I was looking through Infinity N5 (for use with my kids - my son has Star Wars and my daughter Necromunda). I must commend any company that releases free rules - if they are about selling minis, they should stand on their own. And they do - I own 100+ Infinity models because they are good models. Playing with them does not require $300+ of rulebooks (cough Necromunda cough).
While efforts seem to have been made to streamline the rules, they are still very chunky. Since my other rules I like (Zone Raiders) require adaption for anything but their rather niche game world, I decided it was homebrew time.
I thought I'd post it up my ideas as I play to do a battle report later and serve as an example of how to make a game without being original. Something I think isn't at all necessary for a good, fun game. Things like "strategic" "gives lots of decisions" "easily explained" "don't need the rulebook much" "has the right feel:" they are all good describing words for a game.
But "original?" "unique?" nah - pah! Not important. Shakespeare was a hack.
Another +30 minis puts me at 96 for the year. My secret: I stop when I get bored. These Vostroyans need another wash and more highlights, but I'm tired of them and they are table-ready. I'll come back later sometime...
Mechanics
Basically roll a d12 vs a stat (target number). If it rolls under the stat, it succeeds, if it rolls exactly equal the stat, it is a critical success. A natural '12' is a fumble or auto fail and a '1' succeeds. I'm pretty blase about this as dice are just RNG and as long as the probabilities make sense, I don't care as long as the method is reasonably consistent.
If a roll is opposed, you only count the rolls that succeed (equal or under TN).
1.Highest crit wins or
2. Highest roll (under stat) wins
Modifiers change the target number not the dice roll.
Stats are pretty basic: Move, Shoot, Melee, Agility (alert/nimble), Physique (bulk/strength), Defence, Willpower (moral/magic). The human average is '6' i.e. 1-6 = 50%. Which aligns with say a STR3 T3 etc Imperial Guard.
For example, an Imperial Guard (Shoot 6) fires at an Eldar (Shoot 7, Dodge 8). The Eldar has not acted yet so may choose to shoot back or dodge. Although a dodge is more likely to succeed, the Eldar shoots back. They roll d12s. IG player gets a 3 and the Eldar a 4. Both succeed (under their stat) so the highest crit wins. There is no crit, so the Eldar wins with the highest score.
Activation
Each side alternates one model. It may move + take an action - the action can be shoot, or move again, or charge (move+melee), reload etc. Pretty standard. You can hold actions (overwatch) for later.
You may reposition your model (move a base length/rotate the mini) without counting as a move.
You can react to enemies in line of sight who have acted or at least moved half their movement. Enemies outside the front 180 are -2 to react to.
Re-action
If you have a hold action you can interrupt an enemies activation. You can also react if you are shot at - if you haven't activated yet (forfeiting your action later) by shooting back or dodging up to half a move.
Shooting & Fighting
Either an opposed or unopposed roll against the correct stat. Three range bands - effective, long, and CQB.
Few modifiers: -2 if attacked from rear, -2 long range, -3 if target in cover.
The loser takes any hits first, if he survives, he shoots/fights back. A critical success would cause 2 wounds. If the winner dodged out of sight, then he might avoid all return fire.
In hunting through my GW boxes I found this... ....how I played BFG as a (poor) teenager. Many a fun game crouched on the floor (12 x 12+ ft table ftw) with planets and asteroids made of pieces of circular cardboard....
Damage
The player rolls against his Defence to save each hit. A critical success cancels two wounds. If all hits are blocked the defender is still pinned - losing his action next turn. Most human-sized targets have 1 wound unless they are a monster/mech/hero.
A human is base Defence 6 but say for 40K comparisons, can add +1 each armour level; i.e. an IG with T3 and a '6+' save would be 6+1 = 7. A Space Marine T4 Save 3+ would have 7+4 = 11 Defence.
Weapons have a Defence roll modifier.
A lasgun (STR3) would have 0. A std bolter (STR4, -1AP) would have -2. A Space Marine would resist 90% of lasgun shots and 75% of bolter rounds; which would make him a walking tank. An IG would resist only 58% of lasgun shots and 42% of bolter rounds; making him more realistically squishy.
Converting from other systems (KT, Necromunda, Infinity)
As you can see the stats above are (imprecisely) based on the typical 40Kesque wargame of d6 4+ 50% chance to hit, d6 4+ 50% chance to wound which should make melee somewhat viable, albeit less than 40K where reactive fire is not so powerful.
These base numbers will be tweaked and I may make Armour Piercing/Armour into its own thing. I can revise stats up or down depending on how I want the game to play - reducing base defence to 5 as the base would make players take cover more as they are squishier.
Basically, I have picked math that 'works' already; just adapted it to my d12 system. It also means I can quickly import stats and abilities etc without extensive playtesting if it is based on well-used mechanics.
Using a 1-6 (50%) on d12 to hit, with -2 (17%) penalties for cover, range etc is just like a 4+ on a d6 (50%) with -1 (17%) penalties. In addition using d12 can fit more "on the dice" allowing me to do away with extra rolls AND allow a wider range of abilities without recourse to special rules.
Rifle range on most 40K-style games is 24" max (kinda ridiculous) so I have decided to make effective range 2/3rds that (16" effective range for rifle) with extreme range being double that at 32".
Whilst this is a major change and makes guns significantly more powerful than 40K, it aligns with Infinity's medium range (16-18") for a rifle, so I still have an existing frame of reference for how the game will 'feel.'
Special rules/abilities can be pretty 1:1 if the underlying math aligns. For example a weapon with rapid fire or sustained fire may 2 rolls at effective range. A heavy bolter (sustained 2) might get a hold action after it fires if it did not move: 2 extra free shots which to be used in overwatch? An assault weapon might get a +2 to hit in CQB range or maybe allowed a hipfire move+fire action at say -2.
Anyway, this is an example of how being unoriginal can be fast and convenient.
It took me less time to "invent" the rules than it did to type this up. More time was spent looking at my Infinity, Necromunda, KT books to see what the stats where that give the underlying math. I'm confident the game will work OK-ish - and just require tweaking i.e. make defence 1 weaker or make cover -2 not -3, decrease base move from 6" to 4" etc.
I'm confident it will play very differently from Kill Team and Necromunda despite using the core math %. The generally higher defence stats and greater unit speed means it will also be different from Infinity despite the similar opposed rolls/dice mechanics. Original yet unoriginal. And to a time-poor dad with limited playtesting time, it's very convenient...
Thats sounds very straightforward and, most importantly - FUN!
ReplyDeleteWe have also been playing with more rule-lite, narrative-heavy rules like "Space Weirdos" (which are excellent and we have adapted ford Col War skirmishing on the moon!) and also the older but venerable "5 men from Kursk" which gave a REALLY great playing experience notable for its lack of rules, but great outcomes (eg no unit coherence, go where you want BUT bonus for moral if you are near buddies and leaders)
As to your rules above they read well and sound straight forward. The "to hit" and critical structure but took a moment to think through though (ie trying to roll low, but loosing in the example because the eldar rolled higher). Is a result of 1 an auto succeed, and would it beat anything but a perfect critical?
Looking forward to reading more on this!
cheers,
Paul
PS Sorry for the length of this reply - tried to email it to you but lost my gmail (with your address) a little while ago
Mechanics lifted from Infinity..ish.
Delete1. Roll dice
2. Any OVER stat/TN? Discard.*
3. Any rolls exactly what needed? (Crit?) - if so, win!
4. No crits - then who has the highest?
*Step 2 (discarding any dice that are too high) tends to make it simpler in practice than it sounds.
In a nutshell: Look for anyone who rolled the exact TN, failing that, the biggest dice wins.
......1s and 12s are not crits or auto winners, just auto hit/fail merely so nothing is 100% guaranteed.
Re: email. A few folk have asked for this so let's test the spam bots abilities.... (all lower case)
maj aperiodgoeshere thenameoftheantiquedealerIanMcShaneplays atgmail.com
-eM
1 autofail, TN crit, 12 autopass is easy enough.
DeleteQuestion: when would 1 = succeed / 12 = fail? Does the system have so many modifiers that one can guarantee success? And what's wrong with guaranteed success / fail?
For example, if a chasm is 50' wide, trying to jump across is guaranteed fail when the world record long jump is less than 30', so why should rolling 12 produce a superhuman feat?
For rolling masses of dice, why not d10s as the traditional alternative to d6s?
- GG
"Question: when would 1 = succeed / 12 = fail? Does the system have so many modifiers that one can guarantee success? And what's wrong with guaranteed success / fail?"
Delete----No there's not MANY modifiers - see above:
"Few modifiers: -2 if attacked from rear, -2 long range, -3 if target in cover."
...but a Stat 6 normal human would still be TN -1
"For example, if a chasm is 50' wide, trying to jump across is guaranteed fail when the world record long jump is less than 30"
---That seems a silly argument for the sake of arguing. I haven't come across many (any?) rules that allow unlimited distance jumps. Rules tend to specify what is/isn't possible: "can jump up to Move if pass Agility test" etc.
The idea of an autowin/auto fail means there's a 1 in 12 chance of that Terminator being shot through the eye socket by a heroic IG or surviving a rocket (it was a dud!); which is both cinematic and more fun than knowing you have 100% no chance.
I'm not rolling masses of dice - just 1 - maybe 2-4 if cyclic weapons. If the question is "why d12 over d10" is it fits more numbers on the dice and neatly aligns with d6s (-2 is 17%) and Infinity's -3 mods (-3 is 15% d20, -2 is -17% d12).
Avoiding the extreme outliers to allow room for modifiers:
d6 allows 3-4 stats: +2?, +3, +4, +5
d10 allows 6 stats: +3, +4, +5,+6, +7, +8
d12 allows 8 stats: +3, +4, +5, +6, +7, +8, +9, +10
D12 allows more stats than d10, allows easy conversion from d6 games, but is less swingy than d20, therefore it is my favourite.
...at the moment
-eM
I think every shot/hit/action should have "a chance" of slipping through against the odds. David vs Goliath style. Equally, there is no such beast as a "sure thing" and any heroic champion can slip in the mud and blood to expose a vulnerable bit.
DeleteOf such things great stories arise and much fun is had! They will certainly be the moments that are remembered anyway!
Looks like it's functional but I wonder if it's big fun. Possibly that depends on clever scenarios.
ReplyDeleteI think it ALWAYS comes down to scenario design, an oft overlooked aspect and frequently traded off for 'balance' in more competitively focused games. No general EVER aims to go into a 'fair fight' after all.
DeleteIMHO, our hobby would be a better place with more focus on enjoyable, thematic or asymmetric scenarios than pursuit of the prefect rules system.
Just my perspectives - worth exactly what you paid for them!
Asymmetric scenarios frequently come off as "unfair" or "unbalanced", so players tend to very strongly dislike them outside of branching campaigns. This is the one thing that stood out the most from playing GW games.
Delete- GG
99% of rules issues have nothing to do with rules and everything to do with the players i.e. their social skills or lack thereof, and willingness to focus on "we both have fun" vs "I have my way/win etc" (Sport as well as wargames)
Delete"Act like an adult" and "don't be an a---hole" - this covers grey areas nicely.
-eM
There was nothing symmetrical about Rorke’s Drift, or Arnhem or even Trafalgar and yet they are each rich and fascinating. GW had Assault scenarios for Space Marine back in the day, which broadly gave the attacker a 2:1 advantage. After all, no Commander attacks on equal odds right?
DeleteAsymmetry or no, interesting scenarios can also set different but related objectives for each side, giving wonderful favour as commanders try to achieve different tasks while foiling the other. This in itself is a balancing mechanism depending on the complexity of the tasks. Lots of fun and far more flavourful than “kill them all” or “own the objectives” style games which get dull very quickly, and often promote or even reward unrealistic levels of attrition.
I think it’s the quintessential difference between unrealistically balanced games made for competitive players vs interesting and complex narrative focused games. Both are useful but there is an imbalance in the approach toward the former across the hobby.
Interesting or not, even historical gamers don't much like to play the Romans at Lake Trasimene, despite its significance. It's essentially like drawing "Pro" in formal debate for something odius.
DeleteYou implicitly admit the situation because your GW examples are so dated. GW stopped doing such scenarios for a reason, and Rorke's Drift is so incredibly niche that nobody outside the British Isles even knows of it, despite the movie with Michael Caine.
