Skip to Content
 

Table Top War Game with CCG Aesthetics and Customization

11 replies [Last post]
NomadArtisan
Offline
Joined: 12/12/2011

Hello All,
I started out working on a system that has gone through many setting changes, but one thing that keeps creeping back to my mind is making a miniatures game with a similar aesthetic and customization as card games.
One of the things I love most about CCGs is the ability to create the unique feel of a deck and what type of army it might represent. Is it from some dark catacombs? The forests? Perhaps your characters come from a volcanic landscape.

The point is, I want to capture this customization that many card games readily allow for and bring it to a minis game form.

The story behind the game (so far) is that the land is traveled by powerful summoners that don't engage in close quarter combat, but are capable of summoning potent armies to battle for them. When playing the game, you take on the role of such a summoner and control an army of powerful creatures and an arsenal of spells.

Here's what I've done so far...

I wanted there to be multiple elements players can choose from to construct their army, but still have to have some sort of cohesiveness. There are 12 elements as follows
Earth
Air
Water
Fire
Light
Dark
Magic
Warrior
Natural
Construct
Order
Chaos
Each model in the game is aligned to 3 of these elements. When you construct your army, you must choose 1 element of which all models in your army must share.

The combat System I'm using is very simple...
Roll 2d6, add attacker's Combat value. If this equals or exceeds the target's defense, deal the attack's damage +d3.

In addition to the miniatures, you also have points to select spell cards. Each spell card can only be played once per game, so they must be used wisely.

ACTIVATION
The activation system is still in the works, but seems to mesh with the creature miniature/spell card combination. You have a certain amount of energy each turn that can be spent to pay the activation costs of creature actions as well as paying the energy costs for spells. So you're limited on how much you can do each turn, and the resource used for both models and cards is one in the same.

All thoughts are greatly appreciated!

-NomadArtisan

Tribalxgecko
Tribalxgecko's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/03/2012
Hey Nomad, found your post,

Hey Nomad, found your post, let's take a look and see what you have here...

Quote:
I started out working on a system that has gone through many setting changes, but one thing that keeps creeping back to my mind is making a miniatures game with a similar aesthetic and customization as card games.

Looks like something right up my alley.

Quote:
The point is, I want to capture this customization that many card games readily allow for and bring it to a minis game form.

This is the exact goal that I had in mind while creating my system as well. I love the cohesive feel of CCG decks, the customization, the Paper / Rock / Scissors strategy like feel of the game. There has been a lot of CCG's that failed in that, and several that have excelled beyond expectations.

After looking through your ideas and thoughts, it reminded me a lot of the mini game from Privateer Press called Hordes (Warmachine is similar to a degree as well). In that game the player takes the role as a Warlock where they lead their troops into battle. The warlock has 'fury points' they can spend to enhance troops, cast spells, activate abilities and so forth. Privateer Press has a free PDF download of fast play rules that you may be able to get some ideas from, or see how some of their mechanics work. It is a wonderful game actually, and if you like minis, I would recommend it.

Now back to your idea, a few questions for you.
- Is the 'summoner' just the player, or is it a mini as well?
- Do you summon creatures, or build the army before hand? So is there 'creature' cards and 'spell' cards? Or better yet, where do the 'cards' actually come into play?

The way I am reading it is, if you will forgive my reference here, is sort of like taking M:tG and turning creature cards into minis, while leaving the rest of the cards in place. Then on each players turn they can move minis, take actions, draw cards, and cast spells.

NomadArtisan
Offline
Joined: 12/12/2011
Warmachine & Hordes are

Warmachine & Hordes are actually my favorite miniatures games. I started each when they were first released. Much of the inspiration for my activation system was derived from Warmachine's Focus system.

As for your questions.

For now the summoner is the player, not a mini. This may change after developing the game, however no-mini fits the CCG aesthetic I'm aiming for.

Your army is built before hand, Creatures will have their stat cards for reference sake, and Spells will have their cards as well.

Your reference is mostly accurate, however you don't draw cards during the game. You have access to all of the spell cards you purchase from the get-go just like you would have access to your miniatures. Think of the Spell's cards as their stat-cards, spells just don't have physical miniatures to represent them on the field. As well, I'm thinking a player would only have around 10-15 spells, each spell being 1 use only (some special rules may change this).

So over the course of your turn, you'll balance spending energy on actions for your miniatures to perform and potentially on casting spells to augment their actions, abilities, and battlefield interactions.

Tribalxgecko
Tribalxgecko's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/03/2012
Quote:Your army is built

Quote:
Your army is built before hand, Creatures will have their stat cards for reference sake, and Spells will have their cards as well.

Have you considered taking a deck approach to creatures? Like you would have a deck of creatures and spells that you build before hand, and the players cast spells or summon creatures as they draw them? Not that I am suggesting that over your system, just curious if you considered that is all.

Quote:
Your army is built before hand, Creatures will have their stat cards for reference sake, and Spells will have their cards as well.

Does a player setup his spell cards before battle, along with the army? Or would the players choose spells at the beginning of the game? I could see it working both ways, and being strategic either way.

With the first option it would work as more of a 'deck building' approach and you would tailor your spells to your army and what you are trying to accomplish. Where as the second way would be more of a sideboard / draft sort of thing that puts you on even level with your opponent and adds a bit of luck and wise strategy with what you have / end up with.

Perhaps it could be two different forms of play? Or maybe there is a set number of spells and the players take turns choosing them before battle? For example 30 random spell cards and the players take turns choosing from the pile till both have 15. I must admit, this aspect intrigues me ;P

Or, if I may ramble a moment, maybe a player has access to a specific list of spells based upon the single element all of the troops are aligned with. For example, if a players army all is based around the 'Chaos' element, the player would have access to the 'Chaos' spell list to cast from. Just a thought ;)

NomadArtisan
Offline
Joined: 12/12/2011
I had considered taking a

I had considered taking a deck approach to everything. That was the very first iteration I had. The issues I found lead me to decide it didn't work well for a miniatures game (at least not the style or type of miniatures game I had in mind). In a card game, you play a creature, it only has one possible location, 'in play'. With miniatures, the creature had to be placed somewhere, which meant added rules for summoning locations (or a summoner model to measure from), then summoning location added more strategical restrictions, then not having access to your models at the beginning of the game leads to awkward situations and limited game scenario options. Lastly, miniatures games have enough luck built in with dice rolling that I felt the addition of random card drawing pushed it too far into the luck-based game zone for my taste. So, from that I decided I wanted players to have access to everything from the get go.

For spells, my current plan is to have them selected/purchased at the same time as you build your army. I like the sideboard/draft approach, and I think that would be great for a special scenario or tournament style.

As for spell lists, spells would also have 3 elements to which they are each aligned. So the element you choose for your army must be shared by both your creatures and your spells.
I do like your spell list idea. If I understand you correctly, there would be a set spell list for each element. When you select your element you would automatically get all spells from the list of the selected element? This reminds me slightly of Warhammer's spell selection system, only automatically obtaining the entire element's spell list instead of randomly selecting spells from the chosen element.
That would be a good way to balance the spells if the higher customization level makes them imbalanced. But for now I think I want to stick with the 3 element alignment because it unifies (at least aesthetically) the spells and the creatures.

Tribalxgecko
Tribalxgecko's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/03/2012
Quote:I do like your spell

Quote:
I do like your spell list idea. If I understand you correctly, there would be a set spell list for each element. When you select your element you would automatically get all spells from the list of the selected element? This reminds me slightly of Warhammer's spell selection system, only automatically obtaining the entire element's spell list instead of randomly selecting spells from the chosen element.

You are correct, that was what I was thinking. The way you are currently handling it is really the same thing, only slightly different, but better actually; yeah, that is an oxymoron, but here is what I mean:

Quote:
But for now I think I want to stick with the 3 element alignment because it unifies (at least aesthetically) the spells and the creatures.

Using your idea, if your army is based off of the Chaos element, then your spells will need to be of the Chaos element to be unified, since the army and spells need a common element. So really your spells are picked from the 'Chaos' element spell list in the end. But here is why your idea would work better: a player could build an army that shares 2 elements, maybe even 3 when enough mini's exist, and that would give them access to 2 or 3 spell lists, and greatly increase their options of spells. This option adds a lot more strategy.

From my experience, your biggest issue will come in the form of designing the mini stats and the spells. With this sort of system, your first set of released minis will need to be HUGE in order for a player to build a viable army. With 12 elements, each mini having 3 of them, you are looking at a possible combination of 220 different combinations of elements, without repetition. To start with, you will need to make 12 minis for each element, in order for the number available for each one to be balanced. That is 144 minis, to start with. To keep things further balanced, your second chosen element would need 12, and again for your third. In the end, you would need a total of 144*3 (432) minis in order for the balance to have a chance. This would also give the player a choice among 36 available minis. And then you would need to tackle spells...

NomadArtisan
Offline
Joined: 12/12/2011
I don't think the numbers

I don't think the numbers will be as staggering as you suggest.
I'm working off the idea of a 'wheel' similar to Magic the Gathering's 'color pie' if you're familiar with it. Basically, Light and Dark are on opposite sides of the wheel, Fire and water are on opposite sides, etc. This will create a circle in which the elements more closely related are next to each other. Only adjacent elements will be combined for the first release.
Now, if we look at each miniature's 'focused element' as being the center element of their 3, we're working with 12 groups of models. So if each group has, say, 6 models in it, then you're looking at 72 models total with the choice of 18 different models per element.

I'm not using this exact starting set up, it's more a reference I'm using that also lets me know I'll be able to make 18 options per element while only needing 72 different models.

Tribalxgecko
Tribalxgecko's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/03/2012
Ah, alright. That would work

Ah, alright. That would work much better. I was thinking that you wanted to have minis will all possible combinations, and that would be a simple nightmare. Plus if you limit some things, such as a mini not having both opposing elements, like Fire / Water, or Chaos / Order, that would help trim down the possibilities as well. From there, and with future releases, you could touch on minis that branch out of the 'standard' array, for a more interesting aspect. Then your not putting yourself in such a deep hole.

With my system, I have 5 armies, and each army has 100 minis in it. So a total of 500 minis I had / have to stat out. I went a bit above and beyond the call of duty here though. I wanted to get 3 'set releases' ready to go as much as possible, to save future work and headaches. My first set really has 250 minis (50 / army), and the two following expansions have 125 minis (25 / army). I putter at it a bit each day, so it is not too bad, plus I am not in a huge hurry, though I am getting impatient to be honest ;). It can get very monotonous and annoying stating everything out though.

NomadArtisan
Offline
Joined: 12/12/2011
That's pretty much my plan

That's pretty much my plan (with the deviating from standard combinations in potential future releases).

You're being very ambitious with so many miniatures!
I have taken a look at your rules and I like what you have going, especially the vitus concept.

The non-replenishing resource that also acts as your 'life' total is interesting. It's similar to magi-nation, which is an excellent card game btw.

I was thinking of something similar for my game in that every miniature has a 'death toll' that, when destroyed, you lose that amount of 'life'. When your life drops to 0, you lose the game. Some abilities (most likely reserved for dark or chaos models) may cause you to lose life, or cause additional life loss to your opponent. I like this concept because it adds to the CCG aesthetic while at the same time it creates a win condition other than last man standing, which is always best for miniature games IMO.

I would suggest you take a look at the rules for Chainmail (has now turned into D&D minis) and, more notably, Chronopia. Both use d20s, and Chronopia is one of the better miniature games I've ever played.

Tribalxgecko
Tribalxgecko's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/03/2012
Quote:I have taken a look at

Quote:
I have taken a look at your rules and I like what you have going, especially the vitus concept.

Thanks, that is one of my favorite aspects of the game, it adds a lot of depth. I have done a lot of playteseting with the current vitus setup, and have recently changed it so that instead of starting with 20 and losing at -20, a player starts with 40, and loses if it reaches 0. If forces players to be more mindful of how they use / handle the vitus. From the playtests I have done with this change, it actually works better. I just changed that on the site rules a short while ago, but I have been running this format for a couple months with a couple friends.

Oooh, I really like the death toll idea! That would be really interesting. It would also be a great way to balance some very powerful minis. A player may think twice of using an uber-powerful-mini if it costs him a lot of 'life' when it is gone. Like you said, anything that adds more win situations for a game will enhance it, more so with minis. Excellent idea!

I have a LOT of webspace. If you are ever interested in having a forum setup to store stuff, like I have, just let me know, I will host it for you. I have more space than I will ever use, and maybe we can build support and stuff from each other.

Cheers!

NomadArtisan
Offline
Joined: 12/12/2011
Thank You very much for that

Thank You very much for that offer!
At this point I'd have to decline mostly because, knowing myself, I'd spend even more time working on my game than I do now (which I need to lessen due to other priorities), but thank you very much for offering!

I agree with your change to just starting with 40. I was originally intrigued by the idea that you'd lose the ability to spend vitus half way through the game, but, inhibiting player's doesn't make it fun for the players. So good call.

Also, more on the Death Toll idea.
Not only can it balance the minis, it can also balance abilities. Sure you might have that necromancer character bringing back your troops, but that's not going to matter as much when those troops keep dying off and hitting you with their death toll. There's also potential for characters that gain you life instead of losing it, or even characters that let you start the game with more life than normal.
The best thing it has going for it though, IMO, is the fact that it's grants an alternate win condition so battles are never 'last man standing', which is always the weakest point of minis games.

Also, are you familiar with Chronopia?
And are you using the e-fig thing mostly to alleviate the need for sculpted miniatures?

Tribalxgecko
Tribalxgecko's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/03/2012
Quote:The best thing it has

Quote:
The best thing it has going for it though, IMO, is the fact that it's grants an alternate win condition so battles are never 'last man standing', which is always the weakest point of minis games.

I agree 100%!!

Quote:
Not only can it balance the minis, it can also balance abilities. Sure you might have that necromancer character bringing back your troops, but that's not going to matter as much when those troops keep dying off and hitting you with their death toll.

I sort of have a basis around this, but not quite the same. I have a round / time limit condition (based on the size of the game), and once time is up, players tally up the amount of AC points the e-figs in the graveyard is worth. The player with the least amount (lost the least % of their army) is the winner. It is a bit of a pain though, cause I don't want to add yet another stat to the minis, but it forces a lot of math which I don't want either. I have only reached this point 2 or 3 times though in playtesting, so I have not focused much on it. I need to figure something like your idea out though for future use.

I googled Chronopia yesterday actually and looked at it a bit. I am thinking about grabbing the rule book off of amazon, it is fairly cheap.

Quote:
And are you using the e-fig thing mostly to alleviate the need for sculpted miniatures?

Yepper. I don't have the money or the resources to craft the minis. I designed this game specifically with 3 things in mind: 1) for internet play with a virtual tabletop (openRPG works perfect for this game), 2) to be able to be played on a tabletop with minimal conversion to the rules, and 3) if played on a tabletop, any miniatures would work, even pieces of paper, tokens, coins, whatever. With such a huge variety of miniatures on the market, there really is no need for me to supply them. Furthermore, it gives players total customization on what they think the e-fig would look like. Does the dwarf warrior look like something from warhammer? LotR? Hordes? whatever they want of course!

The e-figs instead have a 'stat card' which can be printed (and would be placed on the table when playing). Then they can add stuff to the card, like counters, notes, dice, or whatever else during game play. I have future plans for including equipment / items which can be equipped, and some e-figs can 'attach' to a host, so it works well for that also. OpenRPG has a great file tree / character sheet type of setup thing that does this in a virtual game.

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut