"Transformers "Beast" forms: how to represent them...?" Topic

I've been working on some small-scale (c. 1:144/N-scale/Micro Machines sized) Transformers-like miniatures and rules for same.

Obviously Transformers should have at least two forms (I'm representing them by using two different miniatures that can be swapped back and forth during the game).

Some can combine together (five smaller robots makes one larger one) and again I've got that covered rules- and model-wise.

I can find ways to include the many and varied vehicle forms that are possible – chiefly by defining each one as belonging to one of several broad categories (jets, helicopters, cars/bikes, trucks/APCs, tanks) each of which has different move rates and modes, ability to dodge attacks, armour and so on.

Robot modes are versatile in that they have a range of options – medium speed and armour, ranged weapons and the ability to attack in melee – which many of the "specialised" vehicle modes lack.

What I'm stumped by, though, is the "beast" modes – Transformers that turn from robot into giant gorilla, jaguar, dragon or dinosaur.

In rules terms, what should the "point" of such a transformation be in your opinions? How would a beast be different from a humanoid robot in a way that was balanced (to encourage switching back and forth during the game)?

Depends on the beast form. From your examples, a gorilla form might grant greater agility or speed of movement through difficult terrain. A jaguar form might grant greater land speed, agility and possibly stealth (if your rules would accommodate this). A dragon would grant flight. A dinosaur might grant a more powerful 'bite', 'claw' or 'stomp' close combat attack.

In all cases, there could be a pay-off loss to balance the gains. The most obvious possibility is a loss of ranged firepower attacks (unless the beast mode has ranged weapons too, or, say, dragon breath). Again, this is dependant on the individual Transformer and setting (G1, BW, 2007 movie, etc).

Incidentally, I'd be very interested to know more about your rules system and the minis you're using – I've been thinking about doing something like this for more years than I can remember!

Thanks Parmenion. I'm trying to keep it as as simple (read: generic) as possible. A Porsche is no different than a Lamborghini or F1 racer, for instance (well, advanced rules would let you tweak this… but at least for starters, a car is a car is a car, and perhaps the "beasts" should be similar).

SO; faster, better in melee (or at least more brutal/damaging if not subtle and adept at fancy footwork!)?

I'll let you know when everything is in a more finished state.

In the meantime I'd be interested in hearing any other ideas.

Keeping the effects of similar vehicles fairly generic makes sense if you're looking at having a number of different combatants in play at once. How about categorising beast forms in the same way? For example:

Flyer – self-explanatory, including dragons, birds, winged dinosaurs or insects.
Monster – any brutish creature built for dealing damage rather than speed or agility, such as large dinosaurs. Bonuses to close combat attacks/damage.
Hunter – wolves, big cats, etc. Increased speed, agility and (if your rules permit it) stealth.
Crawler – mostly insectoids/arachnids, capable of traversing all kinds of terrain including vertical walls/ceilings.
Prowler – sort of an 'all terrain vehicle' category but for beasts, with no increase in speed but greater agility and movement through difficult terrain, and possibly better 'cover' bonuses (presuming your rules apply cover modifiers) to represent them making best use of terrain. I would see this covering any kind of rodents, apes or monkeys, possibly others. The gorilla form would either be here or under 'monster', depending on how the behaviour was envisaged.

How are those for starters? I like them because they all end in "-er".

As for other ideas – if you can share the details of any other areas or concepts you're currently working on, I'll be happy to chip in with my thoughts.

I always wanted Transformer rules that used the stats that were on the back of the original boxes. You needed to use that little red plastic thing to read them.

The only one that was tricky because of transforming was speed. I would guess you would need different scales for the different forms. Vehicle speed of 10 would be faster than a robot form of speed 10, etc.

I should have made that clear – yes, the intention is to have quite a few models on the table. Less of a character-based skirmish roleplaying game, more of a wargame.

This means that there isn't a huge amount of detail at the individual level: as mentioned, two transformers might turn into different brands of car, but their in-game performance would be identical.

This also means that wound, ammo and status tracking is done away with as much as possible; transformers are either fighting fit, or they've been hit sufficiently hard to be "taken down" – at the start of their next turn they'll then get to test to see if they can repair any damage and drag themselves to their feet, or if they're out of the fight for good. And so long as a transformer is still on its feet it can shoot or duke it out with the best of them.

This isn't exactly a radical concept – I imagine many players will recognise it from other games such as Necromunda – but I like the tension it adds. Incidentally, even the evil Decepticons never came across as being particularly malicious so I'm thinking that – unlike, say, Necromunda – you will not be able to sink the boot into a downed transformer. You just have to wait and see if they get up again, and if they do, then you can hit them some more. As most transformers will have a fairly mobile vehicle form another strategy would be to quickly move away to help out in other battles elsewhere on the table.

