Lead Adventure Forum
Miniatures Adventure => Future Wars => Topic started by: salcor on June 05, 2019, 12:45:58 PM
-
Hello,
I was wondering recently what people are looking for in their sci fi wargames? What scale do most people prefer? What size of army is best? What are some of the best mechanics? Do people prefer tourney ent style large scale wargames like 40k or are do you like smaller scale more cooperative games like Rangers of Shadow Fall? I mean Games workshop is seeing a resurgence with their new take on 40k, kill team, necromunda, and black fortress; however smaller publishers are also doing well with games like This is not a test. But at the same time other publishers like Warlord which has an excellent rule system in Gates of Antares is not making very good market penetratio nor are great new games like Breachstorm.
So I I will close with, what do people think makes a new game successful in today's market with so many games competing for your time and money? What gets certain game back on your table again and again, and others thrown in the back of the closet?
Salcor
-
What's needed is a 'generic' sci-fi 'warband' size game. Forces should be customizable to match whatever miniatures you have. Focus on scenarios and not "fluff" as most people will fill that in anyway. It needs solid, interesting rules mechanisms. And, yes a "points" system. It needs to be physically published and available to retailers both B&M and online. Forget kickstarter.
Easy Peasy
-
. But at the same time other publishers like Warlord which has an excellent rule system in Gates of Antares is not making very good market penetratio nor are great new games like Breachstorm.
Well Gates of Antares was too damn slow. They had a big window to scoop up 40k players who were unhappy with 7th ed but didnt get their plastics or starter set out until 8th ed hit whixh got alot if people interested in 40k again. That and the rules are needlessly dense at times. As for breachstorm ? It just looks mediocre, it uses the same generic mass effect design that 80% of sci fi art and games use these days.
What's needed is a 'generic' sci-fi 'warband' size game. Forces should be customizable to match whatever miniatures you have. Focus on scenarios and not "fluff" as most people will fill that in anyway. It needs solid, interesting rules mechanisms. And, yes a "points" system. It needs to be physically published and available to retailers both B&M and online. Forget kickstarter.
Easy Peasy
This. Though I see gamers doing it themselves quite often lately. Dragon Rampant and Warlords of Erewhon both have fan made dci fi lists.
-
What's needed is a 'generic' sci-fi 'warband' size game. Forces should be customizable to match whatever miniatures you have. Focus on scenarios and not "fluff" as most people will fill that in anyway. It needs solid, interesting rules mechanisms. And, yes a "points" system. It needs to be physically published and available to retailers both B&M and online. Forget kickstarter.
Easy Peasy
Quoted for truth
Its has to be what Rogue Stars promised but failed to deliver.
We need Stargrave :>
-
What's needed is a 'generic' sci-fi 'warband' size game. Forces should be customizable to match whatever miniatures you have. Focus on scenarios and not "fluff" as most people will fill that in anyway. It needs solid, interesting rules mechanisms. And, yes a "points" system. It needs to be physically published and available to retailers both B&M and online. Forget kickstarter.
Easy Peasy
That's exactly what I use Fistful of Lead: Galactic Heroes for. I can use my old 40k figures, my Pulp Sci-fi stuff, my Aliens and predators, etc. It's all there.
-
I, for one, would be appreciative of easy game mechanics, fast play, and character development that creates a moderate RPG type feel. I'm also grateful for a solid AI system. I typically play solo, and when I get to sucker (sweet talk?) my wife into playing with me I can't try to play a game and teach her some crunchy system that requires four tutorial games before something interesting happens.
Scale, I am starting to lean heavily towards 15mm. Entry point is easier on my wallet when I want to jump sideways. Skirmish level all the way down to single character would be my choice. I don't want to have a faceless army of hundreds when I can care about 1-5 characters. I can't imagine anything worse, for me, than something that looks like tournament play. Points are fine, but sometimes the good guys should be outnumbered and sometimes the good guys show up with overwhelming force to put down a minor annoyance. I don't need a system to tell me how to balance or write my scenarios, but I'm happy enough to take some feedback from the creator as to what a good unit looks like compared to a bad one. Maybe it is the D&D player in me that thinks "one guy vs a dragon? Sounds like an adventure!" lol
-
I can't imagine anything worse, for me, than something that looks like tournament play. Points are fine, but sometimes the good guys should be outnumbered and sometimes the good guys show up with overwhelming force to put down a minor annoyance. I don't need a system to tell me how to balance or write my scenarios, but I'm happy enough to take some feedback from the creator as to what a good unit looks like compared to a bad one. Maybe it is the D&D player in me that thinks "one guy vs a dragon? Sounds like an adventure!" lol
I very much agree with this! For me, points are most useful to unbalance an encounter.
I also agree with what others have said about 'fluff' being a waste of time. I don't think there's any point in most companies attempting to emulate GW in background and illustrations. The one area in which any company can compete is in well-designed rules.
The sci-fi games I play most are Mutants and Death Ray Guns (by far!) and FUBAR (which I really like too). I also (controversially?) really like Rogue Stars and have enjoyed every game I've played of it (my son used to say it was his favourite game). But I think Rogue Stars aims at emulating a very specific type of scenario - a really intense firefight in a relatively small area - which makes it a bit niche.