As above, asymmetrical scenarios only really seem to work in branching campaigns, and where the goals of force preservation, resource management (logistics), and narrative storytelling matter. Even then, the most popular campaigns I saw were Blood Bowl, where each match is nominally balanced, rather than Mordheim, where a single truly unlucky result can cripple your gang and take you out of contention for the season.
- GG
GG, I don't think that's true.
DeleteI think there's a fundamental difference between the "competitive" and the "hobbyist/fun" mindset, and while both are valuable, it's a mistake to assume the competitive mindset by default.
Rorke's Drift is very well known in the Historical community. And in the military history movie buffs communities.
If you watch Little Wars TV's very popular videos, *most* of their scenarios are asymmetrical. Both the members of their club and the people watching the videos seem to enjoy them immensely! Watch their incredibly imbalanced Winter Storm recent videos; the German player has almost no chance to succeed, and the scenarios are still very engaging and full of nail-biting decisions.
While asymmetrical means "unbalanced" *by design*, it doesn't have to mean "frustrating" or "unfun". A scenario with asymmetrical forces simply has to lean away from "destroying the enemy" (since one force obviously cannot) but instead on retreat, extraction of a POW, delaying the enemy force over a period of turns, etc. The broader result is a foregone conclusion, but VP/victory conditions for the scenario can allow for the smaller/weaker force to win.
And ultimately, it's about enjoying a challenging but fun fight, not about winning. Winning is the GW mentality, it doesn't have to encompass all possible games.
I personally don't care about losing. I enjoy it when I win, but don't fret it when I have my ass handed to me. I enjoy talking about what I could have done differently.
-Andy
I forgot to add that LWTV's asymmetrical scenarios are sometimes part of a wider campaign (e.g. Winter Storm) but often aren't (e.g. 3rd Kharkov), so that's not the main concern IMO.
DeleteI did a post on "why boargames suck" as kinda a joke due to my wife's obsession about them - but one of the "points" - wargames increasingly ape the worst aspect of boardgames - the "gameiness" and focus on "competitiveness" over story is something I've been thinking about since then as it also applies to PC games (how competitive gamers can wreck a casual PvP game and drive everyone out of it)
ReplyDeleteOne is how the rules should never become the core "thing" (or list building before the game) over pushing around toy soldiers making up cool stories while making pew pewing noises.... Are the rules getting in the way?
Infinity's bloated rules is inaccessible to my kids, but I like the 'feel' - so I want to make something that is accessible and doesn't get in the way of .... well, playing.... hence my current project...
-eM
Listbuilding / theorycrafting is important if you want a game to catch on - it keeps players invested when they're not actively playing.
DeleteWRT competitive play, you just need tight ELO matchmaking so the better you do, the harder the competition gets, the harder you get wrecked for small errors, and the more rank you lose as a result. Players LOVE that!
- GG
Hot Take Alert!
ReplyDeleteMany wargames are focusing on a competitive environment because that is what the vocal minority online seem to want. However, this is a trap!
1. Focus on competitive play equals a quick dead end in design space. The game has no room to grow.
2. Comp players also chase Meta, which means catering to them is like trying to cater to a dog chasing a squirrel. They will run off as soon as a new shiny comes out.
3. You are catering to a small segment of gamers instead of the broader market. A market that is not large enough to support a game.
Examples include: X-wing, War Machine, and Guild Ball.
Therefore, catering or over-focusing on comp players is a losers bet in game design. IMHO. I will get off my soapbox now.
However, my final comment related to the actual post is that wargame design is like playing with Lego. Get your favorite mechanical building blocks and start snapping them together. Innovation is overrated.
- Eric Farrington
"Play like you got a pair!" worked really well to segregate all of the sweats into Warmachine and out of my games, so I appreciated that!
DeleteIs Guildball that competitive? I never knew.
- GG
"Play like you got a pair!" worked really well to segregate all of the sweats into Warmachine and out of my games, so I appreciated that!"
DeleteGood point!
I think my first Warmachine game someone "gotcha'd" me with a warcaster kill on practically move 1 using some rules combo I didn't even understand. I was remember thinking "cool you won, but we could've had FUN" - .....even the other guy didn't get to use his cool mechs.... It wasn't done nastily but I was very surprised at the attitude which the whole scene encouraged...
PP had really good giveaways and a volunteer group but once that went Warmachine seemed to just implode...
Weirdly I like the chunky metal sculpts and own a lot of them. Hmmm - I need to make me some more homebrew rules....
I think Guildball was just a self inflicted headshot by the devs/publisher.
-eM
I have to disagree Eric. The competitive crowd is the only group willing to chase the meta, so a company focused on miniatures with a spring game will only have the sales to survive by catering to competitive players.
DeleteI know many like minutes miniature games who enjoyed rogue trader and will pull out their old copy for a game or campaign now and again. We'll also play 5th edition Warhammer, battlesystem 2nd edition, or Mordheim. We're just there for a good game and to push a few minis around. We do buy new minis and the occasional book, but we aren't dropping mortgage payments on miniatures when an update to the meta comes out.
Though I dislike it, longevity in this industry requires the competitive scene. While you can point to x-wing and similar competitive games that didn't stick around you'll find plenty of people of our permission happy playing those games today, so they were no less successful than non-competition focused games.
I hate Meta chasing. It ruins games for me. I understand others find it intellectually stimulating, and why not? It's a form of "gaming", just not with the models themselves.
DeleteI do have to question what makes a successful game. I think truly competitive players are a very vocal minority. I think most players are casual and more laid back, and didn't GW even admit most customers of their products barely play their games at all, let alone at a competitive level?
Competition gets all the online attention, but I don't think that's what the majority of customers enjoy or even buy into. I'd like to see updated stats though.
The percentage of actual tournament games is vanishingly small, but the number of games played along such lines completely dominates pick-up gameplay, and the game itself is designed a balanced around tournament style play, such as it is. Smaller games are for newbies who don't yet have full armies, often as part of an Escalation League that pushes players to collect a full tournament army.
Delete- GG
GW is exceptionally well-run, which is why they completely dominate the wargaming industry from a revenue and shelf space standpoint. They've basically perfected their system to extract maximum revenue. As a public company, their filings are available to the public.
DeleteUnderstand that GW is a process, and every step in what they do has a reason based on decades of fine-tuned experience of what works. No, it's not prefect, but it definitely works for them.
Nor is GW for everyone, and GW is perfectly fine with players leaving the hobby when they're no longer profitable. That's most of us here.
- GG
True to some extent - certainly your mileage will vary!
DeleteThe point is that they are but one influence (a major I grant you) on a hobby that focuses on balanced competitive play to the exclusion of other approaches. Approaches that may appeal more to others, or at least expose newer gamers to alternative (and i would say more realistic) tabletop experiences and challenges as commanders.
I agree that nobody wants a doomed game, but balance can be other asymmetries- elite troops vs conscripts, different victory conditions, reinforcements later in the game etc All of which add much interest
Paul
GW is a unique beast, that definitely benefits from the "first to market" phenomenon. They have professionalized greatly too their benefit, but they have always been a mini-first, rules second company.
DeleteEarly GW was openly never intended for comp play and that lasted through at least 3rd edition and arguably longer. It could be said any game they make that is suppose to focus on Comp doesn't last long either. Kill Team versions, Warcry, various editions of WFB and 40K, etc. They purposely make the churn early enough to avoid running out of design space and the game becoming "solved". Heck, they do monthly tweaks now and essentially invalidate their own rules as they are being launched in some cases.
They continue to last because there is always something to talk about in the GW worlds. Rules, fluff, miniatures, etc. That allows hobbyists to engage with the game frequently without ever playing.
^^^^ Eric Farrington
DeleteThis is kinda my point - its easy to play balanced, competitively styles pickup games that are focused on tournament style competitions.
ReplyDeleteMore narratively styled scenarios, currently more usually associated with campaigns are HARD to write and thus less favoured in our Hobby, even though they represent more realistic encounters.
Thus, rules tend to focus on extreme balancing mechanisms, list building options (and I accept that is absolutely a part of the hobby) and precision of wording to survive in a competitive setting. This doesn't have to be the norm though with updates and focus on approaches like Charles Grant's "Programmed Scenarios".
Note that some of the more interesting rules are deliberately unbalanced by design (like Chain of Command for instance), and present enjoyable tactical problems that you would never write for yourself