One idea I'm looking at is using as few "templates" as possible for the alternate forms (jet, heli, car, truck, tank) and then allowing upgrades to be bought to differentiate individuals. This allows some detail to be added back in to suit those more of Hexxenhammer's taste. Still, I think it's important for the system of upgrades to remain simple – and for this reason I'm liking the idea of universally applicable upgrades that have the same effect on ANY vehicle form.

e.g. jet + Military Vehicle upgrade = a jet form that can fire ranged weapons.

e.g. tank + Military Vehicle upgrade = a tank form that can fire ranged weapons. (incidentally a non-military tank might be something like a bulldozer)

So in each case the movement rate, armour and ability to dodge don't change. They just gain an additional ability, and in particular, an ability that robot forms always have and vehicle forms usually don't have. Thus buying upgrades allows you to change the balance between the effectiveness of robot and vehicle forms.

In a similar vein, then, I was thinking that perhaps the beast transformers could be represented by an upgrade.

For instance:

e.g. jet + Beast Form upgrade = a fast-moving aerial form that can attack in melee.

e.g. tank + Beast Form upgrade = a slow-moving, heavily armoured ground-based form that can attack in melee.

Again, players would be free to choose the category of "vehicle mode" that they felt best represented their transformer's beast mode: is it fast but fragile, or slow but hard-hitting, etc.

I haven't included rules for stealth or climbing yet – will have to look at both.

I should have made that clear – yes, the intention is to have quite a few models on the table. Less of a character-based skirmish roleplaying game, more of a wargame.

I can see where you're coming from with this, though I'm not sure if this approach might lose something of the source material. Transformers in its various incarnations has traditionally been very character-driven, with most individuals having unique quirks and abilities. To me, this is a large part of the appeal, and what separates Transformers from the "robotic legions" of other sci-fi settings. However, if you're trying to go for substantial levels of engagements then I agree that it would be easier to work with a more generic approach.

Incidentally, even the evil Decepticons never came across as being particularly malicious so I'm thinking that – unlike, say, Necromunda – you will not be able to sink the boot into a downed transformer.

This comment makes me wonder again which version of Transformers is the source of your inspiration. Is it the 2007 movie? In the 1985 movie, for example, there's all sorts of foul play by Decepticons, including Megatron blasting a wounded and defenceless Ironhide in the head at point blank range and killing him!

I'd suggest that Decepticons should certainly be able to attack downed combatants, but that Autobots couldn't. I'm not sure how that would be counterbalanced in game terms though – perhaps Autobots could have a morale bonus for rallying to the heroic cause, if your game includes morale rules?

One idea I'm looking at is using as few "templates" as possible for the alternate forms (jet, heli, car, truck, tank) and then allowing upgrades to be bought to differentiate individuals. This allows some detail to be added back in to suit those more of Hexxenhammer's taste. Still, I think it's important for the system of upgrades to remain simple – and for this reason I'm liking the idea of universally applicable upgrades that have the same effect on ANY vehicle form.

This makes sense, and with the right foundation of templates and combinations of upgrades it's possible to generate quite a degree of variety in a relatively simplistic way. A number of skirmish games already do something similar – I'm thinking of the abilities in the likes of Songs of Blades and Heroes or Ares, though they don't make use of basic templates in the way you describe.

The examples you've given make sense, and I could see how the "beast" upgrade could be applied to grant a melee attack to a standard "vehicle" template. Without knowing the details of all your vehicle templates it's hard to be sure, but I expect this could be used to simulate most beast modes.

I'm trying not to align my rules with any specific version of the whole transformers idea – that way lies divisive madness, I think. Instead, I hope they could cover any movie / comic / TV series you apply them to. The inbuilt flexibility of points- and ability-based characterisation will ulimately allow players to choose whether they prefer generic non-upgraded figures or, at the other extreme, named models based on specific characters with more complicated powers, and I think that will be enough to allow any of the transformers' incarnations to be represented.

I fear there have simply been too many rewrites and "do-overs" of the [storyline, characters, technology, world…] to try and develop a ruleset that would already contain enough specific details to appeal to everyone.

That is, I don't believe you could please both fans of "transformers franchise A" and "transformers franchise B", unless through a ruleset that strips the setting down to its basic, ignoring specifics and going for a general 'feels right' approach (and then, potentially, adding details back in on a case-by-case basis if you feel they're needed).

Re: the side discussion about killing "downed" characters; I don't know if I watched the movie when I was younger but I certainly saw a few of the cartoons, read some of the books and comics, etc. That was enough to convince me that the Decepticons subscribed to the classic over-confident Bond villain approach: take prisoners, lock them up somewhere improbable, and leave them to escape… then blame Starscream. As such they seemed to value defeated Autobots more alive than dead.

Megatron could have a special ability that allowed him to finish off KO'd enemies, but I believe he would be a relatively rare special case. Of course, once the upgrade exists, any model can take it, so again if you so chose you could assign it to all Decepticons if that fit your idea of how they "should" be.

The whole "noble Autobots vs despicable Decepticons" thing would be represented in-game by the inclusion of human civilians and other targets, which one side would have to protect from the other. But I'm a while away from thinking about the actual mechanics of that aspect of the game.

Sound reasoning all round, I think.