Skip to Content

WarLord

20 replies [Last post]
Anonymous

I orginally had started put stuff in another post, but that was before I had really made any of the rules, so I have decided to post all of the rules I currently have right here. I have tweaked the rules from I had first made them up.

The aim of WarLord is to be the last warrior standing.
In WarLord, you take the role of a warrior trying to become the ultimate 'WarLord'. When you first start the game, you can create your character or play as an already made one. I suggest making one.
When making a character, you get 30 points to spread throughout your stats. The stats are:
Speed: How many inches you can move in one movement action.
Range: How far you can shoot.
Attack: Attack+Weapon vs. Opponent's Defense+Opponent's Shielding Items. If your attack is higher then your opponent's defense you do damage.
Defense: Vs. your opponent's attack to see if they hit.
You can spread them evenly or uneven;y, whichever you choose.

Battaling:
Battaling is the main part of WarLord. You fight your opponent's to try and defeat them and be the only warrior left.
To battle, say that you are going to start a fight (or battle) with another player, stating which player. You may ethier attack with a ranged attack or close range attack.
Ranged Attack: When attacking with a ranged attack, your target must be within a straight line and be infront of you. Your target must be within your range or less. If a target it only one inch out of your range, you may attack the taget, but the target rolls a six-sided die. On a 2, 3, 4, or 5 it is a miss. If you hit your target, do the amount of damage that the item does.
Close Range Attack: When attacking a target with a close range attack, you must be within a half inch of your target. Roll a twelve sided die. On a 1, 2, or 3 you miss you target. (I do this because even in real life, if you are close to a target, you still have a chance of missing it)
After you decide what type of attacking you are doing, take your attack and add the modifier for your weapon and then check to see if it is higher then your opponent's defense with the added modifier of it's defense items. If it is higher, you hit and deal damage equal to the damage it says on your weapon.

Weapons/Shielding Items:
During WarLord, you collect items from finding treasure boxes (placed before game). When you find a treasure box, open it. On the top it will say what item you found. When you collect your item, you may ethier discard it (leave it on the spot you are standing) or equip it. Close the treasure box and turn the dial, changing the item you will find if you opened it again.
When you equip an item, place it on the correct spot on your equipment card.
Weapon Cards: On a weapon card there are two things. Attack Modifier and Damage Dealt. It will also say if it is a ranged weapon. Attack Modifier is how much it adds to your attack. Damage Dealth is how much damage it deals to the target. You may hold two weapons.
Shielding Cards: Shielding Cards have one thing on them. Defense Modifier. Defense Modifier is how much it adds to your defense. You may hold two shield items (helmet and body armor).

Terrain:
Terrain is the land around where your warriors are fighting. There are different terrain types.
Water: Players may not move through water.
Elevated Land: Elevated Land is hills or mountains on the field. You may climb onto a mountain or cliff. When going up a mountain, you receive a -1 penalty to speed and when you are going down a mountain you reveive a +1 bonus to speed.
Plains: Plains are flat land in the game. Players can move on plains.

Winning:
You are the winner of the game if you are the last warrior alive.

Misc.:
Other things you should know are:
WarLord is best played on a 3 foot by 3 foot flat surface.

prophx
Offline
Joined: 08/13/2008
WarLord

Sounds like a cool game, but I tend to shy away from creating games that eliminate players. To me there is nothing worse than sitting around watching for the conclusion of a game. The theme aspect of this may help it though. On the flipside, war is war and that is how it is. Once you are dead there is no coming back... Like I said, sounds like a cool game. It is great getting caught up in the excitement of creating a game. It encompasses your every thought at times.

sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
WarLord

It looks like you really cleaned Warlord up a bit.

Is it really very different from other tabletop war games? About how long should a game of Warlord take? If it's long, then I think the people who would want to play it would rather play Warhammer or even Mageknight/Heroclix/MechWarrior/Crimson Skies.

If it's short, then you might have something going here with the simplified combat. Have you ever played Diceland (James Ernest Games- see www.cheapass.com)? It does a good job of making a fast paced, short tabletop war game without all the messy rules and die rolling. It uses 8 sided dice as the characters, with diferent stats depending on which side is up. It's simply brilliant.

- Seth

Anonymous
WarLord

Well first of all, how long does a game of Warhammer take to play? I guess it would matter how big each army is to decide how long it would be to play.

Secondly, I was thinking of adding small special abilities. Like swim, fly, quick. And each player chooses one ability and they can that one thing. I am still thinking up a list of abilities (without ripping off WizKids). Any ideas or suggestions? Or even critism?

sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
WarLord

DragonKid wrote:
how long does a game of Warhammer take to play?

