Help support TMP


"Galactic Control BETA Re-Write" Topic


6 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Playtest Message Board

Back to the Game Design Message Board

Back to the 15mm Sci-Fi Message Board

Back to the SF Discussion Message Board


659 hits since 20 May 2011
©1994-2014 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Armchair Assassin dotcom Inactive Member20 May 2011 4:35 a.m. PST

After a few months strenuous work, I and the play tester have completely re-written the Galactic Control core rules bringing them to version 0.73.

A lot of the feedback we received was that the rules were to similar to Warhammer 40k, and that many of the mechanics were clunky and not very streamlined. To this end, we have completely gutted the previous version and re-written a majority of it.

The rules have moved away from the I-GO-YOU-GO turn mechanic to a variation of the unit activation mechanic. We have also strived to add heaps of examples for players to better understand the rules as well as tried to streamline the rules to make them easier to use in game and easier to understand when reading them. Diagrams and tables will be added in the final version.

This is a simple version of the rules without all the introduction parts and is very printer friendly.

It would be great to get some feedback on this re-write, as we are pretty excited with the changes and were curious on what the community thinks of them.

In particular we are still debating the following areas of the rules:

- Break Tests (when should a unit go from broken to panicked to shock)
- Charging (should a unit get a attack with a charge)

Please be aware that this version of the rules has not yet hit the editor, so the only review of the rules has been a simple spell check.

You can download the new rules by clicking this link

The BETA army lists can also be found by clicking this link

The website including the forums are located at galacticcontrol.com

Cheers,

Jason

Rodney Inactive Member20 May 2011 8:12 a.m. PST

Regarding your question about charging: As someone who has fought both with and without weapons for 30+ years in several martial disciplines, I will say that the only time a "charge" would give anyone on foot an advantage in a 1-on-1 fight is if the person receiving the charge is intimidated or scared enough that he hesitates, cowers or backs off. Otherwise, charging is over committing and, as they say in the Filipino martial arts, he who over commits is dead.

Of course, that's reality, and giving the charging model a bonus in the first round of melee is an old, hoary tradition in the wargaming world. It also helps to keep the game moving, which many games need or they become long range shoot-fests.

If your game has pacing issues, then yes, you probably want to have a bonus for charging to induce players to get at it.

Cheers!

- Rod

Armchair Assassin dotcom Inactive Member20 May 2011 9:18 a.m. PST

It's not so much a pacing issue as a fairness issue.

Currently the rules dictate that a unit can perform two actions in an activation. If a unit uses one action to move and another to charge, this will not allow the unit to fight in that activation. The opposing player can then use two actions to perform close combat, potentially destroying the charging unit.

There are two points of view on this:

1) the charging player should be more careful of how an activation is used so as not to get into that type of situation.

2) A unit that gains a 'free' close combat on a charge might have an unfair bonus.

delta6ct Supporting Member of TMP20 May 2011 11:31 a.m. PST

Many rules have both sides fight in close combat. Why not just do that? Otherwise, if one side charges another side who is not suppressed and can spend two actions fighting back in their next turn, maybe the attacker deserves to get beat up…

Mike

Rodney Inactive Member20 May 2011 11:52 a.m. PST

I think I see what you are saying. You are right – allowing a charging model to get a free attack in the end in essence allows it to perform a free action.

It's as much a problem of perspective as it is of equity. Action points are a way to indicate what can be done in a set amount of time while allowing more choices than a phased turn model.

The easiest way out is to make a move a move – eliminate charge as an action. Therefore, if a model can get in range in its first action it would get to attack, but not otherwise.

Another option, and one I used in "Habet, Hoc Habet!" is that the charging model does get to attack, but it is penalized defensively until its next action due to its focus on attacking versus protecting himself. With this model you can have your charge+free attack mechanic, but if the charging model doesn't get the job done he is much easier prey until he gets a chance to regain his composure (i.e. when next activated). This has the advantage of adding just a touch of realism (the vulnerability of a model committed to attacking, alluded to in my first post), while giving the attacker incentive and risk at the same time, i.e. more risk/reward to consider, making for a deeper and perhaps more enjoyable game.

Cheers!

- Rod

Armchair Assassin dotcom Inactive Member20 May 2011 5:08 p.m. PST

Many rules have both sides fight in close combat. Why not just do that? Otherwise, if one side charges another side who is not suppressed and can spend two actions fighting back in their next turn, maybe the attacker deserves to get beat up…

Mike

Because that would defeat the purpose of an action system.

The easiest way out is to make a move a move eliminate charge as an action. Therefore, if a model can get in range in its first action it would get to attack, but not otherwise.

That's a good point. I'll run that one by the play tester.

Sorry - only trusted members can post on the forums.