|
Post by sammo on Jun 9, 2011 13:19:49 GMT -9
First off, thanks to everyone that playtested ITF. I received some good feedback and the game will be better for it.
The general thoughts were positive and people liked the units and the game-play. There are a few minor tweaks here and there that are in the works but I have a few larger issues that I’d like to get your thoughts on.
1) Troops vs. Squads. About 40% of playtesters did not pick up the difference between the squad and the troop right away and wound up playing at least one game where they added all of the troops on one card (thinking it was so much better of a use of points, because it was).
I suppose this is only a problem in communications but I wonder what you would prefer: a) A single troop per card (with only one grit track) so there would be little confusion (one card=one unit/squad=one cost). b) Multiple wound tracks per card (as it is now) with hammering the rule multiple times in the text and perhaps adding an icon that readily identifies troops over squads to the card.
2) There seems to be two camps (roughly 50%-50%) as to the turn order. Some players like the structured turn because it forces you to commit your forces and has a specific timing for each action. The other camp finds that the turn structure plays fine, but then the I go-U go format means that the other player just sits there watching what is happening which breeds boredom and helplessness. These folks would prefer something along the lines of I tap a card and act, you tap a card and act until all units have acted.
After some thought I am not sure how I want to proceed. Part of me likes the structured turn, but admits that as a player the downtime and “watch and see” feeling when it is someone else’s turn is a bit tedious.
If I keep a structured turn it will likely remain unchanged (except for the possible loss of the mettle round (see below). If I go to a tap your card style turn I would want some kind of special mechanic. A current idea is at the beginning of each turn a player stacks his cards in the order he wants to (in secret) and then each player takes turns drawing off of their deck and activating that unit (so you set the order your units act in at the start of each turn). Talents such as delayed strike would convert to allow a unit to be placed at the bottom of the deck or somesuch.
I’d love to hear comments thoughts and suggestions about the turn order.
3) The mettle system seems to be the biggest flaw in ITF. The most common comment is something like the mettle system is unused, few units rack up enough mettle counters to really have a chance to fail the test so you place counters and track mettle just to roll extra dice and have no in game effect. So the overall result is slowed game-play and talents like leadership and rally being useless.
Some options include discarding the mettle system entirely or making it an optional rule. Honestly I like the idea of morale in the game and I don’t want to have optional rules (I like to think of some bizarre alternate future where ITF is hugely popular and tournament play is common, so it would be good if there were only one set of rules).
Other suggestions have been for units to test mettle at specific times throughout the battle (first blood, or dropped to half health) and not have the mettle round at all. Also testing mettle to be able to charge or sprint has been suggested, as well as losing half of a squad or a leader.
My current leaning is to eliminate the mettle phase entirely. Each unit will have a mettle box (or boxes) on their damage track and when that box is filled in the unit has to make a mettle test. Mettle tests would happen immediately when the condition arose (and the effe4cts applied immediately) so the mettle round would vanish. On a certain result (say none or 1 hit) the unit becomes overwhelmed and flees, on a better result (say 3 or 4 hits) the unit is shaken and on even more hits the unit is unaffected. Units would still recover normally and talents/spells that would require a unit to gain mettle counters would instead call for an immediate mettle test. This would eliminate the bookkeeping required for the mettle round as well as the extra counters that clutter up the battlefield.
Thoughts, comments, suggestions?
These are the last few big items that I am looking into for the final version of ITF, so any comments and ideas would be greatly appreciated. (I'm also hitting my local playtesters with the same thing, I'll relay any information that looks promising and is not redundant).
|
|
|
Post by Parduz on Jun 9, 2011 14:07:56 GMT -9
a) A single troop per card 2) ... If I keep a structured turn it will likely remain unchanged (except for the possible loss of the mettle round (see below). Then i vote for the "tap" way. A current idea is at the beginning of each turn a player stacks his cards in the order he wants to (in secret) and then ... This will mess all the tokens and the "cubes" status markers, and possibly happen that the wet-eraser got erased accidentally by the fingers. I'd start with just letting the player activating what he wants, then see if it need improvements. 3) The mettle system ... My current leaning is to eliminate the mettle phase entirely. Each unit will have a mettle box (or boxes) on their damage track and when that box is filled in the unit has to make a mettle test. This is a GREAT idea. You can even write on the "Mettle Box" the number of hits needed to pass the test (if you want even more variations). But just the box in the life bar and the Mettle Stat is really great.
|
|
|
Post by sammo on Jun 10, 2011 8:35:17 GMT -9
a) A single troop per card It looks like this is the general opinion. Along with this will come a way to integrate the unit marker flags that I have been using (they are a bit fiddly any way) though it will require a bit of reworking of cards and minis. Then i vote for the "tap" way. This may wind up being the final solution, though honestly I am waiting for someone to come up with a brilliant idea that makes everyone happy. My current leaning is to eliminate the mettle phase entirely. Each unit will have a mettle box (or boxes) on their damage track and when that box is filled in the unit has to make a mettle test. This is a GREAT idea. You can even write on the "Mettle Box" the number of hits needed to pass the test (if you want even more variations). But just the box in the life bar and the Mettle Stat is really great. Unless someone offers me a better suggestion this looks like the basis for the new mettle system. Fearless will now offer automatic hits on any mettle test, while leadership and rally will still function the same.
|
|
|
Post by stevelortz on Jun 10, 2011 10:59:26 GMT -9
I'm giving this some thought. I'll get back a little later.
Have fun! Steve
|
|
|
Post by stevelortz on Jun 10, 2011 17:21:45 GMT -9
I'm giving this some thought. I'll get back a little later. Have fun! Steve I deleted my previous post. While I found it highly instructive and entertaining, it was too far off the topic of ITF, and most readers would have found it deadly dull. So here are some hopefully useful thoughts: According to communications theory, there are three possible sources of error; encoding errors on the part of the sender, transmission errors within the channel, and decoding errors on the part of the receiver. Re-reading ITF, I realized that I was making a decoding error by interpreting the word "unit" as referring either to an individual figure OR to a group of figures that move and experience moral effects together. On closer reading it came home to me that in ITF the word "unit" ALWAYS refers to an individual figure. The wording of two sentences on page 7, at the beginning of the second paragraph under the sub-sub-head "POINTS:", under the sub-head "1.2.1 A UNIT'S STATS", in the section "1.2 THE UNIT" caused me a certain amount of confusion: "For units designated as a squad, the point value will be followed by a number in brackets. This indicates that the unit is added as a group and the number in brackets is the number of units that are added to your forces for the point value." The phrase "the unit is added as a group" threw me for a loop. "Unit" is defined as a singular individual, and "group" implies a plural number of individuals. The first part of the second sentence uses the word "unit" in the singular while the second part uses "units", plural, without making the reasons behind the difference clear enough (at least to me). How to fix it? One way to say it might be, "A number in brackets after the point cost of a unit on the Faction Reference Card indicates that those units can be bought as members of squads. The value in brackets is the number of those units that can be added to your faction's forces as a squad for that point cost." I don't know if this would help others understand, but it's what I needed to do to figure it out. I might change the definition for squads given in the paragraph under the sub-sub-head "TYPE:" on page 7 to "A squad is a certain number of units having identical stats that can be purchased as a group for a single point cost. The members of a squad operate as individuals on the tabletop." Have fun! Steve
|
|
|
Post by Vermin King on Jun 10, 2011 17:26:32 GMT -9
That would have thrown me for a loop, as well.
Having spent years around Ft. Leonard Wood, a unit is a group of individuals moving as one.
I'm not sure what phrasing would clear confusion.
|
|
|
Post by stevelortz on Jun 10, 2011 17:34:16 GMT -9
Those things being said, what does the word "crunch" mean, near the end of the second paragraph of section "0.0 INTRODUCTION" on page 5. I'm so old that language describing the qualities of games has changed since the days when I was actively writing.
Have fun! Steve
|
|
|
Post by gilius on Jun 10, 2011 17:41:29 GMT -9
I'm giving this some thought. I'll get back a little later. Have fun! Steve I deleted my previous post. While I found it highly instructive and entertaining, it was too far off the topic of ITF, and most readers would have found it deadly dull. So here are some hopefully useful thoughts: ... Have fun! Steve Actually I found it a good read and was going to answer when I saw that it disappeared. Anyway I was also going off-topic, commenting on some discussion I found about "tercios" while looking for reviews of Father Tilly. Back on topic, I'd agree that naming conventions (or the lack of them) in miniature games are a source of confusion, compounded by the historical and/or current military uses of some terms. I find that using names such as model, figure or stand (for stand-based games) for the "atomic objects" in the game is effective as they map directly to physical objects. After that, I can look around the rules to see if they also consider groups of objects and what those groups are called (troops, squads or whatever.)
|
|
|
Post by stevelortz on Jun 10, 2011 19:49:06 GMT -9
2) There seems to be two camps (roughly 50%-50%) as to the turn order. Some players like the structured turn because it forces you to commit your forces and has a specific timing for each action. The other camp finds that the turn structure plays fine, but then the I go-U go format means that the other player just sits there watching what is happening which breeds boredom and helplessness. These folks would prefer something along the lines of I tap a card and act, you tap a card and act until all units have acted. After some thought I am not sure how I want to proceed. Part of me likes the structured turn, but admits that as a player the downtime and “watch and see” feeling when it is someone else’s turn is a bit tedious. If I keep a structured turn it will likely remain unchanged (except for the possible loss of the mettle round (see below). If I go to a tap your card style turn I would want some kind of special mechanic. A current idea is at the beginning of each turn a player stacks his cards in the order he wants to (in secret) and then each player takes turns drawing off of their deck and activating that unit (so you set the order your units act in at the start of each turn). Talents such as delayed strike would convert to allow a unit to be placed at the bottom of the deck or somesuch. I’d love to hear comments thoughts and suggestions about the turn order. The alternating 2-player sequence was pretty much standard in the days when I was getting started (mid-'70s). A player was pretty much free to do what he wanted with his figures during his part of the turn. That's how I designed Perilous Encounters (published 1978) to play. Then it became stylish to have command cards such as "Hold", "Advance", "Charge", etc., that would be be laid face down beside each maneuver element between turns. A turn would consist of players alternately activating units until all the units had performed their actions for that turn. The problem with this system for me was the advantage it gave one side or the other when the sides had unequal numbers of maneuver elements. A different sequencing system was introduced by The Sword and the Flame (also published in 1978), in which cards were drawn from an ordinary deck of playing cards, and the suit and number of the drawn card would be interpreted to tell which unit was activated by the draw. The "I tap a card, you tap a card" sequencing system was introduced in 1993 with Magic the Gathering. In the mid-'90s I designed a set of skirmish rules which eventually turned into Scurvey Dawrgs!. I use a sequencing deck when I run this game. I make a sequencing deck by cutting a bunch of 3X5 cards in half, then putting the name of a single character on each resulting card. When I get ready to run a game I put two cards for each character that's in the game into a deck. I shuffle the deck, then sequence the characters by drawing cards. No player knows before hand the order in which his characters are going to act, and the fact that there are two cards for each character in the deck introduces another element of uncertainty. I would call your sequence as currently published an articulated alternating 2-player system, where "articulated" means that functions are broken down into rounds within the turn and the players alternate during each round. Your idea of each player making a deck of unit stat cards for his units, secretly ordering the cards in his deck, and then each player alternately turning up the top card in his deck seems to have merit. Would this be feasable with unit specific information on both sides of each unit stat card? Could it be made to work with sleeves that are opaque on one side? What might be even wilder would be for the players to shuffle ALL their unit stat cards into ONE deck, then draw from that! Concerning one player sitting bored while the other player is having all the fun sequencing: The first sentence in the second paragraph in section "5.5.2 ARMOR" on page 22 reads, "Whenever a unit is hit by a melee or ranged attack the player rolls dice equal to the rating of the armor talent ." Which player? If a defending player gets to roll the armor dice for his own characters, that would involve him in every resolution where one of his characters had the armor talent. In Perilous Encounters, I made both players involved in EVERY attack resolution. The attacking (or "phasing") player rolls to see if his character scores a hit. If the attacking character does, then the defending player makes a saving throw to see if the hit glances off, or if his character takes a wound. There's two-sided drama in every resolution. Having a player make the armor rolls for his own characters might make for a little more two-sided drama in Into the Fray. Have fun! Steve
|
|
|
Post by stevelortz on Jun 10, 2011 20:34:02 GMT -9
I deleted my previous post. While I found it highly instructive and entertaining, it was too far off the topic of ITF, and most readers would have found it deadly dull. So here are some hopefully useful thoughts: ... Have fun! Steve Actually I found it a good read and was going to answer when I saw that it disappeared. Anyway I was also going off-topic, commenting on some discussion I found about "tercios" while looking for reviews of Father Tilly. Back on topic, I'd agree that naming conventions (or the lack of them) in miniature games are a source of confusion, compounded by the historical and/or current military uses of some terms. I find that using names such as model, figure or stand (for stand-based games) for the "atomic objects" in the game is effective as they map directly to physical objects. After that, I can look around the rules to see if they also consider groups of objects and what those groups are called (troops, squads or whatever.) I just started a thread called "Military History and Game Design" on my project board. We'll get back to this after I get some sleep. Now I'm going to have to get a copy of Father Tilly, not an unpleasant prospect. Believe it or not, the word "tercio" DID flash across my consciousness while I was composing the post I deleted. Have fun! Steve
|
|
|
Post by sammo on Jun 11, 2011 21:20:27 GMT -9
I found the original post interesting (and informative), but I suppose it was a bit removed from Into the Fray. I will be reading your other thread with interest…
As far as the troop vs. squad issue (and naming each “figure” a “unit,”) the thing that your discussion did make me realize is that we all have so many things associated with various words and even if I change the names around, there will still be room for interpretation (since the new words will imply their own connotations to other people). The same thing with the word “skirmish,” which seems to have many connotations (based on what frame of reference you use).
So this convinces me to make the wording less important and go with the one card = one cost = one figure or squad. This will take some of the language out of the equations and make for less confusion.
Of course I also see how some of the wording is a bit misleading, so I will be taking your advice during revision. More specifically making sure that a squad is defined as a group of units, with the same stats, that is added to the forces for a single point cost. Then the addition of the squad to the army should be basic, and the idea that each unit functions separately is supported by the rest of the text (which always refers to units).
As for the word “crunch,” using it to describe a game system, typically it implies a depth or variety in the rules. I have heard it used both in the positive (as in a crunchy rules system is robust enough to make gameplay fun and interesting) or negatively (as in that game is too crunchy and offers to much opportunity to bog down or for rules lawyering).
As for armor, it was intended that the controlling player roll the armor check (I’ll have to clarify this in the final draft as well). But (depending on the players choices) not all units have armor, so while you may participate by rolling armor it is 1) not happening for every attack and 2) rather passive on the overall scale of things.
In the first draft of ITF players rolled their own units defense (as was suggested in one of these posts), however this was quickly changed since (IMHO) it slowed gameplay significantly.
I like the idea of stacking the unit cards to set the turn order (randomly determining the order does not appeal to me as much, but setting your own order of unit actions does), but it offers some obstacles. The cards are two sided and there is plenty of opportunity to smudge the wound tracks when handling them. So if I want to use this system I might have to produce a second set of “turn order” cards and I’m not sure if I like that idea.
As far as the overall turn order is concerned, both sides seem firmly entrenched. I may go with the a tap one card you tap one card system simply because it is fairly popular in the current generation of skirmish games and I think it would make for a more commercially viable game, since I think it will make the rules set more accessible.
I am still mulling the whole turn order thing over, as I think it is only thing that is still up in the air at this point.
Thanks for the lively discussion, and keep it coming…
|
|
|
Post by Parduz on Jun 14, 2011 23:01:38 GMT -9
Yesterday i saw my friends in our weekly gaming meeting. They suddenly asked me what was your answer to our concerns (this is a very good sign ) and overall pleased by the planned changes... but they literally jumped on me when i told about mixing up the cards for random initiative, telling me all in the same time about a bunch of games which, using that initiative system, was fired away, sold, trades or just used as "material source" for other games (this is the worst end for a game, imho ). Some suggestions from us: - if you want random initiative (seen as a "meh" solution) they suggest the "Mutant Chronicles trilogy" solution: a bag containing one token for each card in the field, from which each player draws. The biggest cons is that your best figure can die 'cause bad luck drawing initiative with you having no way to do something about it. - Planned order (as you're suggesting in the last post), with a common feel that doing it partially (so say 1/3 of the cards) allow for more reaction and adaption to the events. - the simple "Tap" method is still the best solution for us (so, 4 ppl voting for it ) As for armor, it was intended that the controlling player roll the armor check (I’ll have to clarify this in the final draft as well). But (depending on the players choices) not all units have armor, so while you may participate by rolling armor it is 1) not happening for every attack and 2) rather passive on the overall scale of things. In the first draft of ITF players rolled their own units defense (as was suggested in one of these posts), however this was quickly changed since (IMHO) it slowed gameplay significantly. We agreed on both these conclusions: rolling to defend is not seen as a way to keep the player active. As far as the overall turn order is concerned, both sides seem firmly entrenched. The one of my friends which complained more about the structured turn told me that he think it's right when you have 3,4 figures. That lead to me to this idea that may mix the two methods: - players give orders to X figures (i really mean Cards - squad have to move all figuresm but counts as ONE activation). - the round goes as it is right now - players taps the activated cards and give orders to other X figures. This is more an impulse idea than a reasoning, but i don't see so much drawbacks: it forces you to do some planning (a la Heroscape), it allows for reaction and flexibility, and it have a structured turn. "X" can be a fixed number (say, 5 cards) or a proportional one (say 1/3 of the player cards). We're waiting for the next "release"
|
|
|
Post by sammo on Jun 15, 2011 21:03:11 GMT -9
After quite a bit of deliberation and some forethought into some other long term plans I have for the ITF system (if it ever catches on) I have decided to go with the I tap a card you tap a card system.
The basis for the mettle system outlined above looks like it is going to work out well based on some initial simulations so I am going with that.
The one card, one unit plan is also happening.
There are also a number of small revisions happening here and there.
In the long run it will offer a game that is a bit faster to play, more accessible to players and generally more intense game-play.
The only real drawback to this is it is going to take time to do some re-vamping of the cards and units and I am super busy (with work and summer school) for the next month so the revisions might take some time. However I think it will be a much more fun game as a result so I will be devoting my time to getting version 1.1 (which will likely be the final version) ready to go.
Thanks again for everyone that offered input and suggestions!
|
|