All freakin' day :/

Anonymous
WarLord

Serious? The whole day? Dang, who would want to play Warhammer? Well, I guess people play it, because Games Workshops isn't bankrupt. Have you seen the prices on Warhammer?! A $80 starter set, and that isn't with the $15-$25 paint set! Plus, it's hours before you can even start playing with your pieces, because you have to paint them! Man!

phpbbadmin
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2013
Warhammer : a whole flippin' day!?!?!?!

Yes that's exactly why, if you plan on making a war game, you have to make it somehow different than the dozen or so pre-existing war games. In other words, some sort of gimmick to make it fresh (as someone stated earlier, like Diceland) AND make it go quickly. I wouldn't mind playing a war game so much if I knew that it would play quick, actually be fun, AND was not too tedious (there's no way in HECK I'm using a tape measure in a game).

I think that nicely designed and tightly integrated player aids could help out tremendously in making a war game more tolerable, and ultimately, fun.

Just my 2 pence,
-Darke

zaiga
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
WarLord

Oh, a tape measure! I can already see rules lawyers wet their pants! :twisted:

Anonymous
WarLord

There's no other way of making a game without squares on a board without tape measures... Is there?

jwarrend
Offline
Joined: 08/03/2008
WarLord

DragonKid wrote:
There's no other way of making a game without squares on a board without tape measures... Is there?

Is the sky the limit?

One thing that might be cool is to have a plexiglass "lid" that sits on four feet, and which can rest 6" above the surface of the game. Then, for each weapon, you have a clear plastic square, with a circle drawn whose radius corresponds to the range of that weapon. You then look down from above, place the weapon disk over the character who's going to use the weapon, and then see if he can hit his target.

Or, the cool thing might be to have each character pawn situated in a rotating base, and having a small diode laser pointing out of the top of the character's head, down at the board, with the beam striking the board at the maximum distance the given weapon can strike (maybe the diode laser can even pivot, and the "range" of the weapon is characterized by the angle at which the laser should be pointing at the surface).

These sound pretty absurd, but perhaps they reveal the difficulties inherent to simulation-oriented game design. This is why I personally try not to design simulations nor do I play them. I just don't think the enormous complexity associated with charts, lookup tables, ranges, modifiers, etc, really does all that much for me; it just adds length and complexity, but sort of makes me feel more like a bookkeeper than a general.

I don't know. There's clearly a huge number of people who your game will appeal to, I happen not to be one of them, but no doubt your game will do well if you can somehow distinguish it from the existing tabletop games out there.

My advice, if I had any, would be, I guess, to come up with something that's truly unique compared to the other games. Don't just have a different theme, or a different set of stats you're keeping track of. Use the stats in a whole different way. Or better yet, abandon stats altogether and make the gameplay more about making challenging decisions and balancing risky strategies than about comparing stats and chart lookups.

Just my vague and fairly biased opinion. Good luck with your project!

-Jeff

Anonymous
WarLord

jwarrend wrote:
DragonKid wrote:
There's no other way of making a game without squares on a board without tape measures... Is there?

Or better yet, abandon stats altogether and make the gameplay more about making challenging decisions and balancing risky strategies than about comparing stats and chart lookups.

Good idea. It's just, abandoning what could be the biggest part of the game would create major problems. Them being, how do you move (without a dice roll), how do you battle, how do you do ANYTHING? Without stats, a game would get very complacated.

Maybe, I could have some stats, but not all. Abandon the non-needed stats, such as range. But keep what I need, like speed to decide how far a player could go. Or, I could just have a set limit to how far each character could go. What do you think?

But, the question still hangs. How about battaling? Without battaling, the whole theme, and therefor game, would be destroyed. Maybe, I should destroy the game? Or maybe just come up with a better, simpler, battaling system?

And I was thinking, how about getting ride of dice rolls all together? Randomness can sometimes make a game fun, but then, is it really about strategies? What do you think?

I think I have taken on to many things, and I might give up on it, and make a simpler first (well, second) game. Please give feedback.

jwarrend
Offline
Joined: 08/03/2008
WarLord

Quote:

Good idea. It's just, abandoning what could be the biggest part of the game would create major problems. Them being, how do you move (without a dice roll), how do you battle, how do you do ANYTHING? Without stats, a game would get very complacated.

On the contrary, I think it's the stats that make wargames complicated in the first place. They emphasize simulation over simplicity, and that's fine, but to me, they don't hold any attraction.

What I think my point was, more, was that your game has elements that are common to all wargames; check for range, roll to see if you hit, roll for damage, compare modifiers, etc. And the point is, if the game that you want to play already exists, why bother going to the effort of designing?

What I guess I'm getting at is that what I think would give your game a real shot in the arm is to come up with some mechanic that very clearly distinguishes it from the other tabletop games that already exist.

The first thing you need to figure out is the experience you want the game to provide the players. For example, should they be agonizing over things like "should I shoot an arrow at him, since he's further away, or should I try to charge him with my sword before he can reload his crossbow?"

It's decisions that make a game fun and interesting, and I think that a lot of stats like range, to hit roll, etc, don't necessarily make for more interesting decisions. Are there ways, other than giving people and weapons and items a bunch of different numbers, that you can evoke the same *experience*?

For example, maybe there are three draw decks, one for each of 3 possible weapons a character could use, and prior to the battle, each player "studies" the weapons by drawing cards he can use in the actual battle. Then, when the battle happens, he performs combat by playing the cards in some way. Maybe, for example, the "sword" cards give a list of "forms" that a player could place himself in, and being able to put together a better string of forms would likely give you a better chance for a hit; in that way, the game might be about set collection as much as combat.

I don't know, that's off the top of my head and not a very good idea. But the point I'm trying to get at is that you'll have no trouble making a fun and likely profitable wargame using the approach you're currently taking, but I personally think it would be more interesting to create a wargame that works with a different mechanism than comparing stats and rolling dice and comparing them to lookup charts. Or at least, to come up with something within that framework that clearly distinguishes your system from other existing games.

Just my thoughts...

-Jeff

IngredientX
IngredientX's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/26/2008
WarLord

DragonKid wrote:
There's no other way of making a game without squares on a board without tape measures... Is there?

Fantasy Flight has a light wargame called DiskWars. All competing armies are on cardboard disks. You move them by flipping them end-over-end in a certain direction. When one disk lands on top of another, they fight.

No tape measures, no board, and yet it seems like a very orderly ruleset (I've never played, so I can't vouch for how good it is).

Between DiskWars and Diceland, you'll have a good idea of what companies are looking for in terms of having interesting and innovative "hooks" in their games. You can probably still get away with dice and a board, but you'd have to come up with a gargantuan backstory (aka Warhammer or Battletech) in order to get people interested.

My advice? If this is your first game, go ahead and make it. Even if it comes out feeling "been-there, done-that," you'll still have experience in juggling game factors, playtesting and formulating a solid ruleset. This way, when inspiration strikes (and it will, I guarantee it), you'll already be familiar with the process of taking it from an idea into reality.

~Gil

jwarrend
Offline
Joined: 08/03/2008
WarLord

IngredientX wrote:

My advice? If this is your first game, go ahead and make it. Even if it comes out feeling "been-there, done-that," you'll still have experience in juggling game factors, playtesting and formulating a solid ruleset. This way, when inspiration strikes (and it will, I guarantee it), you'll already be familiar with the process of taking it from an idea into reality.
~Gil

This is an excellent point; there's no sense trying to be original until you've become pretty adept at being "un-original". Better to design the game that occurs to your intuition and strikes you as sounding fun than to try so hard to be original that you never learn how to make a working game system from start to finish. But I do think learning a lot about other games is really an important step in any design effort, at some stage; certainly prior to selling, but maybe not in the stages you're currently in.

Again, best of luck!

-Jeff

Anonymous
WarLord

Hmm... how about an action point system? Like, each player gets 20 points. During their turn, each player dedicates points to certain actions. Like, if you gave 7 points to moving, you would move seven spaces (or whatever I decide to use). Then the player dedicates points to attacking or something. And for each point they put into attack is how much damage they do to the enemy. Then, whatever they don't use goes into a pool until their next turn, when it gets startd over with 20 points again. Then, the points in their pool could be dedicated to when players attack them or something.

If I used this, a battle might look like this:

Player A starts, and then Player B, and then Player C. On his turn, Player A decides to move 7 spaces and get into close combat range with Player B. Player A attacks Player B for 3 points. Player B uses 6 of his 9 pool points to try and dodge Player A's attack. Player B says that he will try to dodge, and tells Player C the number of points he will use, to keep it secret, but so he doesn't cheat. Then Player A uses 5 points, and tells Player C. Player B's points were higher, so it misses. Playber B now has 3 points in his pool, and Player A has 5 points in his pool. Then it would be Player B's turn, and his points would start back at 20. But the other player's points stayed the same.

What do you think?

zaiga
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
WarLord

DragonKid wrote:
What do you think?

It certainly starts to look like something! I personally think 20 action points might be a bit too much. The human brain is not very good at crunching numbers higher than 10 (at least not without a bit of effort), so I suggest to keep the action point pool around 7 or so.

What if you call the action points "energy points" and the number of energy points you get at the beginning of your turn depends on the amount of "energy centers" you control on the board? Now suddenly, you have created something actually worth fighting over, instead of just hacking up the other players units.

