Skip to Content

The reason for the mechanics and new thoughts for it.

The mechanics for the dice rolling was inspired out of some guy on BGG writing a wall of text on how you should have a person's skill with a weapon, their knowledge, the weapon in question's power, that person's strength... and made it all cryptic. Coupled with the miniatures game "Song of Swords" and their simple unit creation, simple rolls, and raved reviews of "most balanced wargame", this is what is coming out.

I REALLY did think about allowing to "Make your own dude" for my miniatures game, but 3 things came to mind. One, I've played Warhammer 40k and there was a fair amount of customization, but the entire game was flawed and left a really bad taste in my mouth. Two, it didn't seem too far off from a D&D PnP PvP. "Roll up a lvl 5 player, choose your equips and spells, roll initiative each turn and go at it!" Three, This is a problem with both: If customization is given to the player, there is a chance that something is going to be unbalanced. Something will be exploited. It happens in 40k and it happens in D&D. Warmachine has static stats. Replacing the customization is "synergy". Buff a guy here, debuff here. The individual units even have options, like the Arcane Gun Mages, who have the option of shooting farther, shooting with an extra damage die, or shooting and pushing a unit away. And with unit attachments, it's a faux-customization system. Lastly, (which makes this 4) if I give control to the players, I would have to playtest the hell out of it. Make lists of every combination and pit it against every other combination. I'm all for playtesting, but I'd like this to be released before i die. haha

Warmachine has Casters with "Focus" limited to Jacks and himself. In my game, the player has "Glory" which is given to whomever. I'm really beginning to sway towards having a set amount of Glory for the entire game (with variables that allow you to get more or take some away). The Malifaux miniatures game has something similar to this.

I'm really trying to get my game to the point where it HAS to be a back and forth game. You hit me, I hit you. You shoot me, I shoot you. I don't want anyone taken out by 1-shot. Continuing with that thought and how to avoid "first to lose a model, loses", (meaning, in a game like this where there is a small model count, losing 1 figure is possibly game-ending) I was thinking of having models come back. It really doesn't go with the theme, unless you could find a way that it could fit thematically. What I'm thinking is, why not make it, "if you lose X number of models, you lose" or "you lose X amount of points, you lose"? The other idea I just had was "have certain things worth points. Landing a hit is 1 point. Doing more than 5 damage is 2 points. Knocking out a character is 5 points (or possibly however many points you spent for him). First to 50 (or whatever), wins."

I was told that superior tactics should leave an even playing field when outnumbered. How to you even a playing field when 1 side has lost a unit? The tactic is find cover and elevation and focus fire on a single target. If a player made a mistake which got his units killed, he either has to find a way to make due without his unit and overcome or turtle in a protected area and have the enemy come to you. Actual skirmishes pan out like this. I really don't want to reward the losing player with a handicap so that "everyone is happy". Maybe giving the losing player Glory to spend on their next turn would help. Like the resolve you get from seeing a team member go down or a fellow soldier getting shot. I have to think on this more.

Syndicate content

blog | by Dr. Radut