For any ruleset, the most important aspect for me is 'time to table'. That's where MDRG and FUBAR win every time. You can assign models to each player and more or less stat them up as you do so. For example, in MDRG, fierce-looking humanoids (orks, beastmen, reptilians) can have the mutant profile of Q4, C3, and less savage sorts can have the human profile of Q3, C2. Then all you need do is give each a leader and a champion, add a roster of wandering monsters and play 'what you see is what you get' with weapons (is a bolter a sub-machine gun or an assault rifle? It's up to the commanding player).
-
I also (controversially?) really like Rogue Stars and have enjoyed every game I've played of it (my son used to say it was his favourite game). But I think Rogue Stars aims at emulating a very specific type of scenario - a really intense firefight in a relatively small area - which makes it a bit niche.
I liked test game we played. I think its OK system.
But mechanics are made unnecessary complicated (seriously, most of the traits just give +1 to +3 bonus to a test - why make them super complicated just to avoid saying +1 to test..) and difficult, and its just hard game to chew into.
It just fail to deliver excitement and be gaming friendly.
I can create Frostgrave Wizards and crews fir fun with paper and pencil and have interesting time without actual game play.
In RS its tiresome exercise in futility that always put me off.
And I like complicated rule sets and have fun with creating Inquisitor retinues.
Thats why I asked for Stargrave.
Game with similar traits.
I am yet unable to find unfortunately.
-
That's exactly what I use Fistful of Lead: Galactic Heroes for. I can use my old 40k figures, my Pulp Sci-fi stuff, my Aliens and predators, etc. It's all there.
Same here.
-
What's needed is a 'generic' sci-fi 'warband' size game. Forces should be customizable to match whatever miniatures you have. Focus on scenarios and not "fluff" as most people will fill that in anyway. It needs solid, interesting rules mechanisms. And, yes a "points" system. It needs to be physically published and available to retailers both B&M and online. Forget kickstarter.
Easy Peasy
I would second this. It would be great to see is a sci-fy skirmish system as simple and fun as Frostgrave with the options and depth that were present in Rouge Trader in terms of weapons/troop types and equipment. I would second the scenarios over fluff sentiment. Some fluff would be fine but as stated the "whole universe" is usually thrown out of the window.
-
Quoted for truth
Its has to be what Rogue Stars promised but failed to deliver.
We need Stargrave :>
Please no.
Frostgrave is ok. It's fun to a degree but it isn't flexible enough to be more than a treasure grabbing wizard off. That's not to say I don't like it, I have enjoyed games of it, but it is no where near flexible enough. You want more scenarios not involving treasure grabbing to win.
If anything, I would say Saga is a better model.
But for me, you want to be able to field forces as few as 20 models perhaps in fire teams of 3-5 up to squads of 8-10 say.
Personally I also think we have arrived at a time when games don't have to be dictated by the limitations of a d6. Tabletop gaming is a popular and pretty mainstream past time and the old concept of using d6 because everyone has monopoly is a bit outdated now.
I'd push to d8 or d10 and allow for a lot more differentiation between troop types and weapons if desired.
One of the issues 40k now has is that whilst they have a vaster array of unit options and types to select from as well as equipment, most of the differentiation is how many dice you roll. It gets a bit tedious after a while. And the balance between combat and shooting is daft.
Back on point, focus on saga sized games but with the ability to have small units that can be played on smaller tables. Mass Battle stuff is more than catered for and I feel a bit of a dying breed in many ways.
Frostgrave, Saga, Mantic's Vanguard, Moonstone, Infinity and various other successful games in recent years have proven that the market for proper skirmish games is really thriving.
-
All I can say...is make the game you want to play. Then, after you've determined it works and most importantly it's fun (read: a lot of successful games simply aren't fun to me, ala Frostgrave) then consider how to massage it into something marketable.
-
Rogue Stars almost itched the sci-fi skirmish system for me. What RS lacks I feel is a good flow. There's too much messing around with modifiers and tokens to track various states that often reduces the game to an exercise in mechanics. It desperately needs to be simplified.
What RS does have for me is a broad system for creating 'characters' for any sci-fi figure you own. This has always been Ganesha Games' strengths since Song of Blades and Heros v1 which I immensely enjoyed. However these two points seem to be in contradiction (can you have a streamlined game that lets you build a wide variety of characters)?
Funnily enough GW's latest Kill Team offering I quite enjoyed but can't get anybody to play locally. It had the 40k fluff, let you dabble in 40k without a second mortgage since you only needed a handful of figures and was generally an interesting, streamlined system with a few unique mechanics that made it feel nicely skirmishy. Of course being 40k it had the usual terrible problems with balance because it turns out Flamers were overpowered.
I wanted to love Frostgrave, but feel the core D20 system is far too swingy and makes every game feel like a frustrating crap shoot with your tactics meaning little. Their campaign rules were also awfully broken in our experience. Three-four games into a campaign and somebody invariably had an overpowered warband which meant people just lost interest.
-
I really thought Rogue Stars was going to be SoBH in Space.
To Elbow's point - I think you should make the game you want to play. Or tweak the game you like to fit your needs/until you enjoy it. You bought it - House Rule whatever you want. Same goes with your miniatures; use them in whatever game or setting you want. I'm in this to have fun with my friends. Not sign on as a fanboy-for life, or ferret out every loophole in order to win at any cost.
-
Off and on play over the last 42 years, Ogre is going strong and back on my gaming table a lot!
Buckets of new plastic models and beautiful neoprene gaming mats all rolling out of Kickstarter projects have relit the fire for this super classic from 1977.
-
If you like Lion or Dragon Rampant then just wait a bit longer as their might be a SciFi set along those lines in the future . Xenos Rampant .
