a high enough power to do damage. and if a weapon can destroy a tank, it should likewise be able to annihilate a human.
avatar
sucramreverse
Active Member
Active Member

Posts : 129
Join date : 2009-12-08
Age : 30
Location : Your Imagination.

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Starter for ten...

Post by S W Dickson on Tue Dec 15, 2009 1:12 pm

I see where your coming from with the Armour, and it's always been a tad weird. This concept was to give an additional protection for things that should have some form of representation, whilst still allowing weaker troops to try and take it down. Whilst I see your point of armour being penetrated, it'd take a greatly skillful warrior to hit the same place twice - especially as the armour "saves" are given only to those covered head to toe/tanks and similar deserving causes. Tanks are tough, but with many small weak spots (hatches/vents etc.) that a decently armed or hugely powerful model could take advantage of. A heavy battle tank would likely get a DR of 6, so it'd be impossible for the weak troops to kill. Perhaps the double 6 against DR 5 is a little generous for this scheme to err on the realism side.

The tables are a tad confusing and numerous there, as I've given you how I selected the numbers. I just reckon that a Ninja vs Ninja battle would be fairer than a Ninja vs Dog battle - therefore a ninja would need a 4+ to hit another Ninja, but only 2+ to hit a dog... Again, wouldn't take much to learn the basics of the table, and everyone gets a chance to inflict damage.

The MP stat is there for working out your basics of racial characteristics. Specific rules concerning specific hand weapons would certainly change the strength, but I figured everyone would have a minimum hand to hand strength. The example of the power equivalencies are just that - equivalents. If a human was unarmed, he'd be at MP 1, whereas a Ogre or Werewolf would get MP 2. A Giant would be at MP 4. That kinda thing.

So really, just two tables. The rest are for development purposes - to show working and method.

I didn't want to go above 6 on the stats moreso as a selfimposed restriction - keeping it simple, making the tables easy to learn. The tables themselves should really be virtually identical. Always fail on a roll of a one. The only difference with damage is that some things cannot hurt other things, whereas in a fight there's always a chance something unskilled can make a lucky hit.

As I say "in progress".

I'm gonna make a new Forum for Game Mechanics specifically for this, so we all can fiddle about with stuff, vote for preference and feedback on playtests. I'm defending this far too much - it really was just a starter for ten.

_________________

content entered on http://herebedragons.darkbb.com by S W Dickson is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.5 UK: Scotland License.
avatar
S W Dickson
Admin

Posts : 228
Join date : 2009-12-06
Age : 40
Location : Terra Incognita

View user profile http://herebedragons.darkbb.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Starter for ten...

Post by sucramreverse on Tue Dec 15, 2009 1:35 pm

Strength equivalencies (MP + RP)
1 = Punch, Bite, Unarmed Human, 2 = Arrow, Dagger, Sword, Lions Claws, 3 = Greatsword, Rifle, Crossbow
4 = Large Caliber Round, Rhino Charge, 5 = Explosive Tank Shell, 6 = High Velocity Solid tank Shell

Defence rating
1 = Bare Flesh, 2 = Light Armour, Leather, 3 = Metal Plate Armour, Chainmail, 4 = Advanced Armour, Ablative, Powered, 5 = Heavy Tank-like Armour, 6 = Thick Concrete Bunker

but see, this requires a table to lookup what I need on my dice to do damage. but just a small tweak and theres no need for a table, like so:

Defence rating
5 = Bare Flesh, 6 = Light Armour, Leather, 7 = Metal Plate Armour, Chainmail, 8 = Advanced Armour, Ablative, Powered, 9 = Heavy Tank-like Armour, 10 = Thick Concrete Bunker

now you just take the defence of what you're hitting and subtracting the power of what you're hitting with. it ends up being exactly the same, in fact take a good look at the damage table from WH 40k (copyright Games Workshop). add 4 to the toughness and subtract the strength. see what you for each value? granted there are minor deviations, but that seems to only be an effort of confusion (to make you buy the book).
avatar
sucramreverse
Active Member
Active Member

Posts : 129
Join date : 2009-12-08
Age : 30
Location : Your Imagination.

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Starter for ten...

Post by S W Dickson on Tue Dec 15, 2009 3:05 pm

Not bad. I see where that's going. My current concern is the trade of made with the tank armour. I'd ideally like the defence rating out of ten - you know, from jellyfish upwards to bunker. This may also make the strength of weaponry easier to determine, and make the rules much more malleable for a cross-genre ruleset. The only thing it would negate, is the ability for lowly suckers to make a real impact on a varied game. I suppose it's a trade off that may be made.

Battle Tank DR 9 vs Explosive shell RP 5 = 4+

Scalability is the question to be asked. If we can use the same stats for any scale/genre etc. Make it a "real world equivalent" system.

Defence ratings up to ten are good, but are the strength ratings out of 6 varied enough to give a good balance? Especially if we consider that with that system, even the most hardened emplacement and vehicle would have only a 2/3 chance of surviving. How does the RPG sounding (shudder) "out of twenty" sound? It's a big jump, but it'd hardly ever be used up to that. I'm thinking of a Megaton-level precision strike at 20, with Ordnance and anti-tank stuff about the 10-11 mark, Anti-infantry modern weaponry and stuff about the 6-7 marks, with arrows and stuff ranking in the 4-5 bracket. Defence would be similar, with a five foot thick walled bunker ranking in the 17-18 mark, Heavy Tanks maxing out in the 15s, Powerfully armoured infantry around the 12s, Modern Infantry in the 9-10s, Chainmail around the 7-8, unarmoured human in the 5-6s, Jellyfish at the 3-4 mark. Anything lower is pure gas and liquid, and probably not a threat...

_________________

content entered on http://herebedragons.darkbb.com by S W Dickson is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.5 UK: Scotland License.
avatar
S W Dickson
Admin

Posts : 228
Join date : 2009-12-06
Age : 40
Location : Terra Incognita

View user profile http://herebedragons.darkbb.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Starter for ten...

Post by sucramreverse on Tue Dec 15, 2009 4:08 pm

that sounds about right actually. and really we could toy around with the numbers all day long, as long as there's no tables Wink . And 1 could still always fail if you'd like.

I don't know what to do about the melee vs. melee though. if we have it like in your original profile with the dice roll required (5+), it makes it easier to know what you need, but doesn't account for the difficulty of what you're fighting.

but if we took into account the opponent's melee skill, we'd still not need a table. In fact, now that I look at your description closer, it has the same idea as 'another game' except with the added "2 less or 2 more". there's a certain chart which uses the same concept. if values are equal roll 4+, if attacker's is greater roll 3+, and if attacker's is less roll 5+. But again with some deviation because they want you to use a chart.

I think this method might be ok, and maybe even with your added "2 less or 2 more", I'm just concerned with at what point does one need a chart to remember it all.

In the end, I just don't know Razz
avatar
sucramreverse
Active Member
Active Member

Posts : 129
Join date : 2009-12-08
Age : 30
Location : Your Imagination.

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Starter for ten...

Post by S W Dickson on Tue Dec 15, 2009 4:21 pm

I've got a feeling you don't really need a "table" as such for that, it's just getting the concept across is easier if you have a table to consult if need be - if it's just the base concept of score of 1 always fails, 6 always hits, and if their equal it's 4s, it'd be fairly quick to pick up.

You could use your subtract method if you were add another stat. Before you all groan, it'd also maybe add a depth that may not always be present in other games. A Melee Defend Stat. It could also be variable, where something is less or more able to defend against attacks as opposed to their ability to land them.

e.g.

at present
MS 3 vs MS 3 = 4+

could be MS 3 vs MD 7 (take the MS from Melee Defence) = 4+

A model who is heavily armoured, but slow, may have great skill with their weapon skill, but rely purely on their armour to fend off blows, and therefore their Melee Defence would be lower.

_________________

content entered on http://herebedragons.darkbb.com by S W Dickson is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.5 UK: Scotland License.
avatar
S W Dickson
Admin

Posts : 228
Join date : 2009-12-06
Age : 40
Location : Terra Incognita

View user profile http://herebedragons.darkbb.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Starter for ten...

Post by sucramreverse on Tue Dec 15, 2009 5:13 pm

ohhh, an interesting idea. A guy skilled with a dagger could land a blow pretty well, but would be hard pressed to block a greataxe with that thing. I like it.
avatar
sucramreverse
Active Member
Active Member

Posts : 129
Join date : 2009-12-08
Age : 30
Location : Your Imagination.

