|
Post by sammo on Nov 7, 2010 23:44:56 GMT -9
Glad you like the minis Reivaj! So I think this may be the final version of the unit card... Let me know what you guys think.
|
|
|
Post by sammo on Oct 31, 2010 16:11:25 GMT -9
Well, I’ve had my hands full with work and school the last week, but I keep making progress… Faction and miniature design is my main focus now and they are coming along pretty well, though not terribly fast. Now that the card layout is more or less finalized I should be able to get the rest of this stuff put together relatively easily, as always finding time to work is the biggest obstacle. Here is a teaser of the minis I have gotten done for the next faction “The Hammer of Zor.”
|
|
|
Post by sammo on Oct 25, 2010 12:27:34 GMT -9
I think that I am committed now to making a quick start version with a scenario. If I decide to make ITF a for $$ product I may include a few units with the quick start rules and offer them for free as a sample to get people interested. Thanks for the suggestion.
As for the target icon, I’m not happy with it either; I changed it so the numbers were all in line and now the target seems out of place… I’ll probably monkey with it some more. I really feel like I have to get the card right the first time, since I intended to make one card and fill in the blanks for each unit..so once I release it is likely to remain unchanged.
|
|
|
Post by sammo on Oct 25, 2010 12:22:21 GMT -9
These are really cool, it's all I can do to keep from shelving my current project to make fleets of warships. ;D
I hate to ask for more but is there any pictures of the elf and orc ships assembled and are their sails that go with the elven ships?
|
|
|
Post by sammo on Oct 24, 2010 18:53:48 GMT -9
So I worked on the icons a bit in between miniatures this weekend. I took the grouping suggestion along with the split shield suggestion and think this may be the final version of the card (aside from dirtying, highlighting, shading and texturing). One concern that I have is that the inclusion of the large shield behind the defense stats introduces some of the clutter that I managed to cut out during earlier editions. Any thoughts, comments. Like it? Hate it?
|
|
|
Post by sammo on Oct 24, 2010 18:43:04 GMT -9
I finally had a chance to read all the way through Into The Fray and to roll a few dice to get a feel for it. The system has an elegant dice rolling mechanism that is used consistently, and the instructions are well written. Thanks! It is pretty easy to think up a game mechanic and jot down notes to play, but writing rules to make rules clear to those that have never played before is one of the toughest hings about making a game, for me anyway. The Mettle and Magic systems seem a little convoluted for me, but that may just be a matter of taste. It IS a skirmish game, after all. The counters and the status blocks look like they go a very long way toward making the information managable. I’ve gotten a bit of this reaction, but the few test games we’ve played tend to have the magic and mettle system play out pretty easily. I’m considering some pretty heavy edits to these two chapters to clear up the language which may make it seem more manageable, or as you suggest it is just a matter of preference. I went back and forth over the mettle rules, wanting some form of morale rules but not wanting something super complex, we’ll have to see how it works out during a proper playtesting. It might do well to write a "quick start" set of rules, and possibly a scenario, that leaves out the Mettle and the Magic rules, and includes an extended example of play, so players can get a feel for how the basic game plays before tackling its more intricate features. I’ve gotten this suggestion a lot as well. A final release of the game will feature some form of quick start rules, with no dice pools, magic or mettle. I never thought of including a scenario, but now that you metion it it seems like a no brainer . I’ll add this to the to do list, along with a lengthy example of play. The long example also seems to be in popular demand so that is on the list as well. The game seems to have a Runequest feel to it, which I like. It would be interesting to do some DragonPass skirmishing with it, though I think Mongoose has those rights at the moment. It’s been years (and years) since I threw down on some Runequest, but it had to be rattling around up there with all the other game material, fantasy and sci fi that influences me… It will be interesting to see how things develop with new factions. Will there be monsters for dungeon crawl type skirmishes? I have so many ideas on where to take Into the Fray after its initial release. I have background material for both factions and a world to serve as the backdrop. Initially I think the factions are plain enough to serve let the rules system shine, but have enough variety to make them stand out as more than simply foot soldier, archer, hero wizard…. Assuming the reaction is good enough to keep me working on it I plan to release two more factions ASAP. After that, I have thoughts about a mounts and monsters expansion (for mounted troops, swarms and giant units) as well as some kind of progressive scenario/campaign book. I have a pretty strong desire to offer a dungeon crawl version of ITF, something along the lines of a Heroquest or Descent. Even a near future edition or a zombie apocalypse edition have crossed my mind. Of course I’ve got to get this initial version up and running first. Rest assured as long as I have people interested in the game I will continue to produce material of some sort for it.
|
|
|
Post by sammo on Oct 20, 2010 18:30:21 GMT -9
Okay! Icons it is. I would like to get the icons grouped a little better as well, so that will be my next effort. Thanks for the input! I'm building a cheap terrain to play your game, made by green moquette, plastic plants and foam rocks. This should tell you something... Awesome, I hope I don't keep you waiting too long, though things are moving along pretty well right now.
|
|
|
Post by sammo on Oct 20, 2010 9:48:51 GMT -9
Awesome, and free even!
I think I'll be picking up your entire line today. ;D
Thanks for the good work.
|
|
|
Post by sammo on Oct 20, 2010 8:16:14 GMT -9
After looking at the new card i couldn't agree more about sticking with either text or icons. So here is a sample of both. The icons were just quickies to get an idea of what ti would look like, the actual icons are subject to change. I think if nothing else I would change them around to make the number larger and more prominent. Initially I am torn. I do like the look of the icons, but I think the text would just be easier to use during game play and would make it more accessible to new player. I think that I am leaning towards the text right now.... Which one do you like?
|
|
|
Post by sammo on Oct 19, 2010 14:07:59 GMT -9
Well, I was blessed with a little bit of time today and played around with the card format. Aside from the ideally less busy layout there are a few new features (and yes the squiggly line is the faction symbol, I plan to change it for each faction ) The forces building info (faction, name, type, point, allotment and the die pool symbols that I left off of the first drafts of the card) all appear in close proximity. The green arrowish icon is the speed, strike and aim are grouped as attacks, defenses are grouped, and the blue oval/cross icon is mettle. This is a little roomier and also puts the stats into somewhat of an order that follows the game (move, fight, mettle). Please let me know if you think I am on the right track. I realize that I am back to the plain old gradient fill, but I’ll work on prettying it up again when the layout is right.
|
|
|
Post by sammo on Oct 19, 2010 9:40:03 GMT -9
Thanks for the feedback guys… (and the examples). These cards look quite a bit better than mine (obviously) and I like the less busy look, though I think I am also trying to squeeze a bit more info on them than on these cards. I have been mulling over the crowded look as well, so I’m going to do some reworking. Let me know what you think about these potential changes to free things up a bit. 1) Remove the talent box, as parduz suggests it is unnecessary, it will be obvious that the list is the talents. 2) Remove focus as a stat. As suggested (also by parduz) this rating can easily be included in the spellcasting talent (spellcasting[5] for example). I still think I will leave aim as a stat, it will be more common than spellcasting and I like seeing at a glance if a unit can make ranged attacks. 3) Develop an untitled icon/box for the speed (and maybe mettle) numbers. This (combined with #2) will reduce the stat list to 6 (or 5) stats instead of 8 4) Combine the faction banner with the small faction logo to save the empty space and keep the faction identifier as a single (albeit multi part) item. 5) The title box will receive a resizing as well as the more I look at it the more I think it tends to dominate the card. 6) General text shrinking, though I don’t want to go too small as well. One of the reasons the text is so large is a overreaction to my frustration with cards that have tiny text, I’ll try and find the happy medium. Some general questions (any input appreciated): Is the faction name (in text) necessary or is it sufficient to simply put the faction logo for identification? Abbreviation- I tried to keep abbreviations to a minimum, thinking it is much better to simply see the word. But in looking at some other wargame cards (like warmachine) they use a small stat box to keep the clutter down (see some here www.dungeontrader.com/store/stat.cfm ). Would you prefer a stat box over the list of stats? Thanks again for all the input, feedback is an important part of the process…
|
|
|
Post by sammo on Oct 18, 2010 22:25:03 GMT -9
I want to play this game Me too! Thus far all of my games have been unimaginative brawls to chug through the rules and find out if they are broken or not. I’m looking forward to playing a proper game. Things are moving along pretty well to get a playable version ready for testing. If only my day job and night school didn’t chip away at my free time… I’m glad you like the card parduz. I’ll give some thought to moving the cost/# pill to the top. One of the things I am struggling against is the room I need at the bottom for the damage tracks (It’s not a big deal on this card, but on some units I will need seven tracks). I may change the shape of the pill a bit so it tucks in a little more up top (we’ll see how it works out). I did make the title bar big enough to handle a large name and a subtitle in smaller text. But I am thinking that if I get rid of the “Talents” title like you suggest and shrink the title bar just a little, it will free up some room and I can slide the unit type down a bit and out of the shadow. As for the straight lines, this is one of the things that still bothers me, and I will probably tinker around some more. Especially with the stat boxes, which are so regular. If I can find a way to muss them up a bit without making things to cluttered I will do so. I haven’t actually played with cards yet, so during the building phase we are just working from the roster I sent out and jotting down a list (so there is no stack of cards to give away your choice of forces). I may change the back of the card, it would be fairly easy to ditch the name and the image to make them all blend together. I’ll see how this shakes out. Initial checking seems to indicate that the font is free. Honestly I never considered other people making cards at all, I just picked a font that I liked and fit with what I was making. In either case I’m hooked on it now… As always thanks for the interest.
|
|
|
Post by sammo on Oct 18, 2010 13:32:15 GMT -9
So, I worked on the unit card (and some new minis) quite a bit this weekend. I'm keeping the minis under wraps until I have the whole faction done, but here is the new sat card. The layout is identical, but there was effort put into texture and shading that I think really paid off. Let me know what you think. the PDF brokenand an image...
|
|
|
Post by sammo on Oct 14, 2010 20:05:15 GMT -9
I'm looking forward to these, a guy could go crazy thinking about the cast number of textures/themes that would look good an these models.
I wonder if Ackbar knows "It's a trap!!"
|
|
|
Post by sammo on Oct 14, 2010 19:56:41 GMT -9
Onemonkeybeau
Glad you like the cards. I agree, I prefer the more “lived in look” as well (especially for fantasy), but it is easy to play with shape and color in Inkscape and gradients. I hope to make these cards look a little more natural before the final product.
Thanks for the catches on the back of the card, goes to show my dependency on spell check. I’ll have to make sure to run the flavor text through Word before I plug them into Inkscape. I also didn’t realize I had the tan color in the PDF until now. I prefer the gray for the contrast (both for the text and the rest of the colors).
Thanks for checking the game out. Things are going along pretty well. My biggest task now is finishing up a second faction worth of minis and finalizing the cards. Although, I could use this sample card to produce unit cards for play testing. Everything else should be pretty basic to get ready for play testing (at least, there is a lot of polishing to get ready for a proper release).
As you are reading the rules I wouldn't mind a second opinion on the armor mechanic and being able to make ranged attacks in melee. These are tow things that parduz brought up that I ma a bit undecided on and would enjoy another point of view.
Thanks again...
|
|
|
Post by sammo on Oct 14, 2010 14:06:01 GMT -9
For anyone who just downloaded the PDF, I uploaded the worng one (without the figure's image). The correct PDF is up now and you can re-download at the above link or here broken
|
|
|
Post by sammo on Oct 14, 2010 13:55:27 GMT -9
So the easy question first, the font is Estelle Black SF. I have no idea where I got (probably with microsoft office), so I don't know if it's free or not. As for making aim and focus talents...originally spellcasting was a talent with a rating that served in place of focus, but for early card draft it was changed to a stat mainly because all the attack and defense stats were there (parry vs. strike, dodge vs. aim, resist vs. focus). I am still considering removing the focus stat, we'll see how the sample card goes over (see below). As for aim, I think it will stay a stat. We found it an easy and visible way to flip through the cards and see who can make a ranged attack (as you said, it is more visible). Still I will wait and see what the reaction to the cards is. On that note... the first draft of a unit card and the PDF... brokenHave a look, this is my first draft of the unit card, so now is the time to pipe up with advice.
|
|
|
Post by sammo on Oct 13, 2010 20:58:55 GMT -9
For all of you:Okay, everyone (who gave me their email) should now have a copy of the rules and a sample unit list. Keep in mind that the unit list is by no means a final version; one of my current tasks is finalizing unit stats. If anyone has not received both these things let me know. A few things, I realize now that I may have sold you all a bit short, considering there are no descriptions of any of the talents. I’m working on finalizing this list as well. I left these intentionally out of the core rules so that I could easily include new or modified talents with each new faction. Just keep in mind that special abilities are included in the game, just not described in the core rules. Also, here is a link to download the counter sheets, the counter blocks and the area of effect templates so you can get a look at those and let me know what you think. brokenThanks again everyone!
|
|
|
Post by sammo on Oct 13, 2010 19:34:23 GMT -9
Great parduz, the stuff you have mentioned is pretty easy to address, I think that i'm understanding them -as a rule-. What i am trying to do is to figure how to put the activation, the movement, the declaration of a combined attack, the dice pool allotment and the bonuses in a time line. I feel a bit lost I’ll add a full turn example to my to do list, and attempt to include all of the major actions in the example. It may take a while to get together though, but it will be on the way… - Generic suggestion: it is too much work to build a rulebook made for screen? I’ll see how this works out next time I am messing with formatting. In general I was under the impression that landscape was undesirable for printout, I never thought about it for screen viewing though. If it is easy to do I will create a landscape version of the PDF. Chapter 6: What bonuses stacks? what not? A bit lost here (again...sigh). I recently received this comment from someone else. I will clarify how the bonuses stack or don’t stack as part of the revisions. The rules are there but it really isn’t spelled out very well and would be difficult to look up real quick in the middle of a game. Included in the final version will be a reference sheet that should offer a decent summary of these rules for play. Chapter 8. I feel the lacking of bonuses on the morale... er... mettle test from the Heroes. Heroes are addressed on an individual basis with talents. For example, there is a leadership talent that allows other units to benefit with respect to morale. Likewise another talent will allow units to have a bonus to attempt to rally. I decided to make a distinction between hero and leader…Heroes are just powerful unique combatants, and leaders are heroes that can bolster their troops with special talents. Oddly enough, I chose to effect all squad members with the death of a hero for a Hollywoodian reason, heroes are so noteworthy that their death ripples across the battlefield like a wave. I hope it doesn’t sound like I am avoiding this comment, but I think when I provide you with the unit and talent info, it will be more obvious that I did not ignore this concept, though that doesn’t necessarily mean that you won’t still have a comment about it . Chapter 8.3: "Overwhelmed units can make for easy targets." Why? The -2D penalty is for test... why should they be "easy target"? This is more for color than an actual rule…their easy targets because they run away and don’t fight back. This doesn’t offer any game mechanics, I’ll likely change the wording… - Generic suggestion: i'd go to start a new page when a new chapter starts, even if it leave a lot of empty space. It's easyer to catch it when you flips the pages, and easier to reach it when you read it on PC. You may even fill the space with more illustrations I’ll keep this in mind, one thing I know will change is the layout Chapter 9: Magic When a spell have area effect, may i target a point on the terrain? I may have missed it, but seems to me that i'm forced to target figures, which may be not always the best option.... if yes, how it works? It isn’t specifically mentioned, but area of effect spells can be targeted anywhere the caster chooses, centered on a unit or not (in range of course). I’ll clear this up as well. Final impressions: I should see some figure cards to tell you completely what i think... there's some points that i have in mind that are hard to explain for me and may be wrong as i don't have seen any unit card. Unit cards are in the works, I’ll send everyone that e-mailed me for rules a copy of a sheet that has a draft of the unit stats on it for one complete faction, so everyone can get an idea of what a unit is like. I'm a bit "scared" by two things, which may be wrong as i need to see them during a play: - the amount of "marker" i may have to use. From reading the books seem that i'd need a lot of them, and this can bring some mess on the table. The battles I have played aren’t too terribly clutter (usually because once a unit begins to gain a bunch of counters it is quickly killed off). The one exception is the mettle counters which are handed out frequently and can be a bit of a nuisance. The only solution I found for this was to either resolve mettle whenever it came up, which interrupts game play, or to track it on a card, which was too easy to overlook compared to a counter. On a side note I do have a complete set of counters for the games, so you won’t have to use makeshift tokens. - The number of "exceptions" (Magic attacks cannot do combined attacks but can do splitted one, etc): i have to see how "hard" is to remember all that things. I tried to keep the overall exceptions to a minimum, but yes there are some parts of the rules that are a bit off the norm. I had a specific reason each time I did so, usually to preserve game balance or to have something make sense to me (of course just because I had a reason doesn’t mean it is the best way to do it). It is my intent (as mentioned above) to have a reference card that will offer enough information at a glance to keep the game on track. Also, moving all the units in my turn is not my preferred way: i'd like more a "splitted turn" (something like "i move, you move, i attack, you attack) or a limited number of actiovations (like Heroscape) but it is just an impression and the game may be perfectly fine as it is. I think this particular comment really comes down to personal preference. Some like moving a few units at a time and others like an all out move and act system. I prefer having all units at once, but once again this is personal preference. Generally, i'd like to play it, and i think that my group will give it a try. They're a bit souspicious when i bring new games after the epic failure of Starmada AE, but as we are first a group of friends and then a group of players, they are also willing to forgive it and to give me other chances Anyway, i see you putting a lot of efforts and time in this game. It seems a good one, and sure it have some original, clever and amazing ideas in it. Awesome, I’m putting all of the time I can get free into get the play test version ready…
|
|
|
Post by sammo on Oct 13, 2010 7:39:17 GMT -9
I´m not a native english speaker but if you want i cant read the rules. I ussually play D&D skirmish game, and will be good to read other set of rules . Thanks Message me with an e-mail address and I'll ship you a copy as well.
|
|
|
Post by sammo on Oct 12, 2010 22:32:42 GMT -9
The difference is that armor is an extra test that might protect those units that have armor, but doesn’t make a unit harder to hit. Sorry, I don't get this. As armor dice cancels hits, it is not the same? What's the difference from "being hit" and "taking damage", talking about game mechanics? Okay, I am guilty of using poor wording here. It’s true that hits and damage are the same thing… What I am getting at is that with the current armor system you only roll for armor if your unit is in danger of getting hurt. If an attacker rolls an attack and misses you don’t have to worry about the armor mechanic and play moves on without pause. On the other hand if a unit’s defense (either parry or dodge) is exceeded by an attack roll and the player is moving on to damage, the game pauses to record damage anyway, so tossing a few dice real quick shouldn’t slow things down too much. Your suggestion for the alternate armor mechanic (adding dice to the attack and then taking them away) intrigues me. I’ll have to give some thought to the armor mechanic, it may need some reworking. I do like the idea of armor being tied to dice (instead of a flat number for protection) but I am not sure if I like the way it is written now. At the same time I think that for the amount of units that will have the armor talent, the extra roll won’t be too distracting. Anyway in addition to this I am planning on retooling the slick terrain and road terrain mechanics. Additionally I plan to devise a system to allow players to spend their extra points in some way (but have not worked the details out yet). I’m still not certain if/how I will alter the ranged combat in melee rule. I can really see both sides of the issue, but I am not sure where I will settle in the end. Thanks again for the feedback. @ arkhamresident, your copy has been sent.
|
|
|
Post by sammo on Oct 12, 2010 14:28:56 GMT -9
I've never played a skirmish game before so if you want a total newb take on the rules I'll give it a go. I also nit pick about spelling, grammar, textual inconsistencies and other things that annoy the hell out of my friends so maybe I can use that to your benefit. Sounds good, send me your e-mail and I'll send you a copy.
|
|
|
Post by sammo on Oct 12, 2010 14:06:43 GMT -9
The critiques in this thread had me thinking today (and no my brain did not overheat ) Everyone chimed in with good artistic advice and all in all the product will be better for it, but I also realized paper minis have to be appealing on at least two different levels. People here (or your customers if you sell them) will get their first look at you mini as 5 or 6 inch image on a computer screen and so the artwork has to be appealing at that size. However the finished product (a printed assembled mini) is rather small (an inch or so) and when viewed from across the game table it needs to also look appealing. It seems like in order to be a successful mini designer you have to find a way to split the difference. Of course many people may have already come across this, but I am pretty new to the paper mini game and it was kind of a revelation for me as a novice designer.
|
|
|
Post by sammo on Oct 12, 2010 13:50:45 GMT -9
@ sonofspock:
Happy to have the feedback. Message me with an e-mail address and I’ll send you a copy.
Sorry to make everyone send me an e-mail address but I’m not certain I want to just post these rules on the web just yet. Plus I don't want a thousand copies floating around.
@ Parduz:
Some good observations (that is why I want some independent eyes checking this out…. Responses:
Ok, i'll write here my first impressions. Pls think that, as i'm not native english speaker, i may have misunderstood something, or that i may have to learn a new world. At the same time, i can be the dumbest reader you have, so if i've lost something you may evaluate if it is worthy to make it simpler
I doubt that you’re the dumbest reader I’ve ever had…. You seemed to get the gist of everything so far. In a way it is good to have a non native English speaker read them, it will give me a good idea of how clear the rules are.
Chapter: STATS Grit and Mettle: never heard these words before. A quick search on Wordrefence.com got me the meaning... but i think they should be changed in more common terminology. I understand that they give more "color" and feel than dull terms like "health", "toughness", etc., and i understand that non-english game market is really little, but i think at that words as the first "speed bump" i've found reading the rules.
Interesting point, I did choose the names of the stats for more color, the idea being that I would separate my game from others. I never considered that common terminology makes the game more accessible. Anyone else have a thought on this? Is it more convenient to have common (maybe even bland terms) in a game to avoid confusion or do these titles actually enhance the game by adding flavor?
Chapter: FORCES and POINTS This is a things that happens on other ruleset based on army cost (from HeroScape to SoBH): I'd like a way to spend unused point in the battle. As example, every X unused point give a dice reroll, or -talking about this game- dice in the fate pool (basically meaning that your units are a bit more trained), or a single squad member reinforcement (when a unit of a squad dies, i can bring in another). Dunno how to balance them, but it will avoid the part of army bulding when you're doing math just to squeeze out the most figures from the allowed total, and will add a bit more "strategy".
I like this idea. I have the same trouble in point buy games. I’ll give this some thought, initially being able to buy extra dice for the dice pools seems like a good way to spend points, I’ll have to give some thought to point costs though to keep balance in the game.
Slick Terrain: My group (and me also) hates to roll too much. It ruins the "rythm" of a game. So this kind of terrain scares me a lot. It is true that it is not mandatory to have it, but i'd change the rule in this way: measure the distance the unit wants to travel across a slick terrain (it is allowed to stop in it), then roll that number of dice. For every die that does not show a 1, the unit MUST now walk 1 inch in that direction. Why "1" instead of "6"? 'cause in this game a "6" is usually seen as a great success, and i'd keep this "vision" consistent Why the unit is forced to travel that distance? 'cause it have already measured it, and it does not allow to go prone in a strategical place. The advantage is that a single roll is made, similar to the hazardous terrain.
I am following the idea of rolling once (keeping the game moving is an important idea for me, so I am thinking an adjustment here is a good idea). I am not totally understanding your alternate rule about the compelled movement based on die rolls. It seems like you are saying that if I roll all the dice and no 1’s that I move across the slick terrain without trouble, but for each 1 that is rolled I am stopped an inch short of my goal (am I picking this up correctly?)
Road terrain: as it is, fast units does not benefit from roads more that slow units. More, it does not allow to "run and hide" using roads (think at a sort of guerrilla in a village). I'd go for something like "every X inches on the road the unit gains 1 free inch of movement, which, if used, must be spent immediatly to move, even out of the road".
This makes sense to me as well. I’ll have to check out the movement rates and decide how much movement on the road seems reasonable to start accruing the bonus.
Free Attacks: Have i understood that i can do a ranged attack against a unit which is adjacent? If yes, it seems to me a bit strange. Even with the Free Attack penalty, i can't see an archer shooting at someone yelling in his face....
As written now a unit can make a ranged attack against an adjacent unit. But the free attack rule also indicates that a unit might be firing at another target far away and an adjacent unit could make the free attack first. I am guessing by your response that you would suggest not allowing ranged attacks while in melee. I have gone back and forth a few times on this issue…honestly I think in the end you will not be allowed to make ranged attacks in melee without the special talent, but even with the talent you will suffer a free attack. Still unsure of how this will pan out in the finished version, I hope to receive more input on this topic.
Armor: I don't get the meaning of the armor rule. Is it not enough to say "add (left) armor dice to the Parry or Dodge test"?
I think you misunderstood one part of the game or I didn’t explain it well enough. The parry and dodge stats are just numbers, you don’t test those stats. In the initial version of ITF the defense stats were tested against each attack, but it made game play too slow, so they were changed to a static defense (like a target number). The difference is that armor is an extra test that might protect those units that have armor, but doesn’t make a unit harder to hit.
I’ve gone back and forth on this a few times, thinking it would be simpler to have armor factored into defense. As it stands now not too many units will have armor (it is not an ability that every unit has) so I think the special rule is okay, but I am not positive it is the simplest way to address armor.
The split and combined attacks are my second "speed bump". But i'll read them again later, and i will stop here for now.
This might be a case of me struggling to get the rules into text. When played the combined attacks and splitting attacks are really pretty easy. If you re-read them and can’t make sense out of them let me know, I may re-work the wording. I’m pretty sure the rules here are solid (as solid as any of the rules anyway).
I'd say that the manual is very well written. There's some phrase that i had read two times, mostly because i loose myself when they're more long than few words I'd like to have the examples written in a different way (italic?) or maybe enclosed in a box with a defined background color, so i may search for them just fast flipping the pages.
I was considering something like this as well. I think alternate example “boxes” will appear in the final version of the game.
My first impression is that there's a lot of good ideas. The terrain "stats" are clever and very useful to customize everything.
Thanks (both for the compliment and for the time it takes to read the rules). I am fairly proud of the terrain system, so I am glad to see someone appreciate it.
I'll read the other pages tonight or tomorrow (i'm flu, so my attention capabilty is incostant)
I hope you feel better!
|
|
|
Post by sammo on Oct 12, 2010 6:33:54 GMT -9
In our group we play for 4-6 hours once a week. We play the same game/character/GM for about 8 weeks and then switch.
Often we come back to the same game campaign. For instance I prefer a longer campaign when I GM so I plan out chapters of the story that can be played over two months and then shelved for a while. After an alternate game we dust of the campaign and pick it up again. It tends to work out well for us for a few reasons.
One it builds some excitement/tension if there are some cliffhanger elements to the campaign we are pausing. Second, some of the guys in my group want to GM, but aren't interested in being behind the screen for months on end, they get to run a shorter story. Third, if someone finds a cool new system they want to try out it isn't too hard to work it into the rotation. Finally as a GM it prevents burnout. I get time off from behind the screen (I am the primary GM, usually running every other 8 week stint). It gives me a break to work on upcoming adventures without having to be stressed about time so much.
As for grasping things and keeping track of more campaigns, usually a GM will only have one active campaign at a time, though all of us have several characters at any given time. The first week of rebooting an old campaign can be choppy, but then we all fall back into the campaign/character and its pretty smooth sailing.
Of course three of us (with a few others that have come and gone over the years) have been gaming together for a dozen years, so we all have fallen into a pretty good rhythm with gaming.
Combat vs. role playing....we run the field from one extreme to the other and everywhere in between. It just depends on the GM, players, game system, etc.
|
|
|
Post by sammo on Oct 12, 2010 6:18:30 GMT -9
To the guys at Sanity Studios… I was under the impression that this type of thing was still welcome in the forum, but if I’m mistaken and you think I am poaching in some way just let me know. Of course this is most welcome. The forum is a place for the community to come and discuss cardstock modeling (which your Print n' Play game definitely looks to be). I'd love to jump on the bandwagon and look over your game too but I'm swamped with thing I need to do (and things I want to do) already. The minis are lookin' good though and keep us posted. Thanks, I figured this would be the attitude here (and I am happy to hear it), but I thought it better to ask instead of just assuming.
|
|
|
Post by sammo on Oct 11, 2010 21:09:34 GMT -9
Thanks Onemonkeybeau, message me with an e-mail address and I'll ship them off.
Parduz, if your interested also message me and I'll send you a copy.
|
|
|
Post by sammo on Oct 11, 2010 15:46:56 GMT -9
Good questions... what kind of skirmish? Fantasy skirmish (swords, bows and magic) with about 15-20 figures per player. Each mini acts independently though some units are added to the forces in groups (still acting individually). All in all it is more rules intensive than a fast playing game like Song of games (not to knock them they're super fun) but initial run through indicates the game play flows pretty smoothly (I am hoping to iron out any remaining kinks now before a proper play test begins). grid maps or measured movement? The rules are written for measured movement, but I have included a chapter that easily accommodates grid or hexes for playing. genre? Fantasy, I am pushing for getting a playable version up and running before I work on the backdrop, but there is an original fantasy setting that I have tons of notes on that should make a decent back story for the battles. playing time? Now that the people I play with are familiar with the rules we run a two player battle in 2-3 hours. i would guess closer to 3 for new players. As above, we haven't started proper play testing yet so this is an estimate. assembling time? This could vary based on your skill level and attention to detail, but you would need to assemble 15-20 minis per player to get started and about 40-50 minis to have the complete faction. There are also some counters, cards, and templates to make, but these are pretty simple (fold and cut). # of players? 2-4 is ideal, though in theory it could handle more players if necessary. Currently there will only be two factions available though, so 2 player battles or team battles would probably play out the best. How much text there's in the cards (i may have to translate them... see below) The cards themselves will be relatively text light, stat names (with numbers) and a list of special abilities. However, the rules clock in at around 40 pages and each faction would have a page or two of special abilities and spells. I'm not certain how difficult the language barrier would be (though it's clear that your grasp of English is better than my grasp of any other language). My playing group have some skirmish fan, we can test it. If it is not too "adult" or "scaring" (images or "content"), i can play it even with my son (which may require translation, so i'm unsure about it). There is no adult or scary content (more than any other fantasy battle game) it isn't horror themed and all of the minis are clothed. To get an idea of the first faction you can look at the minis here: cardboard-warriors.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=sammo&action=display&thread=2337Also, I'm not suggesting those that offer feedback are obliged to play test, but if there is a line of people waiting to play test (which may or may not be the case) I'll offer proof readers first choice. Thanks for the interest. I hope this answers your questions.
|
|
|
Post by sammo on Oct 11, 2010 14:42:59 GMT -9
As the title suggests I am looking for a few volunteers… ;D
I have vaguely mentioned some skirmish rules that I have been working on in the threads that have my minis in them, and I have a working draft of the rules now. I’d really like to get a few (3 or 4) people to read them over and offer some (ideally detailed) feedback.
I do have a few friends that are offering me feedback locally, but honestly the pool of gamers that would be interested in a print and play skirmish game around here is pretty small. Additionally, I often feel that my friends are not offering me honest feedback, since they don’t have the gall to tell me my work sucks, and it always helps to have a fresh perspective n something you have been working on intensely. So, potential volunteers are encouraged to be honest and hopefully offer more detailed responses than just “It’s awesome.” Or “It sucks.”
Anyway, it’s starting to seem like I am asking a lot, but the people that are on this board are the kind of people that would be interested in playing (and maybe even purchasing) a print and play game with paper minis and all that.
I’m still a little ways out from play testing (I am knee deep in making the second faction’s minis now), and the game is more or less unplayable without the minis and the stat cards. However, those that get in on reading the rules now will be at the top of the list for play testing (if they are interested after reading the rules). As an incentive for play testing I plan to ship pre-printed copies of the minis (and other components) to save play testers ink and paper (though you will have to assemble them yourselves). Additionally (though it is a small reimbursement) anyone who play tests will be mentioned in the credits and receive an electronic copy of the final version of the game (which may or may not be a freebie or available commercially, we’ll see what the overall reaction to it is).
Anyone that’s interested let me know. Any questions ask ‘em here.
To the guys at Sanity Studios… I was under the impression that this type of thing was still welcome in the forum, but if I’m mistaken and you think I am poaching in some way just let me know.
|
|
|
Post by sammo on Oct 8, 2010 14:16:12 GMT -9
Using the photo album pages is a pretty slick idea, I may have to implement something like that as my paper mini collection grows. I use the clear Litko curved slot bases (discussed n this thread cardboard-warriors.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=hobby&action=display&thread=1387&page=1 to pull out and use unbased minis and they work awesome ( bit of an investment though). I do flat base a lot of minis that are either important characters or that I plan to use for specific games. The photo album/slot base option is sure to solve all of my storage problems though...especially when running games at other people's houses.
|
|