-
Hmmm interesting. I could get behind that! It'll be interesting to see how they move from block to skirmish within the Rampant system. I mean I guess they already have skirmishers...
-
For me it's mostly about small scale gaming with a diverse collection of miniatures. I don't want to paint the same type of models over and over, unless it's for a small scale game. Like Deadzone! I think that's my favorite sci-fi game as it offers about everything I like. It's fast, has great miniatures, each miniature almost becomes a character, lots of options and you can tweak it, epic cinematic moments, solid rules set, well supported...for me it's a perfect game.
Other than that I'm thinking skirmish type Cyberpunk games, like Pulp Alley and such.
-
Galactic Heroes from Wiley Games for the win :D
Available from here for the UK and European markets ;)
https://oshiromodels.wixsite.com/oshiromodelswebshop/rules (https://oshiromodels.wixsite.com/oshiromodelswebshop/rules)
-
That's exactly what I use Fistful of Lead: Galactic Heroes for. I can use my old 40k figures, my Pulp Sci-fi stuff, my Aliens and predators, etc. It's all there.
Me too. Use it for Star Wars, Star Trek, Dr Who, Aliens and (with the recent 'Tales of Horror' release) Zombies too.
-
Another vote for Fistful of Lead Galactic Heroes. It has everything you have asked for except a points system. No fluff and can be used in any Sci Fi setting. For me its just perfect for Star Wars. :)
-
I really thought Rogue Stars was going to be SoBH in Space.
MDRG kind of scratches that itch, no? We play it either 'as written' with weapon jams (and power-armour jams) for post-apocalyptic scenarios or without the jamming rule for a higher-tech experience. But it's got pretty much everything you need for SoBH in space - or on any far-flung planet. And the supplements cover everything from jedi to jump packs. Add the scenarios, etc., from Rogue Stars and you've got a pretty solid package.
One criticism that you could mount at MDRG is that the simple Combat stat means that a big ork with a bolter is a more dangerous than a smaller human with a bolter. But the rules allow you to tweak that with the 'Combat Specialist' and 'Sharpshooter' traits, so that you can easily get your 'weak in melee, good at shooting' character. And most of the time, big aggressive-looking aliens tend to be modelled with big, dangerous-looking guns.
One ruleset that's also well worth a mention is Rogue Planet. It's a really terrific game and perfect for over-the-top, 40K-style gaming. The only impediment to playing it often is the lack of a set of ready-to-go profiles in the rulebook and the use of abbreviations for stat names (which involves a bit of head-scratching until you remember what they are again).
The point about Rogue Planet, though, is that it's something (very) different. It has measureless movement, interaction with terrain (powergloved opponents and mechs, etc., can throw opponents into scenery, for example), collisions and rebounds.
So I suppose that the big questions for any new ruleset are 'what does it do that's new?' and 'what does it do better than existing options?'.
-
It's really a matter of taste. I create Galactic Heroes because the Fistful mechanic really lent itself "making a game you want". I use it for Star Wars, 40k, Dr Who, Pulp Sci Fi, near future, mech suits:
http://baronvonj.blogspot.com/search/label/Galactic%20Heroes
That being said, it's not to everyone's taste. You like what you like and I appreciate the votes.
-J
-
I wanted generic units that I could custom build with traits with a great scenario generate to play army, unit vs unit skirmish, and model vs model. I wanted Rogue Stars Scenarios system to have a baby with the Dragon Rampant system, and to make it Sci-fi.
So I went and made it myself in the form of Rampant Stars (squad vs squad), Rampant Sun (Model vs Model), and Rampant Galaxies (Army scale).
https://www.wargamevault.com/browse.php?keywords=blood+and+spectacles+&x=0&y=0&author=&artist=&pfrom=&pto=
-
Please no.
Frostgrave is ok. It's fun to a degree but it isn't flexible enough to be more than a treasure grabbing wizard off. That's not to say I don't like it, I have enjoyed games of it, but it is no where near flexible enough. You want more scenarios not involving treasure grabbing to win.
Not rules port to a new setting.
But game with similar style substance and rabbit fan interaction.
Idea nad execution of Frostgrave
-
Personally I also think we have arrived at a time when games don't have to be dictated by the limitations of a d6. Tabletop gaming is a popular and pretty mainstream past time and the old concept of using d6 because everyone has monopoly is a bit outdated now.
I'd push to d8 or d10 and allow for a lot more differentiation between troop types and weapons if desired.
I think this is an interesting observation. My friends and I have often discussed the idea of a game that would use a variety of different dice to resolve things.
-
On the different dice thing, I think I saw a game where models all had the same stats but rolled different dice depending on how powerful they were? So say your target number was a 3+ a scroat might get a d4 whereas captain mcdoogle fancy pants might roll a d20, ring any bells? Probably something on ash barkers YouTube channel? I like the simplicity of the idea.
-
The Fistful of Led engine uses this principle perfectly.
-
It's not new. Star Grunt used sliding die sizes. My grunts use d8s, Regulars, d10s and Heroes d12s.
-
I think this is a golden age for sci-fi gaming, I almost have too many rules choices for some projects. Smallest scale skirmish has Galactic Heroes, Pulp Alley, MDRG and Nordic Weasel's sets, I can move up to Gruntz for platoon on platoon, and up to (6mm) Strike Legion for company on company. Future War Commander for battalion scale.
And I'm probably forgetting some or not including some of the more specialized ones, like Samurai Robot Battle Royal and Mech Attack for mechs, Mighty Monsters for kaiju, and Fear and Faith for horror.
Chris
-
Stargrunt 2 was the first time I'd ever seen polyhedral dice and die-type shifts used in a game. I thought it was brilliant.
That said, my perception of the current trend is it's moving toward generic/miniature agnostic games, with a focus on skirmishes and small unit actions. Maybe some lite RPG elements.
Could be that's what I see 'cause that's what I'm looking for, but mass battles with larger scale miniatures (28mm) strike me as expensive, time consuming, demanding big play-area requirements. Nice spectacle, but not practical for most busy hobbyists who have other obligations.
I think folks partial to large, combined arms battles are shifting to small scales like 6, 10, 15mm, even 20mm. They're easier on the wallet proportionally, and don't require the same space.
-
On the different dice thing, I think I saw a game where models all had the same stats but rolled different dice depending on how powerful they were? So say your target number was a 3+ a scroat might get a d4 whereas captain mcdoogle fancy pants might roll a d20, ring any bells? Probably something on ash barkers YouTube channel? I like the simplicity of the idea.
I've seen it implemented a few times before, as others have mentioned in this thread. My group has yet to find anything that balances dice mechanics, crunch, interesting list building, etc. to perfectly meet our druthers.
-
Everyone thanks for the responses. I have just been wondering what people think about sci fi wargaming and what makes a good game. What I have seen is that 40k/GW continue to dominate the market with a few notable entries like Legion Making an appearance. Unfortunately the data points to army scale tournament driving community that seems to set the culture at most stores and other games pop up as an outlier. I was hopeful that Antares was going to be bigger than it is, but they had too slow a release schedule. It will be interesting to see how things change if the tarriffs happen.
Salcor
Salcor
-
It's not new. Star Grunt used sliding die sizes. My grunts use d8s, Regulars, d10s and Heroes d12s.
Fire and Fury did the same but for ACW.
-
I just want a dirt simple mecha game but they dont seem to exist.
-
I just want a dirt simple mecha game but they dont seem to exist.
I’ve been very happy with BattleTech Alpha Strike, it’s the update the game needed 25 years ago.
-
Take a look at Core Space, I know it lists itself as a board game but the potential is there.
I also thought rouge stars would scratch that itch but missed by a mile with the d20 mechanic. Core Space has every thing each figure is customizable and each is assigned a class (soldier, crew, enhanced, etc and each has diferent abilites). The figures are really nice not the over bulked out 40K clones. But what is great is the way the game focres you to cooperate with your opponent on occasion but against the ever increasing alien threat. Some times you even just have to cut and run back to your ship so you dont loss your guys. Some times you even have to bribe your opponent to take you on his ship, it has happened to us a couple of times.
What I like about it is that it has lots of depth without having to spend hours figuring out equipment types and combinations.
Think of it kind of like you are the crew of the Firefly and trying to get ahead, taking on missions and constantly haveing to pay for ship repairs.
The added bonus of fantastic terrain is just icing on the cake..
(https://battlesystemstws.files.wordpress.com/2019/04/yamato-colour-shot.png?w=584)
One of the great aspects of the game is the trader dash board.
(https://battlesystemstws.files.wordpress.com/2019/03/2019-03-25-blog-dashboards-equipment-example.jpg?w=584)
Here is the link to them. https://shop.battlesystems.co.uk/
-
I just want a dirt simple mecha game but they dont seem to exist.
Mech Attack is probably the simplest, and Samurai Robot Battle Royale isn't far behind (or ahead).
Chris
-
I like hard science fiction - Traveller, Stargrunt, etc. - vice space opera. Don't like the Warhammer 40K fantasy-based type versions of the future. I also don't like generic rules-sets of the sort that Osprey has been going to, where the mechanics and game design are so similar whether the game is medieval, pirate, or the future. The game should be grounded in its background material.
-
"A game should be grounded in its background material."
Sure, the game should reflect the setting but how many workable,efficacious miniature game/dice mechanisms are there before deja vu sets in?
I mean you can introduce any resolution mechanism, from flipping coins to tiddlywinks, but I've encountered a number of games that introduce 'unique' mechanics that end up being tedious or proprietary. "you have to buy our custom measuring gauges/special dice/cards/tokens/27.43mm bases..."
-
Rogue Stars has some good points, but seems to be aimed at having just about 4 figures
and using them a lot, so that you understand how your team works. Added to that is
a lot of fusing about to point things up. This is no good for reducing my lead mountain.
For 28mm I use Galactic Heroes. I can paint up whatever takes my fancy with little fuss.
I was, and still am, looking for a fun (squad based) set of rules for my 15mm collection.
Nothing so far, but I hope the Sci-Fi version of Dragon Rampant will do the job.
-
I like hard science fiction - Traveller, Stargrunt, etc. - vice space opera. Don't like the Warhammer 40K fantasy-based type versions of the future. I also don't like generic rules-sets of the sort that Osprey has been going to, where the mechanics and game design are so similar whether the game is medieval, pirate, or the future. The game should be grounded in its background material.
I actually agree with this to some extent. I think the mechanics of combat, most specifically but not the only aspect impacted, change as technology develops. There is a big difference in hitting a group of soldiers with a ACW era cannon, vice a WWII bomb; and another leap forward so something like a missile strike from a predator drone. What comes next, in the future, would most certainly improve on accuracy, the ability to engage multiple targets simultaneously, etc. Those are big changes in warfare.
While I don't care to play WH40K for personal financial reasons, I do like to read the books. If the books are the best indicator of how flawless a soldier a Space Marine is, the chance that they would miss an intended target is pretty limited, right? Advanced targeting, heightened senses and awareness, lack of fear and a battlefield survivability that shows marines carrying on a fight (dealing lethal blows to an enemy) while having half their body blown apart and mangled. That changes mechanics like suppression, route, etc.
Of course, all bets are off if you look at something like Star Wars where the galaxy is conquered, and defended, by myopic soldiers who can't hit the broad side of a barn even in tight quarters. lol
Somewhere, recently, I read an overview of a rule set (space opera/distant future sci-fi) that assumed all shots fired would be hits. The game only resolved the effect of a hit, not whether it happened. At first I rolled my eyes, but as I got to thinking about it I figured it might not be that wrong. At least for something like an elite/well drilled soldier. I think that mechanics start to look like deja vu, because we see the world through our limited perspective. We assume that shots fired will miss, and perhaps that makes games interesting. We assume that soldiers shot at won't charge headlong into certain death (or at least assume that some heroic test of wills would be needed to do so). We assume that many centuries into the future we will still have guns with bullets and magazines, even if they are bigger and sport skulls and shoot exploding rounds. All of that assumes a very 20-21st century understanding of warfare, and so long as you start from that perspective I think you will always see a few similar ways to skin the cat.
-
Somewhere, recently, I read an overview of a rule set (space opera/distant future sci-fi) that assumed all shots fired would be hits. The game only resolved the effect of a hit, not whether it happened. At first I rolled my eyes, but as I got to thinking about it I figured it might not be that wrong. At least for something like an elite/well drilled soldier. I think that mechanics start to look like deja vu, because we see the world through our limited perspective. We assume that shots fired will miss, and perhaps that makes games interesting. We assume that soldiers shot at won't charge headlong into certain death (or at least assume that some heroic test of wills would be needed to do so). We assume that many centuries into the future we will still have guns with bullets and magazines, even if they are bigger and sport skulls and shoot exploding rounds. All of that assumes a very 20-21st century understanding of warfare, and so long as you start from that perspective I think you will always see a few similar ways to skin the cat.
I tried to make a far future game once where weapons were powerful enough to eat through cover and had unlimited range. The main challenge was penetration vs. armor, facing, and detection/non-detection. It ended up being really boring to play as there were no tactics to it. Why bother doing anything other than shooting away at long range? There was no reason. I had to go back and re-jigger the detection/non-detection a lot more to encourage movement rather than discourage it.
I submit, that a designer needs to think more about how to stimulate fire and maneuver, and tactical gameplay in a sci-fi game and make the fluff fit the needs of the game to be fun.
-
I know the thread title says "Wargame", and most games we play are indeed just that, wargames.
Sci-fi though, more than other genre, lends itself to non-fighting action though. If that's something you desire, that's a totally different ballpark. If you are doing a Star Trek-esque game, or something of that sort, it may be based on collecting data, performing experiments, diplomacy, etc. etc. vs. "how well can I shoot this other fellow.".
Games like that take a lot more time and effort to produce.
One thing to take solace in is that you're unlikely to reinvent the wheel. It's also not necessary unless you stumble on something terribly fun and it catches on. I currently sell only one of my games (an Old West title), though I have numerous games I've built for fun. I frequently get people saying "Oh, so the mechanic is like ________?" and they mention some game I've never heard of. There's not much you can do with dice, tokens or cards that hasn't existed on the tabletop somewhere.
There are a number of reasons people buy games, so you just need to nail one or two of them to have some basic selling capacity:
1) Nostalgia
2) Gorgeous artwork, design
3) Clever gameplay
4) Intuitive and smooth gameplay
5) Fun gameplay
6) Cheap rules
7) Simple but intuitive rules
8) Complex and "deep" rules
9) Gorgeous models (if you're doing models with your game)
10) Great suitability for preferred playstyle (co-op, competitive, narrative, etc.)
Ideally you hit 5-6 of those, but people buy games for loads of reasons. I've bought rule sets because they were cheap, or because they had awesome art, or because I loved the IP (even if the game sucked). Sometimes just because I trusted the publisher and thought "how bad can it be". Sometimes I want a fun beer and pretzels game, and sometimes I want to get stuck in to a 4 hour nail-biting game.
There's so much scope in sci-fi, I think you just choose what you enjoy...and make the best game you can. Don't try to be everything at once, or it'll probably fail. I admit my primary goal when someone buys my product is very simply that they don't feel like they wasted their money (i.e. quality components, well written rules). I've paid money for some rules PDFs that have been...shockingly lazily assembled/written, and that's never fun.
-
It's not new. Star Grunt used sliding die sizes. My grunts use d8s, Regulars, d10s and Heroes d12s.
Afaik it was first employed by Deadlands: The Great Railwars a rather excellent skirmish system, which sadly never took off, and imo suffered from too many crazy models instead of focusing on Wild West. The engine now lives on in the Savage World group of RPGs which can also be used very well for tabletop skirmish games.
-
Afaik it was first employed by Deadlands: The Great Railwars a rather excellent skirmish system, which sadly never took off, and imo suffered from too many crazy models instead of focusing on Wild West. The engine now lives on in the Savage World group of RPGs which can also be used very well for tabletop skirmish games.
Stargrunt is almost s decade older, and even final edition Stargrunt II is older than Great Railwars
-
What's needed is a 'generic' sci-fi 'warband' size game. Forces should be customizable to match whatever miniatures you have. Focus on scenarios and not "fluff" as most people will fill that in anyway. It needs solid, interesting rules mechanisms. And, yes a "points" system. It needs to be physically published and available to retailers both B&M and online. Forget kickstarter.
Easy Peasy
Well Gates of Antares was too damn slow. They had a big window to scoop up 40k players who were unhappy with 7th ed but didnt get their plastics or starter set out until 8th ed hit whixh got alot if people interested in 40k again. That and the rules are needlessly dense at times. As for breachstorm ? It just looks mediocre, it uses the same generic mass effect design that 80% of sci fi art and games use these days.
This. Though I see gamers doing it themselves quite often lately. Dragon Rampant and Warlords of Erewhon both have fan made dci fi lists.
Quoted for truth
Its has to be what Rogue Stars promised but failed to deliver.
We need Stargrave :>
I, for one, would be appreciative of easy game mechanics, fast play, and character development that creates a moderate RPG type feel. I'm also grateful for a solid AI system. I typically play solo, and when I get to sucker (sweet talk?) my wife into playing with me I can't try to play a game and teach her some crunchy system that requires four tutorial games before something interesting happens.
Scale, I am starting to lean heavily towards 15mm. Entry point is easier on my wallet when I want to jump sideways. Skirmish level all the way down to single character would be my choice. I don't want to have a faceless army of hundreds when I can care about 1-5 characters. I can't imagine anything worse, for me, than something that looks like tournament play. Points are fine, but sometimes the good guys should be outnumbered and sometimes the good guys show up with overwhelming force to put down a minor annoyance. I don't need a system to tell me how to balance or write my scenarios, but I'm happy enough to take some feedback from the creator as to what a good unit looks like compared to a bad one. Maybe it is the D&D player in me that thinks "one guy vs a dragon? Sounds like an adventure!" lol
I liked test game we played. I think its OK system.
But mechanics are made unnecessary complicated (seriously, most of the traits just give +1 to +3 bonus to a test - why make them super complicated just to avoid saying +1 to test..) and difficult, and its just hard game to chew into.
It just fail to deliver excitement and be gaming friendly.
I can create Frostgrave Wizards and crews fir fun with paper and pencil and have interesting time without actual game play.
In RS its tiresome exercise in futility that always put me off.
And I like complicated rule sets and have fun with creating Inquisitor retinues.
Thats why I asked for Stargrave.
Game with similar traits.
I am yet unable to find unfortunately.
This exists, and its free. Please check out Starbreach.com (http://Starbreach.com). You're gonna love it. Enjoy!
Please no.
Frostgrave is ok. It's fun to a degree but it isn't flexible enough to be more than a treasure grabbing wizard off. That's not to say I don't like it, I have enjoyed games of it, but it is no where near flexible enough. You want more scenarios not involving treasure grabbing to win.
If anything, I would say Saga is a better model.
But for me, you want to be able to field forces as few as 20 models perhaps in fire teams of 3-5 up to squads of 8-10 say.
Personally I also think we have arrived at a time when games don't have to be dictated by the limitations of a d6. Tabletop gaming is a popular and pretty mainstream past time and the old concept of using d6 because everyone has monopoly is a bit outdated now.
I'd push to d8 or d10 and allow for a lot more differentiation between troop types and weapons if desired.
One of the issues 40k now has is that whilst they have a vaster array of unit options and types to select from as well as equipment, most of the differentiation is how many dice you roll. It gets a bit tedious after a while. And the balance between combat and shooting is daft.
Back on point, focus on saga sized games but with the ability to have small units that can be played on smaller tables. Mass Battle stuff is more than catered for and I feel a bit of a dying breed in many ways.
Frostgrave, Saga, Mantic's Vanguard, Moonstone, Infinity and various other successful games in recent years have proven that the market for proper skirmish games is really thriving.
100% agree with how you feel about Frostgrave. I used to demo Frostgrave like it was my religion at conventions a few years back. But after playing and witnessing literally over 100 games, it was very obviously flawed. Not broken, but in major need of some updates. I reached out to Joseph with a massive report of my findings, game stats and suggestions for edit for an errata or second edition. He wrote back thanking me for my time, but it was obvious he was already getting pulled into the machine and working on expansions and such (instead of what should have been a few key revisions). Thus, I took what I learned and eventually created Star Breach. Starbreach.com (http://Starbreach.com). I hope you check it out and like what you find! It's free! Enjoy!
-
If we are talking about how to build a game to sell..... don't.
Instead, design a game you want to play. If you do that, chances are there is a market out there.
-
Hi guys. I was in the same boat as you: wanting a set of sci-fi skirmish rules, but unsatisfied with the what was on the market. I've been working on a set myself and thought others might be interested.
I'm still play testing, but you might be able to get a feel of the quirks of my game in my latest blog post (https://1000footgeneral.blogspot.com/2019/07/star-schlock-bad-80s-sci-fi-movies-as.html).
I still have a way to go, but thought you might want to take a look.
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ukSnBG2FLDM/XSO4HLQTsRI/AAAAAAAAQTA/56I5SKVTCrkC3OXETTsGnMXuylWq-o2YQCKgBGAs/s1600/IMG_6055.JPG)
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ELugX6pGJsc/XSO37OOpucI/AAAAAAAAQS8/acytCP39ZzMQgXINIKUpDR8TKEQ1ZooZgCKgBGAs/s1600/IMG_6053.JPG)
-
My scifi game requirements are simply written but very hard to meet.
1. Realistic technologies and Ranges - we already have the ability to kill each other long before we can read the enemy's name badge; we wont get worse at it in the future. If I have to drive my thudding great tank closer to you so I can hit you with my nonsensically huge chain saw then you have failed. Likewise I want science fiction not wizards in space. Scifi wargaming should not be about driving headlong into the middle of a board and effecting melee like some 1950's hollywood western saloon brawl.
2. Combined theatres with meaningful C&C - many games skirmish well with a few infantry but have generic added on rules for vehicles that treat every piece of mechanised equipment identically. Conversely some rulesets have great detail and differentiation of vehicles but dont cope well with infantry. Most fail to include off board artillery, aerospace and orbital strikes at all. A lot of this should be reflected in a Command & Control system that recognises the critical role of information and communications while still maintaining uncertainty around the fog of war and complexity in executing plans.
3. Scale and model agnostic - I want to play small 28mm hero based skirmishes and 6mm sweeping battles with the same forces and feel of the universe i am inhabiting. I want the campaign ability to mix these types of game together in a longer narrative and have a feel for character and unit development over time. Don't tie your rules to a model range that means I have to think your re-imagining of lizards in space is 'cool'.
4. Fluff free - Playing games is about imagination. I use mine. Stop forcing your derivative background on me. Spend the time caressing game mechanics that work, not writing poor source material because you think you're a competent author - you're usually not.
5. Competent Rulebook design - Learn something about technical documentation and information presentation before you start. I've seen many rulesets that have some interesting ideas but fail to convey them. Rulebooks are often verbose, poorly organised and unreferenced, but have lavish and expensive art work and filler that does little more than pad the book out and make it more expensive and harder to read. A rulebook is a technical document, not a novel or a coffee table art book, they are very different and if you cant even provide an index then you're not dating my daughter.
6. NON-ANTHROPOMORPHIC ROBOTS - I could rant about this for days - and have done on other forums. A bipedal or multi-limbed configuration is an exceptionally inefficient platform for any kind of vehicle. It's ridiculous from every perspective including engineering, logistics and operational performance. There are simply better ways of designing almost every required system than to force fit any of it into an anthropomorphic frame. If you really feel you MUST have 50m tall walking robots then put them in a section or supplement where i can safely ignore them without your game being broken
6 is more of a personal pet hate, but I believe 1-5 should be the aim of a competent independent game designer working in the sci-fi field.
It may be the holy grail, and certainly I've not found any system that meets al these needs though a combination of stargrunt and dirtside came close-ish.
I remain pessimistic that such a ruleset exists, but hopeful I can be proved wrong.
-
As far as I know there might be a set of rules along the Lion Rampant rules in the future . i would stick to that as i like the mechanics.
-
Getting back into tabletop after a break of many years it has been a challenge getting up to speed on what is available to scratch my sci- fi itch. Even more complicating is that my wife has to like it too.
I showed her 40k even though I was not too excited to go back down that road and she was immediately put off by the grimdark aspect.
She liked the idea of a Star Wars game because she likes the IP but the costs put her off as she thinks our budget should focus on fantasy not sci-fi.... although she made an exception to let me get into Dropfleet after I won some good auctions on eBay.
But much as I love Dropfleet it does not completely satisfy our sci-fi interests.... particularly 28mm miniature painting and terrain building. Dropzone just does not do it for us with the 10mm scale. Nor do we follow the current taste in 15mm.
Gates of Antares looked ok to me although it seems a development of Bolt Action and that game just did not capture my imagination well, it just felt too tournament streamlined. Maybe because I stuck so closely to the rules instead of developing house rules and unbalanced scenarios. Additionally my wife was not that keen on the art work, proprietary miniatures or fluff.
We looked at Star Saga, a bit of a sci-fi dungeon crawl. My wife and I both liked the miniatures, luke warm on the setting fluff, and were concerned it was quite a narrow experience.... more board game than table top. But maybe it could serve as a gateway into the other Mantic sci-fi games? Either way, I plan on getting Mantic sci-fi miniatures for other projects if nothing else.
Because of this forum I found out about Stargrunt... which looks great to me as an old school wargamer and former Infantry NCO. However my wife feels it is a bit one dimensional due to focusing just on war. She wants to play a space exploration tabletop with combat but also non-combat sci-fi elements. Star Trek away team type themes. We talked about Frostgrave in space with each game being on a new planet with surprise terrain and miniatures... but it would be nice to have more depth than the Frostgrave series of games. Solo play, campaign narrative.... more Rangers of Shadowdeep in space than Frostgrave I suppose.
So as you can see, our needs are quite complex and probably fairly niche. A game with rpg aspects, solo play option, generic miniature friendly...and not too complicated so more time can be spent playing than referencing rule books. No easy task!
-
Have you looked at Core Space by Battle Systems? That may be something approximating what you're after.
-
4. Fluff free - Playing games is about imagination. I use mine. Stop forcing your derivative background on me. Spend the time caressing game mechanics that work, not writing poor source material because you think you're a competent author - you're usually not.
I don't think I've ever read anything about fantasy or sci-fi rulesets that I've agreed with more! :D
I was just thinking that one of the great strengths of Hordes of the Things is the way that it encourages players to look to mythology or fantasy literature for their army lists. The sci-fi equivalent is probably Alien Squad Leader, with its highly generic army lists, but the full HotT approach should be just as applicable to sci-fi as to fantasy: that is, armies can be drawn from a list of element types, so that the flavour of the armies comes from the elements it contains and their interaction, rather than from fiddly features of each element or troop type.
This approach is probably more relevant to science fiction, as highly developed technology is likely to result in more comparable troop and vehicle types rather than fewer - because there will be a convergence on the optimal way of doing things.
-
However my wife feels it is a bit one dimensional due to focusing just on war. She wants to play a space exploration tabletop with combat but also non-combat sci-fi elements. Star Trek away team type themes. We talked about Frostgrave in space with each game being on a new planet with surprise terrain and miniatures... but it would be nice to have more depth than the Frostgrave series of games. Solo play, campaign narrative.... more Rangers of Shadowdeep in space than Frostgrave I suppose.
So as you can see, our needs are quite complex and probably fairly niche. A game with rpg aspects, solo play option, generic miniature friendly...and not too complicated so more time can be spent playing than referencing rule books. No easy task!
So a few ideas would be Void Pirates (or its big brother Blasters and Bulkheads) from Four Color Studios though maybe not for solo play; Nordic Weasel Games has what seems like a dozen sci-fi skirmish rulesets, some like Clash on the Fringe, Five Parsecs From Home or Starport Scum might work. Rogue Stars (Osprey) maybe too.
-
You may also like Fistful of Lead: Galactic Heroes. There's no background fluff so you can fill your own in to suit taste, interests and figure collection. It doesn't all have to be about fighting either.
-
So a few ideas would be Void Pirates (or its big brother Blasters and Bulkheads) from Four Color Studios though maybe not for solo play; Nordic Weasel Games has what seems like a dozen sci-fi skirmish rulesets, some like Clash on the Fringe, Five Parsecs From Home or Starport Scum might work. Rogue Stars (Osprey) maybe too.
Might also take a look at 5150 and its kindred rules from 2 Hour Wargames. They have a strong emphasis on solo or "PVE" gaming (to borrow a term from MMORPGs) and some of the rule sets have the same kind of light RPG feel that you might get from (say) Necromunda or Mordheim. The mechanics can be kind of weirdly hard to grasp from a quick read, but become intuitive after you play a bit.
-
Thanks for the recommendations, I will have a look. My apologies if I derailed the thread.
-
I think if you are looking for a fun, generic, cinematic action game where you create some heroes and villains (and followers) fighting over story elements, you should give Pulp Alley a gander.
-
Many of us have hundreds of scifi minis collecting dust while we fight over tiny 3x3 mats with 5 or 6 minis.
Skirmish is fun, most of the games mentioned are fun, but I want a skirmish game that will also allow for larger games.
Why can't one of you smart guys write a fun game that lets us play with a few models or a few hundred?
I thoroughly enjoy campaigns with 5 or 6 squabble to skirmish games that escalate/culminate into a glorious large fight.
-
Allowing for personal taste, degrees of detail and varying emphasis on command or morale and such, when it comes to transitioning from 5 to 6 man skirmishes to 50 or 60 in an all out brawl, the only real difference I see is a 'unit' shifts from an individual model - with particular stats and abilities - to a group of models with the same, just more fire power and wounds. The trick for mass combat games seems to be how to handle large quantities of miniatures smoothly and efficiently.
I'm not sure you can scale rules for individuals up to squads/platoon level without serious abstraction and simplification. I mean, you're not gaming with hundreds of individuals, each with their own unique stats. You have simply grouped 50 or 60 miniatures into 5 or 6 or 7 units. In the end, aren't you just back at the skirmish level - but with loads more dice and models?
-
My understanding is that Wiley Games is developing a version of Fist Full of Lead to play games of 20 or more figs per side. I’m not sure about the timeline to release, but it could be a good option. If it is also mg the lines of the other FFoL titles, it should be pretty straight forward to adapt the ‘big skirmish’ version to sci fi, even if official rules for that aren’t in the initial release.
-
Those are good points Dentalus. Another challenge for abstraction is that modern (and presumably future) squads don’t tend to consist of identically armed troops - SAWs and other specialists provide a large proportion of the firepower in a manoeuvre element.
I liked how Stargrunt2 handled that, with riflemen contributing some firepower points, which combined to form firepower dice, while each specialist contributed entire dice. A buddy decided to minimax and take all specialists, then discovered that his squads collapsed very quickly when taking any casualties- there are some nuances there in putting effective units together.
A more current set of rules should be able to accomplish something similar and account for a non-uniform distribution of firepower within tactical units.
-
She wants to play a space exploration tabletop with combat but also non-combat sci-fi elements. Star Trek away team type themes.
This would be my ideal game too. Closest I've come to it is using Pulp Alley plot points to provide non combat problems that need solving. Galactic Heroes does it to a certain extent with different levels of tasks and that's what I am currently using. I did think about adding character traits eg Charisma gives a +1 to the Captain attempting to charm someone, but it adds another level of bookkeeping, and then the question then becomes how much does a skirmish game become a RPG-lite game?
-
Right. At what point do you simply shift to a straight up RPG with decent, streamlined combat mechanics?
I'm going to build a long-term campaign around the RPG 'Band of Blades' fluff, but am currently considering a modified 'Advanced Song of Blades and Heroes' for combat. Or maybe I'll modify the dice mechanics I used in Hardwired. Dunno. Point is I'm trying to get both RPG and war game to mesh in a way I like. That's where my gaming tastes are right now.
If I can occasionally portray the party in the middle of a larger war, involved on a large field of battle, so much the better.