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Starter for ten...

Post by S W Dickson on Tue Dec 15, 2009 5:38 pm

Starting to think outside the box. And not a table in sight!

It may add another column to the stats, but if the statline is all you need to play, then where's the harm? I'm a convert. Tables = Bad

I like your dagger example. Better than mine. I was also thinking of Walking Tanks. Could be very nasty with an electroflail or some such attached device, but it won't be able to turn around very quickly, plenty of time to slice a lasersword through its armour!

Now how about that Agility.

(Notice I've not touched on Morale? It's a scary thing)

Anyone got better sounding names for the stats? I don't like Melee. Also, M is being used too much, esp if we put movement in there...)

_________________

content entered on http://herebedragons.darkbb.com by S W Dickson is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.5 UK: Scotland License.
avatar
S W Dickson
Admin

Posts : 228
Join date : 2009-12-06
Age : 40
Location : Terra Incognita

View user profile http://herebedragons.darkbb.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Starter for ten...

Post by poet on Tue Dec 15, 2009 5:47 pm

I only touched this lightly in my combat system thread, but I always felt morale should be like damage.
If you have a certain amount of health, that gets chopped down by attacks, why not morale?

I come into battle with high morale, and then my friend there dies, so I suffer and "attack" on my morale.
Later on, I am facing a true horror of an abomination, which is another attack on my morale, this time my morale is already damaged, so I have a smaller chance of sucking it up.

I do suck it up, but my morale is now low, even a barrage of arrows would scare me off at this point. But my commander comes up and gives me a pep talk, and "heals" my morale.

A few moments later, some telepathic monster is actually attacking my morale from a distance, sending horrific images into my mind. I take so much damage to my morale, I finally break and flee.

Or somesuch.

poet
Member
Member

Posts : 28
Join date : 2009-12-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Starter for ten...

Post by Zinkala on Tue Dec 15, 2009 6:29 pm

Not sure how workable this is but it's an idea I had for calculating "to hit" rolls. Each model has it's basic value and the chance to hit is modified by the difference in skill levels with a 1 always missing and a 6 always hitting. For example monster 1 has a skill of 3 and monster 2 has a skill of 4. Monster 1 gets a -1 to his roll due the the skill difference while monster 2 gets a +1. Might give stronger models too much of an advatnage though.

I kind of like poet's idea on morale. In so many games you have only perfect morale or fleeing from battle. Having something that slowly erodes your morale or improves it as the battle ebbs and flows sounds good.

Zinkala
Member
Member

Posts : 8
Join date : 2009-12-14

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Starter for ten...

Post by S W Dickson on Wed Dec 16, 2009 12:58 pm

That's kinda where we were at before talkin about a "Melee Defence" rating - It was your Melee skill vs Melee Skill, equals being 4+. The melee defence concept would make -

a) An easier concept requiring no table lookup (If the melee defence was to be the same as your Melee Skill, it'd actually be 4 points higher than your Melee Skill - you take your opponents Melee Skill from your Melee defence, giving you your required dice roll - no need to look up a table)

b) A way to "hobble" stuff that would otherwise way too powerful - Ogres could be highly skilled, but a bit slow on the defence, Robots may have all the textbook attacks programmed in, but defending against unorthodox methods may be hard for them to defend against, a nutter wielding an 8-foot Claymore is likely to hit his opponent, but he is unable to fend off attacks as well due to his massive sword.



As for morale, it's a tricky subject. Again, in a possibly massive game, does anyone want to be book-keeping more than one or two models with multiple "Lives", let alone the ups and downs of morale? Realism for morale is laudible, yet is it workable? Micromanagement is not the purview of a mass appeal wargame, let's face it, most try and cut it out, and they make money from selling rules you don't need! I reckon morale should be a "special occasion" use item, rather than every turn. Extraordinary circumstances type stuff - dragons and Tanks and things running over half your army, or finding half your squad dead. Test once, then try and fix the problem. Certainly have it play an important role, I just think that the amount of paperwork required for keeping a tally of Morale points would be annoying for most. Besides, I have faith in my mighty soldiers of plastic and lead (tin alloy actually, I have very few lead ones left) that they will not balk in the face of the enemy.

Perhaps I'm wrong on this, but for my little pet modern streamlined system, it seems too much of a backwards step. I'm trying to aim mine towards being able to pick up, play a couple of turns, and become an instant expert. No convoluted dictionaries of special rules. As much as possible on the statline. If it works, it should be able to be used as a basis for lots of more advanced rules that you can "plug-in" - sorta like Quark Xpress - to do the advanced stuff, you need a plug-in, but so long as you know the core program, it all falls into place fairly easy.

_________________

content entered on http://herebedragons.darkbb.com by S W Dickson is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.5 UK: Scotland License.
avatar
S W Dickson
Admin

Posts : 228
Join date : 2009-12-06
Age : 40
Location : Terra Incognita

View user profile http://herebedragons.darkbb.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Starter for ten...

Post by poet on Wed Dec 16, 2009 2:27 pm

I don't think its possible to have a skirmish level system, 10-15 models, without bookkeeping.

poet
Member
Member

Posts : 28
Join date : 2009-12-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Starter for ten...

Post by S W Dickson on Wed Dec 16, 2009 3:20 pm

It's because it's not a skirmish "system".

As originally proscribed in the thread, it is a full ruleset, concentrating on skirmishing troops at the present for development purposes. It is from scratch, thinking outside the defaults of our poisoned wargaming minds. If we can conquer the movement and attcks of skirmish level (hero class) troops, then it is a hop onto loose line skirmishing units - like modern military units, then a wee tweak for regimental line formations. A further tweak into monsters, tanks and the like. And hey presto, a fully functioning wargame ruleset. For all genres. Anything at all. With no broken stuff. I'm running out of cool examples, but how about taking down a helicopter with a trebuchet?

The troop types themselves come later. We are reinventing the motorcar, let's not bother about the styling of the bodywork just yet - let's make sure the wheels turn and we are using the right fuel.

A skirmish "system" - such as things ending in "Munda", are campaign rules based on an accepted wargaming ruleset. Don't confuse flavour and background with ruleset. A ruleset itself is pretty simple, or should be. The method of presentation of the rules as they should be played is paramount to the success of such an endeavour. The more complex options would be better suited to individual campaign supplements.

We're not making a one big fix. Think less of the big Wargames offerings, and think of the core d20 rules in Roleplaying. They add no specific background, campaign setting etc, making it adaptable to most any situation. The core rules should take up, at most, a dozen pages (that's pushing it with pictures and stuff). These rules will perhaps contain a dozen or so statlines for the examples included in the rules - so that players can understand things better. There will be a developers document, for those writing add-ons, army lists, campaign supplements etc. - so everyone knows how to point stuff, what stats to give things (keeps each army list within an accepatble compatibility margin), what are the key features of the system (as playtested) and which parts found to be good points for integrating additional rules and features.

Sucramreverse opened my eyes recently when i introduced a "table" into the proceedings. I didn't even see how I could NOT have a table! It took a few days, then the light hit me. Tables are indeed evil. Anything that can't be remembered in the basic rules is wrong because it's clearly a) in the wrong place, and b) shouldn't be there at all.
Sorry for the rant, but please read the whole topic first!

_________________

content entered on http://herebedragons.darkbb.com by S W Dickson is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.5 UK: Scotland License.
avatar
S W Dickson
Admin

Posts : 228
Join date : 2009-12-06
Age : 40
Location : Terra Incognita

View user profile http://herebedragons.darkbb.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Starter for ten...

Post by Kane on Wed Dec 16, 2009 3:39 pm

Another option to consider is a static difficulty and simply vary the amount of dice as in the Goal System line of games. In that system, each character rolls a number of dice equal to their attack value. The one with the most successes (4+ on a D6) causes that many points of damage. This applies to henchmen (units) as well. You roll 1D6 for each man in the unit. By this means, characters are inherently more powerful, but when its multiple foes vs a single character, the multiples add further bonus dice.

How this applies to our example of a unit based game would be that each side rolls their leaders attack value plus however many henchmen/soldiers in the front rank (front two ranks if spears?) plus a bonus for outnumbering (+1D6 per 5 models?) vs. your opponent who is calculating the same. Ties would result in a push and separating the units to prepare for another charge or to run away.

Kane
Member
Member

Posts : 27
Join date : 2009-12-14
Age : 40
Location : Seattle, WA, USA

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Starter for ten...

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 3 1, 2, 3  Next

Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum