| BigRedBat ||25 Nov 2014 8:47 a.m. PST|
In the lead-up to launch on Friday, I'm going to post about some of the core mechanisms in the rules. I'll do it all in this one thread, so as not to clutter the boards up, so please look out for updates below tomorrow and Thursday.
Today's post is about what I call the activation system, which is my innovative replacement for pip dice and the similar systems that introduce uncertainty as to what a player can and can't do in a wargame.
|cloudcaptain||25 Nov 2014 9:01 a.m. PST|
I like the sound of the card activation. Do you plan on doing some Fantasy gaming with the system eventually?
|davbenbak ||25 Nov 2014 9:09 a.m. PST|
What battle is pictured above? Zama?
| BigRedBat ||25 Nov 2014 9:23 a.m. PST|
Some 5 years back I used to play a lot of fantasy-related ancients (hence my Gloranthan tag). I certainly wouldn't rule it out. It wouldn't be hard to add a separate magic module.
One of the things I've been thinking about an Imaginancients campaign.
| BigRedBat ||25 Nov 2014 9:28 a.m. PST|
davbendak that's Thapsus 46BC. Caesar is just visible on the right at the back, on the white horse.
|Terrement ||25 Nov 2014 11:06 a.m. PST|
Agree with Simon on the fantasy aspect. For me the two biggest questions that have to be answered before you can design the game for that use are:
1. Are fantasy units unique with their own plusses and minuses, or like HOTT, are all knights, knights, and all blades, blades? Is there a difference between a sword and shield orc unit and the same if it is a Roman legion?
2. How do you see magic performing? Pre-battle support (strategic)? Tactical within the battle? Limited power to cast or unlimited? Risk with each spell of something going bad? Simple plus-ups (+1 to attack by this unit this round) or tactical nukes (ala WHFB)?
My thought is that magic, if added should be limited in power and effect, and the chance of failure increases with the strength of the cast ( a +1 attack spell is easy-peasy, while a +4 has great impact if successful, but also a much lower probability of success. Also, there can be bad consequences for spell failure. If you think of spells as a form of battle support artillery, you might have a cannon rip out its fixtures from the mountings – bad enough but fixable by next battle. You might have the barrel crack, making it non repairable. Or, you might get a spark into your powder supply…
With the Gloranthan aspect, heroes might have magical weapons that "plus-up" for short duration based on the power of the individual.
But the size, ease, and magnitude of magic becomes a 'game changer' no matter which way you take it.
PS the battle? Tabelus Topus?
| BigRedBat ||25 Nov 2014 11:50 a.m. PST|
Yes I would very much agree that magic should be limited, especially in a setting like Glorantha. One could simply use the rules for early cannon provided within my game. There is a chance of these blowing up, very much along the lines you describe for mages. Or some units could have a limited duration modifier representing "battle magic".
There wouldn't be an issue in creating new troop types with special characteristics, either, although many fantasy/Gloranthan types would directly correspond to the ancient/medieval units in the game.
|eoschmitz||25 Nov 2014 8:32 p.m. PST|
This looks very interesting, thanks for sharing.
| BigRedBat ||26 Nov 2014 8:46 a.m. PST|
Here's a link to today's instalment which describes how shooting and melee works.
|mumbasa||26 Nov 2014 9:41 p.m. PST|
Great posts, Simon. Thanks for posting the other two blogs, too!
| BigRedBat ||27 Nov 2014 7:23 a.m. PST|
Here is the final blog post in the lead up to launch, tomorrow, this time about units:
| BigRedBat ||28 Nov 2014 9:03 a.m. PST|
Hi, I have just launched the rules.
I will write a proper launch piece about them on Monday, with some images of sample pages. Hoverer if you are straining to get hold of a set they can now be purchased via my blog, here:
|SBSchifani ||28 Nov 2014 9:53 a.m. PST|
They look fantastic, and I'm off to make a printed copy. I'd bet an accompanying scenario book of famous battles you've done or might do later would also sell well. People enjoy seeing how others interpret the best known battles of history, some to simply compare it to their own thoughts, and others to smugly note where they know better.
|squeaky||15 Dec 2016 11:04 a.m. PST|
Hi Simon, did you ever make any more progress with 'To the Strangest'?
| BigRedBat ||15 Dec 2016 11:50 a.m. PST|
Zombie thread! ;-)
I did make some progress…. then I hurtled off at a tangent and wrote an ECW version of TtS! with Andrew Brentnall. This should be published next May/June, hopefully to be followed by some additional gunpowder rules (I am very tempted by the WSS).
I will eventually come around to fantasy but there are several other variants clamouring to come out first!
|squeaky||15 Dec 2016 2:33 p.m. PST|
Ya'know I hadn't realised how old the thread was when posting! I'd been researching to the strongest.
Because I'm selfish, that news is disappointing 😜
Naps would have been good too, but once more you disappoint lol
Good luck with the release… I guess I'm just gonna have to pick up the ancients set and try to adjust myself 😎
| BigRedBat ||15 Dec 2016 2:55 p.m. PST|
Well at least I am heading in the general direction of Naps! ;-)
|squeaky||15 Dec 2016 2:58 p.m. PST|
Your direction of travel is commendable, but alas the bus doesn't stop on my street 😭
|Codsticker||17 Dec 2016 8:38 p.m. PST|
…I hurtled off at a tangent and wrote an ECW version of TtS! with Andrew Brentnall. This should be published next May/June…
That's sooo far away… I have already been thinking about how I would organise my minis…
| BigRedBat ||18 Dec 2016 10:44 a.m. PST|
Those are nice! I am recruiting, too…. no photos yet though.
|Henry Martini||18 Dec 2016 5:13 p.m. PST|
It's a shame Warlord spoiled its plastic ECW sets with those silly jogging musketeer poses.