"Sharing figures activation in solo skirmish game" Topic

Hi guys,

I just want to share an activation mechanism I designed yesterday, for a solo skirmish game I'm making. It will handle 5 figures, but you might be able to stretch it to 10.

I'm a huge fan of THW rules, so it may bear some resemblances. But I think it's quite different.

The rules I'm designing is for post-apoc. Like THW rules, figure only has 1 stat, Level (or Rep if you wish ;). There's only 3 Levels: 3 (Rookies), 4 (Regulars), and 5 (Veterans).

The mechanism is as follows.

You roll a number of d6, equal to the number of figures you control. This is your Initiative dice. Assign 1 die to each of your figure.

For the hostile figures (die contolled, remember this is a solo game), I just roll 1 d6 for each figure. They don't have the privilege to choose from a pool.

Before the game proceed, each figure should have an Initiative die. Now, figures with higher number goes first. In case of equals, player's figures always go first.

The catch is, if the number on a figure's Initiative die is higher than its LVL, the figure can only use Half Actions. Otherwise, the figure can use Full Actions.

Full Actions are:
Move, then shoot
Run
Make an aimed shot

Half Actions are:
Move
Shoot

There are some other rules (such as Op Fire and Suppression), but that's the gist of it. The point is, you can elect to go faster, but your actions may be limited. Better characters have better chance to go faster while retaining the full action. And you can still be screwed by the dice ;).

I hope this is useful for someone.

Why not just make it 2 actions vs 1 action. This avoids a bit of argument over semantics.

A figure which has initiative can do more than a figure without it.

There are several things. One is that Full Actions are not always equal to two Half Actions.

For example, Run is not 2 x Move. You have to make the decision before you do it. You can't do this: Move (getting shot at), and then decide to extra move (Run), or Shoot, depending on how your condition after getting shot at.

Then there are several special actions related to the thematic background that require you to be in that condition (yes, there are actions that can only be done when you're at Half Actions).

Finally, it's just the way I'm writing rules. As you mentioned, it's just semantics. Why argue over it?

Who's arguing?

The potential for argument is present in any game system. If you don't have first hand experience with the WRG 5th, 6th, and 7th debates, then talk to someone who participated in tournaments back then, those were a nightmare. Having run 40k and WFB tournaments myself certain rules, even with an FAQ IN HAND which clearly stated how a rule was to be applied, were still a source of contention for players.

Thus, to have rules written clearly, with no ambiguity, and which leave so little room for gross misinterpretation is a positive selling point, and gaming point, in a good set of rules.

You already have given us "half actions" and "full actions" but then stated that the full action of Run is not 2x that of Move, a half action. You see where there is a slight problem in this?

Resolving the issue is up to you, I only gave a suggestion based on what you shared.

Another possible way is to just give a list for Initiative Actions and Non-Initiative Actions, specifically delineating what range of actions the figures can do, based on their init score, but not adding in the rules lawyering fodder of "half" and "full".

Writing a good set of rules that people will want to play is a hard enough task. Writing rules that will require you to again and again deal with people who insist that their interpretation is more accurate than yours will be a source of endless headaches for your potential customers, if not yourself.

Whatever you do, good luck!

It's a work in progress, it can still change.

Why I'm picking Half & Full? Because it's very easy to spell.

"Ok, this is full."
"Ok, this one is half."

Much more easier.

"Ok, this can do one action" or "Ok, this one is non-initiative." So mouthful. Using numbers can be ambiguous

What I was trying to say with "no arguments" was, you can call it anything you like. It doesn't matter. It's just a skeleton of rules that anyone can pluck into theirs. Just the way I write things.

And I'm not worried people rules lawyering about it (especially since this is like a personal home brew thing). I regularly attend BGG, specifically the forum for Descent board game. The rules lawyering there is very bad. So I know what to avoid. In the more complete draft, actions in both states are described in more detail so it's clear.

Again, it doesn't matter what you want to call it. But trust me, it's no issue. Very similar to short and long action in Infinity. And that one was quite confusing when I explain them to some of my friends! This one, they understand immediately.