What if the actions you can do are not freeform, but dictated by what cards you have in hand? Of course, playing certain cards will cost an amount of "energy points". Or better yet, a mix of freeform actions and cardriven actions. For example, moving a unit one space just costs 1 energy points, but if you play the card "Speed Boost" a unit may move 2 spaces for each energy point spend. If you print numbers on the cards you can also use them for combat resolution. Suddenly you have created a tension between wanting to keep a high numbered card for combat or using it for its special action.

What if the game not ends when you have defeated all of your opponent's units are defeated, but rather when the drawpile has been exhausted (for example) and players get points for certain accomplishments, say 1 point for each defeated unit, 3 points for each "keypoint" you occupy, etc. Now you have created a nice tension between wanting to occupy "energy centers" early and valuable "keypoints" later on. It will probably important to decide when to shift from going for "energy centers" to going for "keypoints".

Now, even these ideas are not very original, but I think they are much more workable than the whole stats/charts/dice rolls thing that has been done to dead and it's probably much easier to come up with an original twist to it. My advice is to keep it as simple as possible at first and then refine and enrich the design form there.

I agree with one of the previous posters that it's not really important that your first game needs to be original. It's a good idea to just get your hands dirty and simply start somewhere and see how it goes. But I don't think a wargame is a good idea for a first game. It may take an extremely long time to create a prototype and a working ruleset. It is quite likely that the endresult is something unsatisfying and that the designer becomes discouraged with designing games. I think it is better to start with a somewhat simpler design and go from there. If such a design fails, then at least you haven't wasted so much time and it is probably easier to fix or just give up and start on a better idea.

Anonymous
WarLord

Actually, this is my third game. But with the other two, I didn't go quite this far. I started making prototypes, but I had no clue how.

I always tried to stay away from cards in a board game. Mostly because my second game 'Robot Wars' used them and it ruined it. But, it makes sence to use them.

If I used that way, an example battle would be like this:

Player A controls 3 energy centers, giving him 9 points (3 per center) and he has three cards in his hand. Player B controls 4 energy centers, giving him 12 points and he has four cards in his hand. Player C controls 2 energey centers, giving him 6 points, and has four cards in his hand.
On Player A's turn, he uses the card 'Magic Blast' to attack Player C from four spaces away. He loses four energy points, leaving him with 5, and he does two damage to Player C. Player A then moves 2 spaces to one of Player B's energy centers. He attacks it with the card 'Golden Sword' four 2 points. It does two points of damage to Player B's energy center.

To explain what the player was doing... When he attacked Player C, he used a magic card to attack him from a distance. It did 2 damage.(Players would ethier have 20 or 30 points, depending on how long the game would be) It costed him 4 energy points. He had 5 left. (9-4=5) He then moved 2 spaces for 2 pooints. (5-2=3) He then used a weapon card Golden Sword to attack Player B's energy center and did 2 damage to it. When you destroy another player's energy center, you get the three extra points, and the player you took it from would lose the three points.

And a note about damage and range. It would be printed on the cards.

What do you think? Should energy centers be more points? Should they be less? Should I figure out another way of fighting? Should I take stuff out? Add stuff? I am going to use a board, should I?

zaiga
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
WarLord

You do not have to use cards. It is just that cards can be used to limit a player's options, streamlining the game and make it go faster. Exhausting a draw pile gives you (as a designer) also a way to control the game length.

I don't think it is a good idea to be able to destroy energy centers. Rather, they are neutral buildings that give energy points to whomever controls them (has a unit on the same space for example) at the start of their turn. This way players would want to fight for control over these centers.

I also think that energy centers should not be worth any victory points, instead you want other stuff that is worth victory points. For example, if you control a village, you score points at the end, but occupying a village doesn't give you any energy points. By separating stuff that gives you energy points and stuff that gives you victory points, you create some nice tension. Should a player go for victory points or for more energy points? How important is it to defend your energy centers and villages? These kind of decisions make a game fun.

Anonymous
WarLord

I didn't mean that you actually destroy the energy center, but when a player makes an energy center's health go to zero, it is like defeating everything guarding it, and it becomes the player that defeated it's energy center.

And I don't like making games with victory points. No, let me rephrase that. I hate making games with victory points. (That doesn't mean I necesarly dislike victory points in a game). But how about, instead of having villages be victory points, make them building centers, making more units.

What do you think? And I am defently using cards. It's a good idea and makes the game simpler.f

sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
WarLord

The victory condition for the game could be to control all the "villages" or "energy Centers" or whatever. Probably best to make it seperate from the Energy centers, actually, as has been mentioned.

So you need to control energy centers to do stuff, and you want to control Villages to win, but you have a finite number of guys...

Anonymous
WarLord

I just posted a Journal Entry explaining the new rules. If you want, you can check it out to see what final (or maybe not so final) rules.

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut