Game Design #113: Design Goals, Inspiration Blurbs and "Miniature Agnostic" vs "Completely Generic"

Underworld

Land of Darkness. Land of the Dead. Land of Ice and Fire.

In the deep abysses of the earth, there is another realm. It has many names:

Tartarus. Sheol. Yomi. Nifelhiem.

A place where the rules of death and death can be bent – and sometimes broken.

Where the natural and supernatural overlap. Where belief and will shape reality, and dreams and nightmares can take physical form.

Atlantis. Lemuria. Mu. Avalon. Lyonnesse. Ys. Shang-ri La. Agartha. Minonans. Mayans. Olmec.

It is a land of lost and forgotten things. A land of myth. A land of terror.

<---> 

 

I've now finished 1 of 3 terrain tables and 26 of 100 minis from my 2026 goals...

When I make homebrew rules I make myself a "inspiration blurb" and a set of "design goals."

This inspiration blurb is to give me a "feel" for the rules.  The above is an inspiration blurb for my current set I'm experimenting with. Kinda like the tagline of a movie or the back cover of a book. I wanted a reason to paint my vikings, samurai and Greeks and a "game world" where I could use them all together, on my new foam mat terrain. I'm kinda motivating myself with invented fluff. Luckily for me I only make games for myself so I don't need to worry about how cringey or terrible my prose as long as it inspires me.

Notice I'm making my fluff match my miniatures. Not always a consideration, but an important one. Are there actually suitable miniatures for what you are wanting to play? I'd love a urban horror Underworld vampires vs werewolves game but vampires and werewolves with machineguns (while some do exist) are not affordable nor readily available. So that project sits shelved.

 Making a "better 40K" was probably the first step of most game designers and there's a reason for that (besides the base 40K rules beg for improvement) - you and your mates already had access to the minis.

<--- >

Completely Generic Rules

Maybe 10-15 years ago there was a flood of what I'd call completely generic rules. Usually they trumpeted "can play anything with these from Roman soldiers to Napoleonics to Star Wars - One Ruleset to Rule Them All."  This concept is a little flawed and does not work all the time. 

While players like what they like (and not having to learn new mechanics is good!) and can be popular a la Insertname Rampant or the Noungrave of the week I'd say games that focus on melee vs those focussed on shooting probably should differ on a base level. So while Star Wars/40K fantasy sci fi can share a base with fantasy rules, viking shieldwall skirmish should probably not share the same mechanics/activation as a modern fire-and-maneuver squad shooter. 

The second issue is: if you have 101 generic rules - why should I play yours over the others?  Usually they have some sort of mechanics advantage - maybe it's a streamlined 40K with alternate movement and d10s. Maybe it has a cool push-your-luck activation mechanic. Maybe it has a super comprehensive army builder and point system. 

However the main reason we play games is we get hooked by the fluff/shiny things. The cool backstory. The weird. Like the idea of Napoleonic cultists in armour possessed by turnips?  A WW1-era ubdergrimdark crusades where you fight demons with swords and Lewis guns?  Some games seem to get by on merely a cool art style.  Having a rulebook that has NO fluff (reason to play) and merely "solid mechanics" kinda misses the motivation of most players. 

Usually fluff drives our gaming so that's why I create my own to drive my homebrew gaming and painting. That's the purpose of my inspiration blurb.

<--- >

...before I forget, let's back up to an earlier point: Are there actually miniatures for your game?

Eric reminded me of this in a previous post on projects. I call this the "Zone Raiders conundrum."  Zone Raiders is probably the Necromunda replacement we've been waiting for. The simpler Infinity (OK, now BLKOUT may have stolen this). But you'll probably never play it. (And may not even have heard of it)

Zone Raiders is not a generic game. It has great fluff - a strong anime vibe that borrows heavily from the Blame! manga of a giant planet-sized megacity full of strange mysteries and killer guardians. A theme as strong as Necromunda, but with better rules. It has a good campaign system. The physical rulebook is great and the PDF is shiny - and it's all in the one book. No $200 of extra books like Necromunda. Winner, right?

But though the game is "miniatures agnostic" aka "use whatever you want" the game is weirdly specific. 

There are not the usual laser rifles, blasters and automatic weapons used in 99% of games from 40K to Star Wars. Instead it only uses Blame!-specific weapons like single-shot javelin spike airguns that have to be crank-reloaded. This means your 40K armies are probably useless (or at least kinda ridiculous for WYSIWYG) and half your Infinity models too.

The miniature profiles are also very specific with special rules. They ain't generic stereotypes you can add gear to based on what you have available; but the gear and traits come premade; in very specific configurations.  You can't just get heavy, medium or light armour which you could just eyeball approximate models to - no, no you get rigs, where that heavy armour automatically comes with jump jets and grapnels - which again narrows down the suitable minis.

Yes, you could say the AK47 on my Infinity Haqquislam is a singleshot compressed air rifle... ...but it just seems off. Why bother with such cool fluff if all your models and scenery contradict it? 

Another very cool aspect is the fights between warbands can trigger harvesters/reapers/immunocytes - robotic guardians who are sent by the world's AI to cleanse it of human parasites. This is very cool for scenarios however:

a) you need to have quite a lot of these robots of various types - extra cost

b) these robots are not readily available for sale - can't source them

Could I use Necrons?  Maybe, but again the profiles don't really align. 

In short, Zone Raiders is a good game, but there isn't the miniatures for it. It's got good fluff, and in theory it is miniatures agnostic "just use anything" - but in reality the very specific weapons and unit profiles in this "generic" rulebook are better suited to a game with a supported miniature line or at least a STL series. It's miniatures agnostic - if you happen to know how to source a specific type of miniature! 

If ZR had added more generic unit archetypes with more generic weapons (chainswords, laser rifles, shotguns, etc) rather than only overly setting-specific characters, weapons and gear it would be way more popular...  This is an example of good rules, good fluff - but no miniatures!

In contrast, with my homebrew rules I like to have a very clear set of miniatures in mind; in this case, Perry Samurai, Victrix/Gripping beast vikings, Fireforge undead peasants, Frostgrave cultists, Greek Wargames Atlantic skellies - maybe toss in some 3D printed mythological creatures like gorgons and yokai - which I've already checked my local 3D printer can provide. 

<--->

  

Design Goals 

Back to my own Underworld homegame, I also like to have clear design goals before I start.  I just realised I may have discussed this before - yep!

Since I've already devoted a big post to this (see link in sentence above); I'll expand on some points - re: the underlying math and how it can save you time.

If you can't be bothered to playtest much - use what already works! 

Since I don't like reinventing the wheel, I like to find rules that already do something similar to what I am attempting, especially ones I like. If it's a medieval game, maybe MESBG. WW2 tanks - Flames of War. Preferably a well-tested set where the math already works or you know the "feel" of the game.

Many GW-derived games have a 4+ to hit up to say 24" then maybe a 4+ to kill. That's 25% lethality. If there's a 4+ cover save, then that's 12.5% lethality.

So if I use a d12 (my current favourite) for Underworld I can say a 7+ hits and a 7+ kills. That's 25% lethality. But because we are using a d12 we can dispense with the extra cover save. Maybe cover just becomes a -3 modifier on the 7+ hit roll. If cover is 10+ to hit, 7+ kills the lethality is still 12.5%. Identical to MESBG.

Shooting may use different dice and mechanics but will play exactly the same - and is based on a very tried and tested melee-based fantasy/medieval rule set. That is based on a 6" move and 24" missile range. Obviously if I change these moves/ratios the feel will change - but I can still predict how the game will play. 

Usually I prefer to find the simplest rules possible. It's always way easier (and more fun) to add more crap in then to remove or simplify a process. As you'd know if you've ever sat in a work meeting...

So my design goals may also read: "Use MESG % as a base, but alternate activation?" - this gives me a starting point for how I know the game should play. 

For example I've been thinking about Zone Raiders and I could say "make a new game: uses traits, weapons and gear from Necromunda & Infinity (guaranteeing easy mini alignment) and BLKOUT/Zone Raiders simple mechanics and math adapted to d12" in the design brief to build a combined ultramodern/sci fi skirmish game. The underlying math could be ported from either game then modified to suit.

I prefer to fit the game mechanics to the setting. For example, reaction moves/shooting may fit a modern SWAT team game well, but may be tiresome for a mass skirmish game focussed on melee.

In my Underworld game, I may have groups of models move/shoot together (or divide into move/shoot phases like MESBG) to allow my viking/Greek shieldwalls to move together.  Whereas my d12 Necro Raiders hybrid would probably have individual soldiers moving and shooting; with either hold moves and/or limited reactions (to take cover/shoot back).

Design goals usually include:

"How do players take turns (activation/initiative)?"

"Melee vs missile focus/gameplay focus" (covered above^ i.e. what games/genres do I borrow from?) 

"Unique hook" (why don't I just use existing commercial rules?)

"How many miniatures/how fast play?" (You can have more details for 10 minis per side than 40..)

"Key decision points" (what agency/risk-reward/resource management allows players to influence game) 

...and a brief description of how the game should play in my mind. I.e.

"Focus on melee combat but minis move individually.. maybe together if within 1" coherency of another grunt or 6" of a hero... heroes have stamina, health and magic stat which can be drained - like a PC RPG - indicate by placing a green, red or blue counter under the mini if drained...  ...3-5 "heroes" RPG style, rest can be 10-12 simpler grunts who have no special bars or abilities and die in one hit. Heroes can roll against stat to sprint, do power attacks, heal etc and if fail roll it is drained until recover by rolling next turn..."

As I've covered design goals before in more detail - and my kids are invading my room to play games - I'll sign out... 

Game Design #112: Revisiting Cards & Custom Dice

 I have been recently looking through my unpainted minis. Since many are long forgotten projects, I have been viewing rulebooks to see if I am inspired. My biggest unfinished projects are:

Quar. Samurai. Greek. 70YW/ECW. Weird War II. Infinity. Confrontation 3 (fantasy). These all have 50-100 minis to complete. 

I'm looking for impetus to get them on the table - so I'm building terrain, sourcing and printing rule-books.  While browsing these genres I came across Mortal Gods. Greek skirmish. Mythic expansions. Good reviews. Sounds interesting; then I notice custom dice. 

I hate custom dice.

1) "You can do more stuff with custom dice"

Maybe. I can't think of too many examples off the top of my head where I went "Man, I'm glad I'm using these expensive custom dice instead of those damn ordinary d6s."

When I see custom dice, I tend to assume gimmick/laziness/chasing extra profits. 

You can do a lot with even the most basic basic d6. You can  roll two d6 and create a bell curve. Or you can throw buckets of d6 with a certain number scoring a hit - say 4+. Or what about crits? Maybe a 6+ counts as two hits?  Maybe heavier weapons crit on a 5+? Lighter weapons hit on a 3+ but still crit on a 6+? Maybe you can compare the stats - if stats are equal, 4+, if greater /less could be 3+ or 5+?  Or you can add a dice roll to a stat and compare to a target number? Or maybe a contested roll using a range of methods where the defender can try out-roll the attacker...  

....And that's ignoring the fact that d4, d8, d10, d12 and d20 are readily available thanks to the inexplicable popularity of D&D. Yeah D&D is a clunky, bad RPG. *Bangs sacred cow with stick*

Point is, I tend to regard game designers who need special dice to make their game work as lacking in basic problem solving and mathematics. 

2) Symbols or custom dice are not always more intuitive either. Looking at Bloodbowl dice reminded me of how I wished they just had words instead of exclamation mark explosion, explosion, explosion skull, skull and arrow. Which symbols did Block and Dodge effect again? It's be just as easy to have a chart that says:

1 = attacker falls over

2 = both attacker and defender falls over unless either have block

3,4 = defender is pushed back

5 = defender is falls over unless he has dodge

6 = defender falls  over 

Voila! No special dice required. I just saved you $37. I could memorize what the numbers do just as easily as the explosion or skull symbols or combo thereof.

Card Mechanics - a tricky balancing act

 Card mechanics can be thematic (in a cowboy game, for example). Just like pulling Go pebbles from a bag might be a fun way to do samurai initiative...

In the Savage Worlds RPG (I've been looking at it for  the baseline of a horror Western skirmish game) cards are simply drawn and randomly assigned to heroes or groups to ensure a completely random activation. 

That's kind of a waste. Is using cards even needed? It's using cards for the sake of using cards. Even then, it's kinda cluttering;  if you're putting down a card for each mini/squad - where are all these playing cards being put on the table? 

And do we really want truly random activation anyway? I prefer controllable risk. Where you are always uncertain, but you can take steps to "massage" the odds in your favour. How could cards play along with this idea of controllable risk?

Maybe each player has a colour (red or black suit) and can choose the mini they activate when their colour comes up. Maybe some cards like Aces or Jokers have an additional effect; boosting stats, allowing re-rolls, or ending the current turn - whatever.

Maybe a poker hand where each player hold 5 cards and plays them to see who activates a mini next. Maybe only some cards (2?) are visible and others (3?) are hidden.

Maybe heroes activate on face cards AND number cards whereas grunts only activate on number cards.

Maybe a player can skip an activation and swap out some/all of his cards.

A strength of cards is the ability to add on extra effects. I.e. activating on a queen of diamonds might be +2 defence, but a queen of spades +2 attack. You can kinda weave interesting events and variables into the cards as it's like rolling 4 uniquely different 13-sided dice. 

There's lots more obviously, but if you are going to use cards, make sure you are getting use out of them....but wait:

....on the flip side, even  good, 'cool' card mechanic risks becoming the 'whole game' (or the main focus of the game). You don't want to turn your fire-and-maneuver wargame into an abstract Magic clone.

This applies to using cards to resolve combat too.

I kinda like the idea that each player has a deck of cards and thus has the same amount of "luck" i.e. each player has 4 Aces, 4 Kings, 4 Queens etc - that may come out at different times, favouring one or the other; but overall it's not like one player rolling nothing but 6s all game and his opponent rolling nothing but 1s.  The total value of each hand is random, yet equivalent overall. Once you've pulled your lowest cards your bad luck is over and things will likely "even out." I like predictable randomness.

But is drawing and showing cards quicker or slower, mechanically, than tossing a dice?  I suspect usually the latter. Does cards really add anything to the game? Or does it add too much to the game?

I dislike boardgames but my wife loves them. Ironically, I do most of the reviewing and purchasing (and some test playing) as I tend to be able to quickly identify the key mechanics and gauge how it will play (and whether my wife will like it).

I notice many popular board games have simple rules but complex decisions. In Courtesans, you play 3 cards, giving one to an opponent, keeping one, and placing one out on the table in a way to influence the value of your hand. There is only 3 decisions in your turn - simples! - but they have a strong effect and there is quite a lot going on as you meddle with your opponents' plans.

A wargame has decisions too, like: Where do I go? Who do I attack? Who do I avoid? Adding a complete fleshed out card game on top of this risks detracting from those decisions (or giving decision fatigue) and making the card game aspect paramount. 

Some boardgames have several things going on - perhaps in Sagrada you need to know what stones to collect AND then arrange them for maximum scoring. Sometimes there are two strategies or areas you are working on to achieve success. Sometimes a boardgame has too much going on and these tend to be those that eat up an entire evening(s) - and not necessarily being more fun or tactical than a shorter game with more basic choices/mechanics.

Too complex a card mechanic (be it for initiative or resolving combats) also risks bogging/slowing a game down by layering card complexity on top of the wargame's innate complexity.

It's kinda dammned if you do, dammned if you don't. If the cards effect little or the purpose could be accomplished by other means - the question is why bother?  If the card mechanics are interesting, deep, engaging and strategic they risk taking over or bogging down the game.  Cards could add a thematic layer to say a Wild West game, but they straddle a tricky divide. 

Note I'm talking ordinary, readily available playing cards here. Custom cards, like custom dice, can just get stuffed. Go play Magic or similar CCG if you want to exchange colourful pieces of cardboard for large amounts of money. 

Are the cards actually needed? Or are they just for the sake of a gimmick?

Do the cards add something to the game that the usual dice do not easily allow? (i.e. using the suits to trigger ingame effects, some sort of bluffing or minigame, allowing better luck management etc)

How much time/complexity do the cards add? 

Is it pulling too much emphasis from the main combat/maneuver?

Is it a naked cashgrab "custom deck" for $30 each?

While cards do have their applications, I tend to be very skeptical when they appear in a game...

Organising Wargaming Projects: Overcoming Inertia

 I've done a big shed clean over my school holidays. Although I'm a pretty energetic painter (though 2025 was not great) and my project "drawers" - each unfinished task resides in a removable drawer - has reduced from 32(!) to 10, I've found a few big incomplete projects - big being 50 or more 28mm equivalent models. 

Some date back 10 years. So why have these been ignored when I've painted thousands of models?

To avoid more boxes of unpainted plastique, I've asked myself: What makes me complete a project?

-- 

1. Do I find assembling/painting the minis satisfying? Do I have enough for a decent game?

Whilst I hate Warmachine as a game, I find the sculpts weirdly fun and quirky to paint.  I've played about 5 games, have no desire to ever play again, but own perhaps 300 minis across 5-6 factions. 

My ECW plastics are not compelling. Designed for rank n flank, they are kinda samey and bland. My Perry samurai are great but have an unpleasant amount of small detail. Infinity models make me feel inadequate. I hate painting lots of flesh and sandals are lame. 

My Robotech are horrifically complex to assemble and you need to build all 3 flight modes (i.e. 3 models to represent one on the table)...  but I loved kitbashing Hot Wheels for Gaslands.

While I get ease of storage and cost reasons, some scales are just too small to be fun. Some are in a weird spot - my force is too small (Imperialis Aeronautica) but they are OOP so it's not worth adding to them.

Furthermore, while the odd hero is fine, I dislike 3D prints forming the core of my force. They're just too fragile and explode-y when dropped.  So anything relying solely on resin is out. 

It's about $5-10 to print and bind a set of rules; which can inspire you to get unused minis on the table. When overseas P&P can add $30+ to a $50 rulebook, I've resigned myself to not having pretty things...
 

2. Do I have terrain and fun/acceptable rules? 

Without either, it ain't going to get any playtime. I'm too old to enjoy tissueboxes for buildings and books under a sheet for a hill.  Without plausible too-scale terrain, a game ain't getting on the table.

If the terrain is difficult/complex or pricey to source - then that game is on hold, indefinitely. 

I know pdfs on a iPad are probably sensible and the way of the future, but if I don't have a hard copy of a rulebook to browse on the toilet to study at my leisure, the chance I actually play the game drops to only a few percent.  Also, charging $20-30 for a digital copy means there are many good games I just refuse to buy. 1490 Doom caught my eye but... $80AUD for a few pdfs? Come on.

Poor rules can also slow me up. I love Battletech but enjoy neither original or Alpha Strike rules, and I struggle with indie rules that don't follow the lore/universe. I was super excited about Trench Crusade but are kinda underwhelmed by the rules and the models sit unpainted.... 

3. Does the project capture my imagination in some way?

I roll my eyes at blue Space Marines but can picture mini-submarines dogfighting like Korean War jets in undersea trenches at 300kph.  I find regular WW2 infantry dull, and Napoleonics lines immeasurably more so, but love the French Indian Wars so much... ...I added velociraptors to it. Necromunda is not cool, just a grubby cringe 80s Judge Dredd rip-off. I love MTBs speeding in a shower of spray hammering away with automatic cannons.While I love Biggles, WW1 biplane models are boring.

This is where I'll step in and make homebrew rules if needed. If no one has made Hellgate:London in 28mm I'll just have to do my own thing with Infinity Nomads and GW Khorne, right? If there is no game where sci fi stormtroopers get possessed by demons? Fine. No one has vikings fighting zombies in frozen buried skyscrapers in a post-apoc future? OK then. 

4. Cost

This is pretty obvious, but I'd say it's less absolute cost, and more: "can I try it cheaply and add to it in increments." I'd love to play Titanicus, but as I'd need to buy both forces we're talking $500 upfront. My home-made Tankmunda games with 15mm tanks cost $100 for a dozen tanks per side, and each new tank costs ~$10 not $70-100.  I've probably got $500 of tanks now, but I have dozens and dozens collected and painted over years of gradual acquisitions. So anything with a big buy-in (most stuff GW) is out. $220 for something like Bloodbowl (regarded as cheap in GW circles) is significant chunk of hobby cash. If I need to buy another $150 of minis to make a game shine/work, we're heading into sunk cost fallacy territory. Aussie postage is a killer too. When a $100 game costs $50 postage there's a big impact on the per-mini cost.  If it's from USA, I probably will never own it. I've been been printing PDF rules but the cost there is not cheap either - it's a hard no if a freaking pdf I have to print and bind myself is $20 or more.... 

An old rubber mat saved me $97 on a Blood Bowl 7s pitch....

 

...and forms the base of medieval ruins. It's free terrain and even helps clean my shed!

So how am I overcoming inertia?

I've been going through incomplete projects and listing the barriers. 

No good rules? I've recently been printing out pdf rules of free or OOP rules and covering/binding them. These are not random but targetted at sets of minis or projects that are unfinished, to encourage enthusiasm and remove a barrier to play. 

No suitable terrain? I'm trying to identify most "needed" terrain to enable the most game systems and scales. I'm using found materials and MDF to keep cost down and throwing out old terrain that is no longer fit for purpose. It's amazing how good, suitable terrain inspires you to play. E.g. if I make small scale coastal islands and ports I can re-ignite my modern jet rules, age of sail and coastal forces with one fell swoop. A good forest will be good for most skirmish wargames. My current medieval ruins/undercity will be good for grimdark necromancers, Weird War II cultists as well as dwarves...   I enjoy my Tankmunda homebrew rules but having better, non-cardboard terrain will encourage more playtesting...

Is the project cool? Are the minis fun to paint? I'm struggling with some - like ancient Greeks as I'm not a fan of sandals and togas - so I'm holding off. E.g. the Nolan movie Odysseus may boost my interest. As long as I've got storage (downsized from 7 to 5 shed bays but I'm still good) selling is a bit of a no-no - as my son would loooove any donations and given my small town location there's not a lot of swap-buy-sell. My son is not an enthusiastic painter sadly, so donating them doesn't clear my backlog though...

Cost. This is just by focussing on free terrain or rules - like my rubber mat ruins or the freebies in the photo above, and avoid big boxes or premium brands.  For example, I can play Bloodbowl for $130 not $220 if I print my own rules, avoid the box set and just buy two teams of my choice. Or reviving old (2012!)  projects like Quar - the new free rules printed out and bound for under $10 reinvigorates a big set of unused minis. Another focus is more big generic plastic box sets like by Wargames Atlantic or Frostgrave where I can use the boxes for a range of projects i.e. I bought a packet of Victrix vikings for both LOTR Dunlendings and my vikings vs zombies homebrew. 

I'm also trying to be selective in my purchases - by applying the above criteria to any prospective purchases i.e. do I have rules or terrain for it already? Do the minis look fun to paint or is there (at least) a manageable number of them?  Is there a low buy-in with the ability to incrementally expand? Can I avoid overseas P&P.

Do you have an old project that beats my 2012 Quar? What's your biggest incomplete project? And is there a "must have" set of free/cheap rules you've tried lately? What about recommended multi-use terrain type for those wanting to get away from 40K corner ruins?

Game Design #111: How to End a Game / Extraction Shooters / Losing the Least?

My game design musing at the moment as "how do you end a game" inspired by thinking about the different turns (6 vs 8 of Bloodbowl vs Bloodbowl 7s) and the 'hard limit' of sports games. An older 40K I recall (2nd ed?) had only 4 turns!?

This might be worth exploring as I have a few thoughts:

a) having a set length helps address the 'kill em all' problem where any cool objectives and missions can often just be ignored in favour of eliminating enemies. Indeed it is usually the best practice. If all enemies are dead... it's easy to succeed!  If one player is scurrying around the board trying to play the mission 'properly' he's often handicapping himself if the other player just ignores the mission goes for kills.

b) having a 'set length' where the game just ends "blam!" "time to pack up" works for a sports game like BB but is kinda lame for a wargame. 

I wonder what solutions there are? Perhaps an outside threat keeps ramping up i.e. maybe zombies spawn exponentially faster after x turn - so you can remain, but you'll probably get swarmed - be it a zombie, monster or drones (hello, ARC Raiders!) or maybe a radiation storm (Stalker) creates an attrition effect on your units.

c) having variable turn length can magnify a) - this is when you don't always get to move all your minis (boo) as something happens to hand the turn to your opponent. Perhaps you fail a test, like in Bloodbowl where you can fumble a ball or be knocked down or Song of Blades where you are trying for an extra move. Or maybe a card gets drawn (TFL) that just means its tea time and your guys down tools. Didn't the old DBA rules have you roll a d6 to see how many units you could activate? Variable activation is kinda the same thing.

....I prefer variable actions - I often use a 1+ action method in my homebrew rules; all minis get one guaranteed action - but may 'push it' and roll a dice to receive a 2nd action - better troops getting a better dice %.  That way I don't have lovely models I spent all that time painting standing around, having missed their go for half the game.

To summarise: 

If  a wargame turn length is indefinite, killing all enemies is guaranteed success. This invalidates most missions and scenarios and defaults them to "kill em first." 

The length of a wargame should also not be set at a predictable, fixed amount; 8 turns or whatever like Bloodbowl - it's not a sport - real battles don't have a shot clock. Otherwise you could perform a reckless play, leaving troops totally exposed, knowing "voila" you've seized the objective and the game ends - despite the fact your troops would be annihilated next turn, no commander would ever do this - only because you know there is no 'next turn' and the game magically ends - "freezing" everything in your (temporary) instant of success.

The "boom" game instantly ends freezing everything at a predictable time is also a bit lame, in a narrative sense. "OK it's turn 4 - pack up now boys!" I call this a "Christmas truce" or "Five o'clock Friday" - everyone suddenly stops firing and goes home. There's no uncertainty/tension of when the battle ends. It's like a footy game. 

The amount of turns before the game ends also should probably linked to movement speed and weapon range. E.g. you can't have a mission where the objective is "have more troops in the enemies half the map than they have in yours" if you have only 4 turns and your troops moving 4" can't even move to the 24" halfway in that time....

^Slightly connected to the above but I prefer games when the fight does not always occur straight from deployment, but the minis have a turn or so each to move into superior positions before firing cuts down their options. I.e. troops do not open fire and trade shots from their baselines on turn 1. Obviously terrain matters most here, but board size/effective combat range are also a factor.

So should game length be random? 

A quite common solution is for games to last a set length - say 4-5 turns, then each turn "dice" to see if the game continues. I.e. turn 5 you need 3+ on d6 to continue, on turn 6 you need 4+, on turn 7 you need 5+...

This adds some unpredictability to the mix to stop players trying to "game the buzzer."

However what if one player wants the game to last longer? Or perhaps one wants it to end now - while they hold their objectives.

...or (somewhat) controlled randomness? 

I like some predictability or control as to when a game ends. In my homebrew aerial wargames, there is a shared "munitions/ordinance pool" that all aircraft on a side share - usually marked on a 1m ruler. All aircraft contribute to the total pool; say 1pt each 2 missiles, or 600km of fuel. Jets with limited missiles (say only 2 AIM9s) use double the ordinance each time they fire to discourage them spamming them. So based on your rate of use you can predict/control when your whole force runs out of ordinance and needs to "bug out" based on who is using what weapons. While the resources are finite, you can choose to make the game last longer by not firing as many missiles or performing as many radical afterburner maneuvers. You could even fight on once you reach "bingo" fuel and ordinance, but with no missiles or way to recover radical maneuvers, you would be severely handicapped. Or you could burn through all your missiles early hoping to overwhelm your opponents, but risk crippling your options too early in the game. Risk vs reward.

There isn't necessarily a set game length, it's more resource allocation - when the resources are gone you may as well pack up and go home or unless you like fighting with a hand behind your back.

The time you start matters as much as the time you finish... 

How a game starts (for individual units) is obviously also linked to its length. If all troops don't all get plonked down on turn 1, but may trickle in  later.... ..this varies their game length, for that unit.

For example, in my homebrew 'Tankmunda' games, light vehicles start deployed on turn 1; scout vehicles can be deployed turn 1 AND be advanced an extra distance; but medium vehicles arrive later on turn 2 and heavies turn 3 (this can be modified by various rules/factors).

So heavy Tigers arriving turn 3 may find themselves facing medium Wolverines who have already deployed and set up in firing positions the previous turn; or much lighter Su-76s who have had 2 turns to maneuver to optimum position...

This means the amount of turns the individual units have on the field are also variable.  Depending on when they arrive, each individual unit can have a different "game length" - their time on the table. Again, you might be able control this - perhaps you could "Push It" with the Tiger and arrive on an earlier turn, but roll a dice and risk running out of fuel or having engine/track damage later in the game - aka risk vs reward. 

Extraction Shooters and... 

The concept of when the game ends and how you "win" in this time also links with my recent interest in the extraction shooter genre.

ARC Raiders seems to have pushed this into the mainstream but along with games like Hunt: Showdown (yay) and Tarkov (bleh) shares the concept of:

Explore the map.     Collect cool stuff(tm)    Leave with the stuff.    Don't die. 

Usually there is a time limit which is somewhat variable. In Hunt you have ~40min or so, or 5min once the bounty (the cool stuff) has been extracted by someone, to leave until your soul is sucked out. In ARC you have a varied time (depending on when matchmaker adds you to the game) to do your thing and leave before killer drones arrive and automatically end you.

In both you have to reach designated extraction zones (usually 3-5 or so) scattered about the map where you wait/perform an action, then extract.

The focus is performing the mission and avoiding dying at all. This is quite different to most shooters (and wargames) where losses are fine if you kill lots more enemy. A 30:10 KDR is good in a game Battlefield/CoD or a wargame - if a whole team did this you'll win 99% of the time. 

Any death in a extraction shooter, you 'lose.' (In Hunt your character is deleted!). "Winning" was not trading better with kills, it was getting the "cool thing" and not dying.

....extracting your minis

Most games you tend to retreat models off a (rear?) board edge. In LOTR, models who fail a morale roll (usually from having heavy losses) just evaporate.

Zone Raiders (along with BLKOUT I'd recommend for when "you have Infinity minis but don't want the vertical learning curve cliff of Infinity) already has an extraction mechanic:

A mini spends an action to place a grenade-like AoE "extraction" template on the ground which remains on the board until an enemy mini contacts it to remove it or a new template is placed.  This represents opening hatches, or using rope zip-lines to create an egress.

Further: Once 50% casualties are taken, models can also quickly "Bug Out" by simply removing any models further than 8" from opponents.

I thought this was to show how maze-like and vertical the planet-sized megacity (i.e. Blame) is; by zip-lines, rappelling off or disappearing into hatches or air vents. 

But it also allows forces to disengage quickly if the fight is not to their liking; you don't have to have your force slaughtered first (50% casualties - a common wargame breakpoint - counts as a slaughter when traditional military engagements average casualties closer to ~5%). 

It's worth considering: How do we remove our minis from the fight? What rules are in place?  How easy/difficult is this? When is it triggered/allowed?

....So should we have more/easier ways to extract minis?

Ultimately, we've come here to pew pew and push model soldiers around. Merely charging around collecting loot and extracting effortlessly and quickly with enemies that only casually threaten you sounds more like a racing game; like Mario Kart but with cool sci fi troopers. 

On the other hand, waiting til you've lost 50% of your force (painful if they are named skirmish characters with their own backstories) before you can march slowly out across your own baseline is a bit ridiculous.

A thought about violent sports games like Bloodbowl is killing your opponents is A way to win, but not THE way to win. Weirdly, it mirrors real battles more accurately then the average wargame - real battles usually end with a unit outmaneuvering/forcing back opponents/seizing key areas, NOT eradicating them with 50-100% losses. 

Incentives on winning vs killing...

ARC Raiders - at least  for the first 2 weeks or so - was interesting in that players could attack each other but often didn't. They realized they could "collect the cool thing", not fight, and leave. Or, they could choose to fight and hope the other person already had the cool thing... ...on their corpse. Mathematically, it made more sense to not fight, and collect the cool thing and extract. People being who they are, this pacifist math was soon put aside in favour of pew-pewing. 

Based on this, you could put pretty strong incentives into mission completing/extraction and people would still try to 'kill them all.'  Maybe as victory conditions you don't count kills, just cool things collected minus the units you lost. This would frame it more in "how many units will I risk to get that cool thing reward?" rather than "how can I trade kills most economically?"

Wargames need ways other than "kill them all" to be a viable strategy. Game turn length and the amount of turns is a vital tool in this. But players will default to 'kill em all/scrum in the middle' unless its explicitly made clear it is not optimal (and probably not always even then).

Collecting cool things from various locations (a la extraction shooters) can encourage units to spread out; and force tactical choices; but what if one player just focuses on killing his opponent and does his exploring and collecting when all his opponents are dead?  What can we do to prevent this?

I feel this topic is wandering all over the place (that's the problem with train of consciousness blog posts vs well-thought-out essays) but one final thought before the wife summons me to watch TV, on re-framing 'victory' by getting kills or objectives vs defeat via losses.

Victory is who loses the least?

There was this (PC) game called "Wargame; Airland Battle" where capturing bases (the cool thing) allowed you a stready stream of points to buy new toys aka tanks, troops, gunships (reward).  

However you didn't win the game by collecting points; you lost a game by losing points. 

Both sides had a set "loss point" (say 2000) after which they lost. So sides could be quite unbalanced; say NATO starts with 20 x powerful 100pt tanks, and Soviets have 40 x 50pt weaker tanks. In the course of the game, NATO pushes forward. They capture more bases, and get a bonus +2000pts. The Soviets only get a few bases and get a bonus +1000pts.

However, in the process NATO loses 20 x 100pt MBTs (-2000). Even though the Soviets lose more tanks - 30 x 50pt MBTs, the losses cost less (-1500).

Even though overall NATO ends with more points (2000 + 2000 - 2000 = 2000) vs Soviet (2000 + 1000 - 1500 = 1500) - and thus end with a stronger army - they lose.

Because only the losses (-2000 vs -1500) counted towards victory/defeat. Obviously, killing enemies is giving the enemies losses... but it's also the relative cost. 30 Soviet tanks are cheaper to lose than 20 NATO tanks. 

I found this very interesting for asymmetrical forces. You were always incentivized to push for more bases so you could get more points and thus cool units/toys to outgun/outflank - to better destroy (give losses to) your opponents aka "reward" but you also had an eye on your own "loss meter" - what you could afford to "risk" ....because that was what ultimately lost you the game.  

Capturing bases indirectly helped you win (bases -> points -> better weapons -> kill enemy better) but losing a unit directly made you lose (lose x units -> lose).  

Powerful tanks and toys cost more - and gave you more 'oomph' relative to your opponent - but using them also risked more - because losing a 200pt gunship was so much worse than a 10pt conscript squad.

It was interesting because of the mindset it created when I played: "What am I willing to lose to accomplish x" rather than my usual "how can I get this kill" like I do in most PC games... ...where leaderboards are by the most kills (heck deaths are usually disregarded).

While ultimately it was still "kill them, try not to die" it was how winning and losing was framed. Like an extraction shooter, the aim was "get the cool thing - if you can - and don't die." 

Eeek it's late. Off to watch Watchmen (Season 1)...  (I know I'm late to the party)

BB7s.... or something new? (Terrain Mat)

The gym mats have been doing a lot of heavy lifting around here lately.

This time, my son has been playing Bloodbowl 2 on Steam (against himself!) and showed an interest in the physical version. $220AUD for the core set. A store-brought BB7s field is another $97. No thanks - that's almost my entire 2026 gaming budget.

So off to the shed. This was a pretty quick job - about 30-40 minutes slicing up two camping mats, and another 30 or so painting it with dollar store craft paint.  Conveniently the average steel ruler is around 3.5cm - which is about the size of a BB square. 

 

 It ain't fancy - but it works. If I had to do it again I'd just have scored the mat lightly with a boxcutter for lines instead of using a pen to indent it first. Youtubers also make foam look more 'rock-y' by pressing aluminum foil onto it to give texture but I was on a timeline - to finish in an hour before my wife got back so we could go fishing. So no fancy stadiums, stands etc. I just had to do the same job as the $97 cardboard mat.

This is the 3rd terrain I've started this year already; the others are 28mm medieval ruins made of the same rubber, and 15mm MDF warehouse ruins for WW2 'tankmunda.'

I don't have the BB rules yet but it didn't phase my 10 year old who tends to use the 'rule of cool' with a LOTR-esque tiebreaking system (roll dice for melee, highest wins - heroes get 2-3 dice; missiles/guns hit on a 3+/4+/5+ and wounds occur on 3+/4+/5+ depending on how big/cool the gun/armour looks with heroes getting re-rolls as needed for cool factor). He grabbed some Dreadball minis and off he went.

I'll probably use the old Living Rulebook as: (a) I think it's pretty close to BB2016/a la the Steam BB2 videogame my son has been playing and (b) it won't cost me $88.

Dreadball vs Speedball 

Why resurrect Bloodbowl? Why not Dreadball? Frankly it's a much better game.  I also already have the field, rules and minis. However it's oddly flavourless and feels like basketball with 3 goals. I really wonder why they didn't lean into the old Speedball arcade game - you know, kinda soccer/handball/hockey game that was on the old Atari/SEGA etc?  As an interesting aside, it looks like they are bringing it back. Ice Cream! 

I feel Dreadball's 'doing its own thing' seemed unecessary i.e. the 3 goals is to allow more tactics/scoring choices/ways to catch up when behind, but didn't Speedball have the things on the side that added bonus points? as well scoring by injuring opponents; and power-ups like teleporting and electrified balls. So it's not like more closely copying Speedball wouldn't allow a lot of variety.

Speedball has pedigree, nostalgia and links to known sports as well as videogames like Deathrow or Skateball. Dreadball has none of those things. Another factor: here in Australia at least, poor quality Mantic minis are priced equivalent to far superior GW minis. It's a pity - as my head says "this is a solid, well-thought game" but my heart says "meh, who cares."

So I'm probably going to work on my own homebrew rules for Speedball just cos thinking about it has inspired me. It actually had (from memory) some pretty good mechanics like a stamina bar that depleted with hits and thus made you slower; and stat bars were simple - Stamina, Power and Skill? I also recall lob vs direct passes and being able to hurl the ball into opponents. There were also coins you could collect to purchase stats in between games; so it would work as a simple campaign/season. Jumping made it easier to catch but I think you could be smashed easier. Hmm I need to play a bit to do 'research.'

Why Bloodbowl 7s?

I just don't have 2 hrs to devote to a wargame any more. Blitz is probably a better game (less an exercise in risk mitigation) but it's mostly outside the well-equipped Bloodbowl ecosystem; and my son already knows the concepts through videogames. 

When a game ends - Game Design

Sports games have a hard limit - 8 turns per half in Blood Bowl, 7 each in Dreadball... and it had me thinking - how do we end games?  I'm pretty sure I've already explored how games start - usually just unimaginatively plonking down models a set distance from a baseline - but how they end/how victory is determined kinda links to my attempt to make an extraction-shooter wargame (aka ripoff Hunt: Showdown). As there is a few thoughts that might go together I might make its own post. 

Til then! 

2026 Goals

Here's my (very) belated 2026 goals. ....Happy New Year and all that.

I notice a lot of my 2025 goals were a bit to broad and vague, so I've decided to divide them up and make them specific:

Terrain is often a "barrier to play" and I've long wanted some medieval ruins/underground tomb cities. I've already made a start to one project with a 0$ dent in my budget. Some naval/air terrain on a smaller scale (1:100-1:300 or smaller) is another on my to-do list...

1. Terrain. 

Create 3 more terrain sets, but must be storable in A4 IKEA boxes. This can include bought /modified MDF terrain.  They must be to get projects off the ground i.e. like in 2025 I made a lot of sci fi terrain to enable games like Zone Raiders. Focus as usual on quick/easy "dad" terrain.

2. Minis

a) Assemble 50 models or two warbands of forces from spare sprues/currently unused minis i.e. samurai or 70 years war.

b) Buy minis for one existing project (i.e. Mordheim, BFG, etc) only after owned equivalents painted

c) Buy minis for one new system, project or rule set but only after equivalent minis painted 

3. Rules

a) Design and play-test one new home-brew system.

b) Buy one new rule book that works for existing minis/project. Review in blog.

c) Buy one new rule book that just looks cool. Review in blog.

d) Print out an existing old-school OOP rulebook or free indie set. Review in blog. 

e)  Revise and playtest 3 out of my many sets of homebrew rules in quirky topics like supercavitating subs, tank pirates, simple jet fighters etc. 

4. Blog

Two posts per month. 

People seem to like game design stuff but honestly I only do those if I have a topic I've been mulling over - so can't promise those. Although feel free to suggest topics in chat and if they interest me I'll explore them. I may do some home-brew rules where I photograph and 'think aloud' through a playtest game. I'd like to do a few rules reviews again. 

5. Paint

a) Continue to follow my rule: Paint equal or more existing minis before I get new purchases i.e. if I paint 101 minis, I can buy 100 new minis.

b) Paint up two unfinished projects i.e. samurai, Quar, Odyessy....  

....As a minimum, paint 100 minis equivalent to 28mm (a 15mm infantry counts as 1/3, a mounted 28mm counts as 2, etc).  

6. Budget

Spend around $350 as a baseline - ~$7 a week is a coffee so it's not an unreasonable amount for a hobby. I may increase my allowance if I exceed my painting or declutter goals, but 2025 I spent that much, mostly on MDF terrain ($150), Trench Crusade ($150) and printing out old rulebooks like Mordhiem and BFG ($50).

7. Downsize/Storage

Get rid of 4+ A4 IKEA boxes of rules, minis, old terrain etc. Ultimately, outgoings to exceed the physical size of incomings, so overall I have more shed space.

Camping Mat Foam (EVA) Terrain

For me in small-town Australia, the pink dense "terrain builder" foam (XPS?) is pretty rare or pricey.  I don't have a big enough vocab of swearwords to deal with sty-foam (EPS). However every junk shop sells camping/yoga mats made of regrettably thin but pleasantly tough and dense foam. At a local nerdfest I realised the cosplayers had outfits made using this+hot glue, so when cleaning out my shed I decided to procrastinate with a fun job be environmentally proactive by recycling some old mats I needed to chuck.

 

These are incomplete; they need painting and details added but since the local hardware store is out of $5 spray-paint and I decline to pay $10 a can, they will remain unfinished until further notice. You get the idea of what it will look like, though... I added PVA-d sand for a bit of grit/texture near the crumbly bits.

As I dislike reinventing the wheel, a quick google showed I was not original in this idea.  Here are some sites I used for inspiration. If anyone finds more info/guides on making stuff with this type of foam, I'd appreciate a link. I also got ideas by just googling 28mm medieval ruins and borrowing the ideas from store-bought 3D printed terrain.

The pink or blue XPS modelling foam is rare in my neck of the woods, but these camping mats are $10 for a dozen and are almost universally common. Each mat yielded a 12x12" square (for another project) and enough leftovers for a terrain piece or two.
 

I wanted medieval ruins as (despite hating hitpoints) I like the idea of a Necropolis/Idols of Torment netherworld/underworld battle of the dead (I don't have enough tattoos/like heavy metal enough to be fully into it) and also can use it for ruins for ME:SBG a la Osgiliath or even dwarf city ruins. I also wanted pieces sized to fit into a A4 IKEA box (I got carried and forgot though). 

As usual, speed > spending hours making some perfect display piece. I'm a dad with kids and a job, not a Youtuber.  

I sliced the mat into strips for the walls and scored vertical brick joins.

I laid them down on a base where I sketched my rough ideas and just  hot glued them.

It was actually pretty quick. Probably 45 minutes to an hour each for these bigger ones. I need to score bricks and paving stones and add grit/dust around the rubble.

The bottom one I got a bit carried away and exceeded my size limit, but the top one fits an A4 storage box and has a detachable top floor. I spent most of an afternoon and have enough terrain for a 4x4' board. The terrain is very tough and light and can be dropped (probably even thrown!) without harm.

I also designed them with gaming in mind so there are multiple entry points/passageways through the terrain i.e. the top levels have two access points.

I'll probably make some wall/and/corner sections to make more versatile layouts. Maybe some sarcophagi a la Balin for a crypt? A well to tip a skeleton into ("Fool of a Took!")? What else does a good underworld/medieval ruin need? Maybe a stable? I have some coffee stirrers for planking I plan to add in to connect up levels....

Well, I'm pretty satisfied with (a) the time it took (b) the tough, flexible nature of the terrain (c) the cost - nil so far. I'm sure I could do better with $200 of hot wire cutters, dremels and expensive xps, but this is getting rid of an untidy pile of matting under a table in my shed, so I'm calling this a win.

....Oops! Belated New Years post added....

Review of 2025 goals:

1. Build more terrain/game mats. Success! I have made sci fi boards, and am in the middle of "tankmunda" 15mm ruins and have built a dense Necromundaish sci fi board. Besides my current project.

2. Create Mordhiem warbands. Failed. I have some Frostgrave cultists and skaven but after printing out and re-reading the OG rules I lost enthusiasm. Have been testing solo/horde zombie rules to make my own Vermintide game though.

3. Finalize my tank skirmish rules based on post-apocalyptic 1930s where nomadic tank pirate gangs roam. Success?- I keep fiddling with them. My kids call this "Mortal Tanks." 

4. Collect any missing notable MESBG. Failed. +Expand into a similar system for cowboys or pirates for my kids... sort of? I'm making a cowboys vs undead based on Rail Wars. 

5. Paint my Battlefleet Gothic fleets. Failed. Too fiddly to do all the separate magnetizable options. Decision paralysis so... onto something else.

6. Do a 2025 update and playtest of all my ongoing homebrew rules. Failed. I did do tanks, mechs, weird west, not-Mordhiem, fighter submarines and space gunships a la The Expanse. The goal was a bit broad to be honest.

7. Paint 3 of my 15 unpainted projects.  Success! Battletech, 15mm Lawrence of Arabia & WW2 tanks. 

8. Find wargaming projects for my kids. Failed. I realize son likes playing, not painting so he doesn't get a vote. My daughter only paints sporadically. Did get her some 28mm heads to girl-ify my various warbands.  We tend to do more outdoorsy things - as they are 10 and 12.  I.e this holidays they learned to skateboard and skimboard. 

9. Allow myself one new system - Trench Crusade. Success? I bought it and regret it. The rules are interesting but flawed. I did keep to my "only one new commercial system" though which was the goal.

10. Start a new homebrew system. Success! That is easy. 

Hmm. 5/10? Not a good strike rate. I probably need to set smaller more specific goals....