>>6438331
Don't act like you don't fucking love it.

So, how are we dealing with variants?

We've got primary, secondary, tertiary. However, if it's that simple, it's hideous boring. However, it can't also be too complex because no one will play.
So, should it be a certain number of set variants that we have to balance, or should we include a number of abilities that we have to mix and match, and create a variant designer that we have to balance?

What should it be?

id say basic questions are:
-what kinda of dice (d6 d10 both more other?)
-did you guys decide on hex or more like WH? (i've always liked the guessing range element to WHFB)
-how do armies compile what i mean is are there "core" units are there HQ/Heroes/whatever other systems i dunno anything about call them, which units are squad based
-how many minis do u want on the board are we talkin WHFB, 40K or warmachine
-if we're goin WHFB is there a magic element (u dont need to fill it out exactly yet spellcasters can always be added after the primary secondary, etc things are figured out but it should be clear if the phase is useable in development or not)

I agree with the last post before the new thread went up.
(>>6438313)

>>6438365
If we only have the three tiers then there should be some variants for abilities and weaponry, perhaps approaching 'Nid-level variation.

Point-buy is the only system I think would work, but it's WIP so yeah

>>6438365
I think a mix and match would end up being the most fun. Maybe cheaper for common varients?

bumpan for not on page 0

>>6438398
Limit the number of variables the units can buy depending on their tier. Tertiary get max 2, secondary get 3, primary get 4. And limit the variables to things worth buying that genuinely differentiate one from another. Examples could be equipping a Roman Tertiary with a Ballistae (powerful ranged attack) and Shield (assists its defense) while the Huns could have a 'terror field' (increases chance of nearby enemy units of fleeing) and bladed limbs (powerful melee attack).

>>6438365
The key is variation within tiers. There aren't just three units per faction, there are three _scales_ of units per faction. Naturally, there should be at least a few unit chassis/equipment variants for each tier.

With regards to the die used: I'd support the basic idea behind what the one guy said about the 4, 5, and 6 being the base success and each tier upping or lowering that success window. However, I'd suggest changing the scale to d10, with the success rate starting at 6-10 and changing by 2 every tier.

Thus:
-3 tiers down: I AM GODZILLA YOU ARE JAPAN
-2 tiers down: success on > 1
-1 tier down: success on > 3
-Same tier: success on > 5
-1 tier up: success on > 7
-2 tiers up: success on > 9
-3 tiers up: Not a chance, cupcake.

>>6438494
How do infantry fit into that? Following the idea of the previous thread of Heavy Infantry being one step below tertiary, and light infantry being a step below that?

>>6438487
But then you can't have cool-as-fuck war elephants with two sets of tusks or something.

Number of variants should depend on how variable that model could appear to be.

>>6438530
>Two variables
>two sets of tusks

Seems possible to me.

>>6438548
I suppose.

But I digress. Core mechanics first, fluffy addons later.

>>6438529
We differentiated between heavy and light infantry? I missed that memo then.

I assumed 4 tiers: Primary, Secondary, Tertiary, and Quaternary. The only time 3 above/below comes into play is for Primary v. Quaternary.

>>6438331
Most people would be happy to see /tg/ work on something for 30 straight hours.

>>6438365
They can have different equips and abilities. Same was WH. Probably more unit-specific stuff, though.

>>6438370
I'd like d6, because they're convenient, but they seem too small. Even d10 seems a bit small. \
Like WH. Hex is inferior.

Okay, this one I got some thoughts on. I was thinking we could have a point sum barrier. For some races (Christians, Celts) Your Primaries and secondaries combined cannot be worth more points than your tertiaries.
For others (Romans, Chinese) Your primaries cannot be more than your secondaries or tertiaries. (not combined)

Idunnolol. Depends on faction, I guess. fairly high amount, though.
No magic.

>>6438397
Nid level seems like a workable goal.

>>6438487
Weapons should not count as these variables.

Anyone can have weapons - two hands, two weapons, right?

These 'variables' are special gifts and abilities.

Any thought to physical presentation of the characters game? I imagine paper figures would be most realistic and cheapest. There are plenty of Anons with drawing talent, and its pretty simple (and cost effective) to print some characters and play a game.

>>6438585
Yeah, I was thinking little printable paper cutouts.

Since it's possible nobody saw this:

>>6438100
wound. Same as WoD and Warhamms.

>>6438134
For that, we'd want an actual numeric size stat, not just going by categories that don't necessarily correlate to size. We'd end up wanting a power stat and a toughness stat anyways, though, to represent things that have power not directly related to stature. Thus using size in this fashion becomes pointless.

>>6438487
I'd say limit 3 for tertiary, 7 for secondary, no limit for primary.

Also, variants don't include normal gear. Those can be assigned without affecting the limit.

>>6438494
I disagree. Too steep. Just go with one different each level. We still want it to be possible for weaker guys to take out higher tier units.

>>6438572
Giving each of your primaries a move shoot special(magic) and close combat phase will go a long way to seperate giant trees from giant dragons from giant mechs of roman gods from.. you get the point. Magic could be a simple as an angels and hun-monsters effecting morale of infantry. It also will allow higher tier untils to do more things in a turn as appose to say 40K rules where units "spells" often eat up their shooting phase.

Are infantry meant to be a genuine force in this game, or has warfare changed completely to be just Mech Vs Mech?

>>6438714
That does seem to be the operative question. How effective do we want each tier to be relative to one another?

>>6438657
>Morale
That's cool. That's unobtrusive and would work totally fine.
>more things in a turn
Naw? Why not make certain things not take an action, and leave it at that.

I like the wound system of WHFB for this idea but you could add in a dmg taken table that would have to be rolled on each time a wound is lost. Different classes of weapons (call them godslayers or something) would have modifiers. So say the owner of a Jupiter mech takes a wound, he rolls a d6 and adds the modifier suggested here >>6438494 and possibly further modified for weapon type. Low rolls mean the wound is not taken middle means the wound is taken but not permanent or is permanent but not disabling in anyway.. etc

>>6438714
Depends on faction. Romans are all about the mechs. Chinese use infantry almost as much as the cho-ko-nu boys.

*looks around, wishes he had cared more about tabletop mechanics in the past*

>>6438736
>Naw? Why not make certain things not take an action, and leave it at that.

This. It can be especially good for things like Druids buffing Woden or Hun terror auras.

>>6438736
the magic phase could also be used to repair self, teleport, change attack forms create/maintain energy fields. AND mainly would be there to make a primary >> all secondaries it could be possible large trees not matter how magically could not out shoot or out cc a few mini-roman god machines but he COULD easily out magic them

>>6438758
Yeah, me too.

>>6438747
too complicated.
it's cool when you've got, like, three dudes, but when there's a dozen of them going at this mech, it's no fun at all.

>>6438758
>>6438791
I'm picking it up as I go. You can get the WHFB book from /rs/ and skim it quickly.

>>6438779
one last push for the idea of an extra round is WHFB heroes vs 40K HQs im not sayinf HQs in 40K arent extremely effective units, I am saying that every WHFB revolves around their heroes and lords and the main reasons for this is access to a part of a game the rest of the units do not have.

>>6438813
Man, I would, but it's already like 5 in the morning here and I've been following this for essentially 2 days straight with slight disregard to classwork.

>>6438798
how many primaries are you thinking about in an hour game? these rules are basically vehicle rules in 40K and even with 6 on the board it's not the reason games run long. (games run long in 40K cause of over emphasis on masses of infantry who have no special rules just take forever to move, setup reset up after they get knocked down and agonize over which ones to take as casualties)

Hey guys, I feel like pointing out that tertiaries will be able to get formation bonuses. Higher tiers won't. (Except Man Machines, Rome is special)

>>6438857
I'm looking at this from the perspective of someone who has little to no tabletop experience. And I have no idea what the fuck was said here. >>6438747 It might well just be me, but I don't think this is as intuitive as you're making it sound.

>>6438827
Not two days, it's only been going about 30 hours. I know how you feel though, I've been here the whole time too.

>>6438857
You didn't say you meant primaries only. That's more reasonable, except that it gives them a whole new ruleset for no apparent reason. So I'm still not in favor.

>>6438910
He means that instead of doing wounds normally, roll a d6 to see what gets hurt. In other words, it's fucking stupid.

>a whole new ruleset
All he's saying is that the primaries get a super special action on top of normal shit. It sounds simple enough to work, anyway.

Out of curiosity, how many people are actually still here?

>>6438975
You're getting comments mixed up, that was referring to the vehicle damage.

>>6439001
Ah, my bad.

>>6438987
Present and accounted for. I'd reckon there are 5 or so of us here.

>>6439011
It's looking like two to me, with a third guy tabbing away for significant periods of time.

По правде говоря, сначала не очень то до конца понял, но перечитав второй раз дошло - спасибо!

>>6439048
Also very believable.

>>6438987
I'm reading with interest. Been throwing in the occasional idea (was the dude in the last thread who suggested "higher tiers have easier time wounding lower tiers")

Well, I'm going to sleep, it's 15 after 5 here and I have class at 10. I'll bump/give thoughts when I get up tomorrow morning though.

Well, with this few people contributing, the project's likely to become unhealthily insular. Besides, I'm tired. I'm going to leave you guys for a bit. If you accomplish something without me, more power to you, but I reckon not a lot is getting done until more people are on /tg/. Noight.

>>6439106
Yeah, you're probably right. If this isn't bumped when peak hours have rolled around, re-bump it.

>>6438933
the main reason is to distinguish a primary mech unit from a squad of secondary mech units. It allows for single truely powerful units to be more of a gamble to attack, and thus makes them more reasonable to use since in most TT games squads > single models.. of course what im saying might not be true i can only speak from my experience in WH.

just bumping mostly, I can't say much about mechanics. I don't have any experience in wargames.

warmachine has very clear tiers, u'd have to remove the warcaster idea but it might be the best way to do this thing here. Possibly also add an additional tier above the heaviest warjack for primary units.

>>6441124
How does WM delineate the tiers?

Anyone who's around now care to comment?

>>6441124
>>6441132
Or we can use warhammer fantasy core for quaternaries, specials for tertiaries, rare for secondaries, and hereo/lord for primaries.

>>6443119
How well would that scale? As in, how much can one tier do against the next, and so on?

>>6443119
It sounds like there's a decent system in place. How much of this can we swipe without completely ripping off the system? How do the tiers compare against one another?

>>6443233
well, in a game of 2000 points, you need a minimum of 4 core units, can choose 0-4 special units, and 0-2 rare units. You can also have up to 3 characters consisting of 1 lord only and up to 4 heroes.

I imagine named Primaries would be lord characters, and named secondaries would be hereos.

>>6443327
Right. But how comparable is, say, a rare unit to a normal grunt? How many grunts can usually be traded for a rare? That's the kind of scaling I'm asking.

>>6443327
here's the full chart for The Empire. I don't know if it's any different for other factions, but it seems this is a good place to start.

>>6443353
like an imperial guard conscript to a space marine chapter master.

>>6443398
Some sort of comparison like that would be nice, yeah.

>>6443398
>>6443436
>>6443353

Let's say a roman quaternary has the following statline:

WS4 BS3 S3 T3 W1 I3 A1 Ld 8 and a combined armour save of 4+ when attacked from the front.

a Primary would have:
WS8, BS5, S8 T10 W4 I4 A3 Ld10 and a combined armour save of 1+ (yes, you can get that in WHFB), be immune to psychology and cause terror in enemy units.

>>6443493

Wait, haveing never played WHB yet, how the hell does that work out?

>>6443546
S3 is incapable of wounding anything with a toughness of more than 6, actually. You need a Strength of 7 at the very least to wound T10.

WS8 means if the model misses it can reroll to hit as if it had a lower WS. I think it's 3+/5+ at WS8.

Shouldn't christians be quartenary tier since they're only regular units with no special training or enchancements other then resurraction?

>>6443909
"Christians" as in "People of Christ". In this meaning, these are special people who have been chosen by and blessed by Christ.
Quarteriary units are standard cultists and followers.

>>6443934
Yeah. Tertiary and up are assumed to be competent and trained at worst.

Bump.

Let's discuss what we've got so far: we're using d10s. We're using stats akin to those in WHFB. Dealing damage to a higher tier creature takes ten wounds from a lower tier creature, thus making big groups necessary.

I think that's all we actually agreed on.

>>6446570
I think we were just using the WHFB stats as a general inspiration. The rest sounds right though.

>>6446640
When it was suggested in the last thread that we use WHFB, everybody was like "Yeah!" at that, so I consider it an agreement. It's just a baseline, of course, but they've arrived at a good set of rules, and I see no reason to deviate from it unnecessarily. Which is to say, their stats, their basic combat formulas, right up until it doesn't work quite right for us. And then we change it like the fist of the north star,

>>6446705
So for someone who has no experience with WHFB, what stats are there?

Move - one point is one inch
Weapon Skill - for melee only. Perhaps it should be called Melee skill. It's used for to-hits.
Ballistic Skill - like WS for ranged.
Strength - balanced against toughness to see how much damage you do
Toughness - balanced against strength to reduce damage.
Wounds - health. Usually only a few.
Initiative - dictates who goes first in a melee.
Attacks - how many times a unit attacks in combat.
Leadership - used to resist morale effects, mostly.

>>6446863
Got it.

It seems like a lot of that is a bit much, really.

>>6446893
How so?

>>6447013
It's a bit too complex.

BS and WS can be narrowed down to a single stat, called Skill or maybe Finesse.
S and T can be narrowed down to a single stat, called Physical or Power.
Perhaps have Initiative changed to Speed - and have it affect movement too.
Leadership = Morale

Leave Wounds in and as for Attacks, I see no reason to include them when it could be represented in a superior fashion.

>>6447159
Those simplifications seem... over simple. I can't say I'm in favor.

So, what is this superior manner of dealing with multiple attacks?

>>6447159
I like the idea of keeping BS/WS separate, if only so artillery aren't fucking melee monsters and so on.

Maybe initiative can be combined with the number of attacks into speed? Something like, the difference between your speed score determines the number of attacks.

>>6447278
I am curious if there is any better way to deal with multiple attacks.

>>6448102
We seem to be trying to keep this simple so I'm loathe to suggest this.
Maybe each type of attack should have it's own BS/WS score. This way we only need one score and ranged attackers aren't very good in close combat.

>>6449370
No, that makes sense.

Hell, make it specific to the weapon. That way you get the mix-and-match.

>>6449514
Yeah, that's what I was going for

>>6449574
Sounds pretty simple, really.

My question is, by what mechanics should we have it work? Would it raise/lower the hit threshold on the d10 pool as described earlier, or is there some other mechanic we're using?

>>6449623
The idea with WHFB is that you just have to roll your WS/BS to hit. Toughness can prevent it doing any damage, though.

>>6449514
Well, the Warhammer idea, there's a base number for either of those stat, and many sets of possible equipment modify it in some way.

>>6449623
I haven't kept wholely up to date on the crunch, but from what I understand that sounds good (the raising/lowering of the hit threshold)

>>6449700
Alright.

So 5 + weapon mods + size mods + other mods is our target value, assuming that system. On that train of thought: how many dice are being thrown around? Is it Strength - Toughness, or what?

>>6449799
*6, actually, my bad.

>>6449623
>>6449672
My suggestion is that we simplify things into a single roll, that covers both to-hit and to wound (BFG does this and it works well).
using the D10 tier scale from>>6438494 is representative of both the strength and toughness of a unit. this 1 roll can then be modified using either simple bonuses/penalties and/or allowing certain equipment to change the effective tier of a particular unit. Eg the Celtic Woden warriors are a tertiary but their "armour" makes them get attacked as if they where on tier tougher (in this case a secondary). Conversely the Viking runic warriors attack as if they where secondaries but are only as tough as a tertiary.

>>6449799
One per attack would be easy.

>>6449824
In that system, how many wounds are calculated? Is that Str-based?

>>6449827
That and the idea from the post before yours work together pretty well.

So far my only suggestions would be: no fucking tables. That is all.

>>6449700
Hit thresholds are
>>6438494

>>6449892
Agreed. The idea is that they can be further modified by stuff like more/less accurate weapons or buffs, as suggested here. >>6449799

>>6449879
Not for to-hit or anything, no. That shit was old 20+ years ago. Lists for unit options, sure.

>>6449874
wounds would be their own stat, a successful attack drops one (Tougher things have more wounds as well as their tier) I'd say have only 1 maybe 2 wounds for a tertiary, secondary I'd say 3 to 5 wounds, Primary 6+ wounds.

There should not be separate to hit/wound statistics in melee, this is unnecessary, just make it one that weapons increase. Ranged should have to hit/not hit, but if you hit you should either kill/wound, not just let it shrug it off, if it misses all vitals and makes no difference it should be considered a miss. Criticals should be in as well. This would let infantry mess up some of the lighter mechs (maybe it could be melee only).

Learn from GW's mistakes in game design.

Action points will slow down play time, especially if you're playing with legions. 2 actions to move/shoot is a tested and well received design.

Archers and any other ballistic unit should have long ranges, but should have shitty chances to hit. They would be useless if you could walk up to them and give them a good stab. Cavalry is the solution to archers, along with units with large shields.

When creating the infantry, make sure to make specific differences in their use. A round shields should be worse for blocking arrows, while the Roman tower shields were fuckawesomeness against arrows. Make heavier mechs resistant to most everything, and make sure to have anti mech non mechs equipment.

Also consider the change in tactics, will people line up in rows where they can get stepped on my mechs?

>>6449879
Not really possible, unless you mean something more specific than is immediately apparent.

>>6449965
Sounds solid and very easy. So to what degree is a strength or toughness stat involved? Because the +- modifiers to the threshold sketch out the equivalent of the denial of low strength to hit high toughness pretty well.

>>6450054
There is no strength or toughness stat, that is represented by the units tier stat (tertiary,secondary or primary) so when making an attack you compare the attackers tier (or effective tier if modified by equipment) against the defenders tier (again possible modified) to give the value you need on the dice roll to cause a wound.

>>6450147
No, fuck that.

That is an awful idea.

>>6450147
ranged attacks would work the same though it would be modified with numerical modifiers for range (long range is harder to hit)

>>6450177
Agreed

>>6450177
what?
thats essentially how BFG works, and it works well.

>>6449993
> There should not be separate to hit/wound statistics in melee, this is unnecessary, just make it one that weapons increase. Ranged should have to hit/not hit, but if you hit you should either kill/wound, not just let it shrug it off, if it misses all vitals and makes no difference it should be considered a miss. Criticals should be in as well. This would let infantry mess up some of the lighter mechs (maybe it could be melee only).

This works well with the factor of ten wound increases. I agree that nothing further needs to be added.

>Action points will slow down play time, especially if you're playing with legions. 2 actions to move/shoot is a tested and well received design.
I agree with no Action Points. It looks like we will have, not move/shoot as phases, but move/shoot/melee/magic. Order tbd. (I'm the guy who was against having magic phase, I've been persuaded otherwise now. We just need to be careful with what abilities we give.)

>Archers and any other ballistic unit should have long ranges, but should have shitty chances to hit. They would be useless if you could walk up to them and give them a good stab. Cavalry is the solution to archers, along with units with large shields.
So equipping bows enables ranged attacks (I'm thinking basic quat archer should have at least 12" range) but penalizes their to-hits. Sounds good.
Horses increase move, of course. I'd say it would also decrease to-hit threshold by one, for melee.
Shields increase your to-hit number.

Is good.

Field too long, stand by.

>When creating the infantry, make sure to make specific differences in their use. A round shields should be worse for blocking arrows, while the Roman tower shields were fuckawesomeness against arrows.
I disagree. It's a bunch of complicated shit that accomplishes little. Remember, these standard troops aren't the ones people want to care about.

> Make heavier mechs resistant to most everything
That's what the different to-hits based on tier are for.

>and make sure to have anti-mech non-mechs equipment.
I agree. But it should be expensive.

>Also consider the change in tactics, will people line up in rows where they can get stepped on my mechs?
That's a good point, unordered mobs would often be more effective. I feel like we need formations for Roman flavor, though.
Problem: I have no idea how formations should work mechanically.

>>6450147
This is basically the assumption we've been using.

>>6450177
This was my first thought about it.

However, I have since warmed to the idea. It actually makes sense, and should work fine.

>>6450250
only aids my conversion.

>>6450200
I disagree. Too complicated. I like it in theory, but it's too much to worry about all the time.

Hey guys - How do we determine how many how many wounds an attack does?

Also, does this mean we're taking out both skill ratings and Strength and Toughness?

Just confirming before deleting them from the wiki.

>>6450272
>I disagree. It's a bunch of complicated shit that accomplishes little. Remember, these standard troops aren't the ones people want to care about.

It doesn't have to be complicated. Just add a single sentence in the unit profile: Tower Shield- Archers firing at this unit are at an additional -1 to hit along with the current penalty.

Or some shit like that.

Woah, this thing is still going?

>>6450347

>Hey guys - How do we determine how many how many wounds an attack does?

Depends on what traits weapons have.

>Also, does this mean we're taking out both skill ratings and Strength and Toughness?

By using Primary/Secondary to describe their effectiveness? Fuck no, this makes every unit in the game the same.
Just confirming before deleting them from the wiki.

>>6450399
Ignore the last sentence. Fucked up the copy pastage.

>>6450360
Yes. It's been going for 45 hours straight now, unless you count the relative dearth between
>>6439106
and
>>6446570
to be a break.

I would recommend that we let this thread die, and pick off where we left off in a week or so. There is a limit on what can be done in such a time frame.

>>6450399
>By using Primary/Secondary to describe their effectiveness? Fuck no, this makes every unit in the game the same.
No it doesn't. They're defined by abilities. For example, Woaden is considered one tier higher for defensive purposes. He can be equipped with Shillelagh to get +2 to-hit. Perhaps a penalty to number of attacks.
Terracotta Warrior can be equipped with Sho-Ko-Nu, for double attacks.

>>6450530
... You have no idea how shit works, do you? Leave it for a while, before we have something solid, and people forget about it. Do it now, people get shit done. Then we have a solid system, and shit will continue to get done.

>>6450399
That would imply everything fights with a weapon. Some things - Dragons, Siddhi monks - should not do so. Other things - Woaden, Elephants - should have an option to fight weaponless.

>>6450769
then think of weapons as means of attack then

also, tiers are seperations in amount of divine mojo a unit has

primaries have the most, quaternaries have none

Hey wow. This has been going, keeping up the steam! Good work all.

I'll be catching up tonight.

>>6450800
Tried to think of a flaw with that, couldn't. Only thing is, Dragons will be single big guy destroyers then. Not a problem, really, just unusual flavor.

>>6450817
Fluff is pretty much "complete", the wiki contains the most important bits. We're on crunch now.

>>6450880
I've noticed. Did someone suggest a greater variety the higher the tiers as far as customization goes? I think that's a bit backwards. I think Primaries should be fairly static, with greater customization the lower one goes in Tiers.

>>6450940
stop think of it that way

customization really depends on each individual faction

since Rome's primaries are made by the gods themselves, there aren't goint to be as a many varities to them. Secondaries will have more variety to them since they are based on the primaries in design when made by man. Tertiaries are probably made by people who aren't up to par making secondaries.

Huns will work the other way with there being a huge variety of primaries since the ways their eldritch horrors can evolve are limitless.

>>6450940
Lower tiers should have enough variety that they can fill any part of the battlefield - cavalry, archers, infantry - but Primaries are your centerpieces. They are your awesome.
It doesn't mean they need more customization, just different kinds. Fodder are entirely dependent on their equipment to define them, the showpieces have more supernatural features.

You guys I was just throwing this around in my head while on a walk and I think it would be simplest to have a "To Hit" roll plus I guess a d10, compare that to the defender's "Toughness" or "Defense" or whatever, and the difference is the base damage, to which you add mods from Strength/Power and equipment.

Sounds complicated here but it's not really. I tested it just now and it's a quick system.

>>6450054 here again.

Now that I'm thinking about it and reading the responses since I got back, this shouldn't be too difficult to dispose of strength and toughness. It just makes the unit's number of attacks, hit bonus/penalty, and attack tier the main determining factors in offense. I like it, it keeps everything very neat and simple.

>>6450993
to-hit is
>>6438494
You roll a d10 plus modifiers, and must beat that number. I sort of like your "difference is damage" idea, but that deals way too much for wounds - we'd need a full-on Hit-Point system.

>>6451131
Yeah, isn't the wounds damage just one if it hits? Then it can be modified by the weapon in question.

So for example: Woaden warrior strikes Roman Legionnaire.

He hits. He deals 1 wound to the Roman, and an additional 1 wound for the bonus on his axe.

>>6451131
Have a damage threshold. Deal under x damage, no wound. Deal x damage, one wound. 2x, two wounds, etc.

>>6450977
>since Rome's primaries are made by the gods themselves, there aren't goint to be as a many varities to them.

Well, while there might not be much in the way to customize Roman primaries, wouldn't there be a wide variety of different primaries? Each one being based on a different god and filling a different role.

>>6451178
Yeah, that's what it sounds like.

Question, how do we want Morale to factor in? That seems like one of the only stats left to consider the use of, unless I missed something we're pretty solid after that.

>>6451178
I like weapons being able to add wounds. That's good. Don't know about that being the only thing, though. How about:

(Attacker Size - Defender Size)min=1 + Weapon bonuses

Size could be an actual stat, or it could just be tier again. I'd be inclined to make it a stat.

>>6451297
About it being a stat, I'd say no. That's a very large point of the tier system. Also, two values that essentially mean the same thing is slightly redundant.

>>6451277
It's largely to deal with effects, but let's say that when losing half the unit, or when coming under attack by a unit of two tiers higher, a unit must make a morale check. If failed, it flees and is considered no longer in play.

>>6451297
Well, the tier system is already pretty size based so it might as well be tier.

So what kind of options do infantry/Tertiary tier get? Melee weapons, melee defense, ranged weapons, "morale weapons"?

>>6451326
Tier doen't "essentially mean" size. Ascendants can be taller than God-machines, despite being a tier lower. Great Old Ones are usually bigger than dragons. Elephants are bigger than Terracotta Warriors or Siddhi Monks.

>>6451353
Tertiary get Melee weapons, defense, ranged weapons, and horses as options, same as fodder. Some factions' tertiaries may be disallowed one or more of these. All will have additional options based their own unit type.

>>6451349
Sounds like a plan. How does rolling over the group's Morale score +- mods on a d10 sound?

Let's say there's a squad of Woaden with base morale 5 supported by a druid (which gives them -2 Morale). They get attacked by a Jupiter-class God machine (2 tiers above). Given their raised tier for defense, they survive (if barely). The squad would have to roll above a 5 normally to not entirely break, but with the druid buff, they would have to roll above a 3.

Does that work well enough, or is there a better way to do it?

I'm thinking about the following:

Size1: Fodder, all tertiaries except elephants, Siddhi Monks
Size 2: Elephants, Man Machines, Spirit-Kin, Taken Weapons
Size 3: Jade Wagons, Ascendants, God Machines, Treemen
Size 4: Dragons, Avatars
Size 5: Heralds, Great Old Ones

Note that we'll need these anyway, since bases need to have a certain size.

>>6451504
You have a very distinct point about the bases. I'm now much more cool with this.

>>6451439
Yep. Sounds good to me.

>>6451504
Well, five size stages sounds okay. Can you put this into a formula for "to hit"?

>>6451439
yeah, a straight leadership value. roll 2d6 below.

Seriously people, Warhammer fantasy has all of these rules already in place.

>>6451504
I'm thinking there should be some variation in the sizes of Spirit-Kin, Ascendants, Great Old Ones, and Heralds. Like, have them start at one size lower, but give them an option which increases size. Elephants too, if we're keeping the fluff where some are blessed by their gods.

>>6451439
sounds good, nice and simple.

>>6451516
A suggestion on bases, perhaps make most infantry units like swarms in warhammer. so you have a base thats the same size as a secondary unit but it represents an entire formation of infantry. give it a relatvily large number of wounds and attacks but for each wound lost it looses an attack too. Combined with a bad moral and low chances to damage anything big should balance things out.

>>6451594
Except we're using d10s, and that's pretty much the same thing. The only difference between the approaches seems to be the presence of modifiers.

>>6451612
Wouldn't that make sense for the 4th teir?

>>6451653
Yeah, that's a good way to represent Quaternaries. Fuck knows they're not going to do much any other way.

>>6451594
We're using d10 for attack, so we might as well use it for everything. d6 is too small to represent our wider power scale.

And yeah, we know WHFB already has these rules. What we're doing is looking at things ad going "Why does it work that way? Is that how we want it to work?" Our final system will be distinct.

>>6451574
I like Tiers for the to-hit honestly, and using size just for damage and bases like
>>6451297
suggested.

>>6451178
Slash/Pierce/Blunt triangle versus armor?

Also how big are we imagining the models to be? Tertiary could be treated like >>6451612's idea: 5-10 units on a single based, then we can make them Tyraind-Ripper sized or so. In this scale Eldricht Horrors could be as small as a Dreadnaught or at most a bulky Carnifex.

Units should keep separate movement and initiative stats, and here's why:

Special Rules
The Roman Legions are vastly different from the numerous other factions. Great hosts of disciplined soldiers is its trademark, drilled to unerring battlefield control and precision. As such, a number of rules affect Roman Legion units differently than those of other factions.

Manueovering & Formations
Wheel
Roman units, when preforming the wheel maneuver, only count half the distance moved when determining the remaining movement it can preform.

Turn
Where other units must spend a quarter of their movement to turn 90 or 180 degrees, Roman units turn at no cost.

Change Formation
Like any other unit, a Roman unit may change its formation by moving models from/to its rear rank or reduce the number of models in its front rank. However, Roman units only surrender a quarter of its movement to move five models, and only half to move 10 models. This also means a Roman unit can move 15 models for three quarters of its movement, or may move up to 20 models if the unit does not otherwise move at all.

Reform
Normally a unit may reform as detailed in the main
rulebook. Roman units follow the same rules with a few key allowances: a Roman unit may still move up to half its normal movement if no single model moved more than it’s normal movement when reforming. If a model moved more than it’s normal movement the unit may not move further in that turn.

Declaring Charges
Roman units that contain models with Pilum may preform a shooting attack before their charge, but only if they are within half their charge range at the start of the turn. Additionally, any unit hit by this attack no longer includes the shield bonus to its armour save.

>>6451694
Ok.

So, what we have so far for base unit stats:

-Tier (set, can be altered by special abilities)
-Wounds (set)
-To-hit modifier (normally 0, +- based on weapon/specials)
-Damage (base + [Size Difference] + [Equipment] + [Specials])
-Attacks (base + [Equipment] + [Specials]; special case for swarm-type)
-Morale (base + [Size difference] + [Equipment] + [Specials])

We never really came to much of a consensus regarding initiative.

>>6451748
In summation, romans are them asters of formation maneuvering. This advantage doesn't carry over to how quickly they attack though. If we merge speed/movement and initiative this advantage would need major reworking

>>6451753
initative should be roughly determined by the units size, weapon, and general characteristics. I massive God Machine isn't going to strike faster than a nimble christian warrior. Plus with the way combat is resolved, it will give the smaller, faster units a chance to deal some damage before being wiped out.

>>6451698
I would suggest most tertiaries can either be semi-individual or use swarm/formation rules (diversity in squads vs. zerg rush). How advantageous one would be over the other is most likely based upon what you're using a swarm/formation of; I would expect Romans to be almost exclusively in large formations for tertiaries, while the Celts might be more content to hit-and-run in small packs, and the Huns would use shock troop swarms of horrors.

>>6451753
Derp, I forgot to include size alongside tier.

>>6451790
An idea. Why not just give units of a size lower priority against higher-size units when engaging in an exchange where counterattacking would be expected (like melee)? Initiative would still matter for higher-level things with regards to order of action, but this way the quick little bastard units can get their shot in first.

Everybody in this thread needs to stop what they are doing and read the rules for Warhammer fantasy battle right now.

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=Z1GX6XC0

>>6451871
>stop what they are doing

Fuck that. Maintain the momentum, just read up on the side for comparison.

>>6451871
I am, and have been since the last thread, reading and referencing those rules. We are intentionally deviating from them when we do so.

>>6451748
We haven't actually decided how formations work yet. They may end up being substantially different.

>>6451958
Stuff will change, of course. But any progress towards having stuff in general is positive.

People are saying that the standard d6 doesn't match the scale of the fluff, that it's too small. Well, they are right. In the fluff these secondaries can wade through armies of lesser machines and men, crushing all in their wake or causing all but the most steadfast warriors to flee in terror. But tabletop is not fluff.

In warhammer fantasy you have, from a fluff standpoint, the exact same things. You have towering monstrosities and horrors that bestride the battlefield like a colossus. Yet it works just fine using d6's. By all rights some lowly peasant giving a pitchfork and sent into battle would have no chance against a secondary or even a tertiary, but sometimes, the gods smile upon him and he manages to best a great warrior, or bring down a towering machine. D6's, while restrictive, allow the impossible and the unexpected. And that is what makes great fucking games.

Formations probably will change a bit. I think historically, the only ones of these groups who used formations were Romans, Chinese, and Indians.

>>6451958
>We haven't actually decided how formations work yet. They may end up being substantially different.

well why not just use what has been suggested and laid out already instead of completely disregarding it. You know, collaborate.

>>6452065

Give me a lucky peasant over a angry demon any day.

>>6452075
in WHFB units can be classified as skirmishers. They suffer no penalty for not being in formation and each model moves as an independent units so long as they stay within an inch of another model in their unit.

britons, christians, most of the mercs, etc, they can use the skirmisher rules.

>>6451698
thats what I was thinking, that would put it at roughly 15mm or 1:100 scale. I believe that is fairly common for historical war games if this ever gets to the stage of building armies

>>6452065
This game isn't about foot soldiers getting lucky. This game is about fucking awesome things being fucking awesome. That guys pitchfork may have caught a knight in the chink in his armor that he never new was there, but if that peasant tries to kill a giant metal god of war, well, his pitchfork is just going to glance right off.

>>6452102
should be noted that they can move over more terrain formations normally have trouble with at no penalty.

>>6452102
Yes, they can, and if you want to, feel free to write up stats for all the units using WHFB, but most people seem to be interested in a new system.

>>6452127
You've never heard of the saga of Grendel, have you.

>>6452065
I understand where you're coming from, but you're like most of the thread late. It's not that any of us are solidly against d6's in general, it's just how it evolved.

>>6452080
I agree. It's much, much easier to tweak something that's there, which is pretty much what most of the mechanics proposed have operated on.

>>6452127
only heroes can be heroes?

How are heroes made then?

>>6452130
Yeah. No offense to the WHFB fans that are dipping in and out of the thread, but we're not aiming to recreate WHFB for this.

>>6452162

By attempting the impossible.

>>6452154
tweaking is what >>6451748 proposed.

the things being talked about in
>>6451504
>>6451439
>>6451418
>>6451297
>>6449993
>>6449799
>>6451753

completely change the core mechanics.

>>6452111
>if this ever gets to the stage of building armies
Somebody said he was going to build some. Probably out of WH bits and greenstuff, though.

>>6452209
Once I get my hands on some greenstuff I'll likely start on a scratch Treeman or something. If this comes to fruition I might even cast and sell whatever I get done.

So we are definitely using 15mm then?

>>6452196
I'm not disagreeing with you, assuming you mean the core mechanics of WHFB. That wasn't my point, though (read the context of the post I quoted). I don't want to re-create the mechanics of WHFB and move from there, personally, and judging by the responses so far, I'm not alone.

>>6452129
>>6452102
How 'bout if instead of saying "the default rules are this complicated thing, half our armies are special though", how about if we say that our formation-oriented half gets access to formations which give certain bonuses to head-on strikes, but make you slower over difficult terrain and require funny turning. Indians and Chinese use it for their tertiaries and fodder, Romans use it for that and for secondaries as well.

>>6452311
Sounds good to me.

>>6452250
For comparison, what sorts of WH units are 15mm? That's like, guards and stuff, right? That sounds about right for Size 1.

http://www.playlist.com/blog/entry/12440877827 quit smoking pressure points
<a href=http://www.playlist.com/blog/entry/12440877827>medical close call defition </a>

>>6452330
GW is 28mm.

Also this:
>http://theminiaturespage.com/ref/scales.html
The dime is a dime, the second model from the right is 15mm.

>>6452364
>>6452354
That's fucking tiny... How does anyone make decent models that small?

>>6452413
Toothpicks.

Romans?
Christians?
Huns?
Chinese?
Indians?
CELTS?
BARBARIANS?

YOU ALL ARE SMALL TIME.
WOMEN AND CHILDREN, ALL OF YOU.

>>6452427
I can barely do decent stuff in 28mm with toothpicks :(

>>6452413
Easy. They sculpt them 3 times the size then use machines to scale them down.

>>6452478
15mm is a convenient size for this type of game, though. It means our house-sized trees and awfulness incarnate will be smaller, and these are the mainstays of the game: kickass, huge Primaries.

Let's see... Is there anything left to do before we start statting units? I can't think of anything.

>>6452441
>Romans
>Small Time
You presume much.

>>6452537
Lots. Combat, movements, someone to compile it all.

>>6452548

I presume much?

I am not the one attempting to challenge the God King of Uruk, the most ancient of Heroes.

>>6452581
>someone to compile it all

It's archived. Worst comes to worse someone will come along later and do it, or I'll do it sometime when I don't have an exam tomorrow.

As for the rest, yeah, we definitely need to work that out.

>>6452581
Stuff like movement depends on other factors. How long should be a 'standard' move? How large a table will players need? How long would a 'standard' move be in comparison to effective ranges of ranged weapons?

>>6452581
I've been compiling it.
http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Machina_Dei
Combat is good. You're right about movement though.

>>6452662
>Combat is good

For melee, essentially. We still don't have any specific ranged rules (notably, we have no rules for AOE).

Okay for combat I like the idea of smaller models (units?) gaining the initiative automatically, except when a rule says otherwise. The bonus for charging is that you get one size faster (ie lower) maybe?

Ties are biased toward whoever has the turn (ie two Size 2 models come onto combat, whoever has the turn attacks first). Otherwise we can steal simultaneous attacks.

To Hit is d10 plus To Hit stat plus/minus tier/size/ability mods. What is this compared against?

>>6452634
Who? You know what, it's not important. There are roads to be built and savages to be civilized, and you wrasslin' some leaf monster isn't going to get that done.

>>6452703
The baseline is a naked d10 trying to surpass 5. This goal/threshold (5) is further influenced by size, the weapon, the tier, stuff like that.

>>6452703
Disregard I suck cocks, haven't refreshed the wiki in EVER.

>>6452729
Yeah, the wiki is pretty good for that now. Thanks again to whoever did that, it was a good job.

>>6452709


It's all recorded in the Epic of Gilgamesh, Caesar.

The oldest of tales about a divine emperor and his quest against the machinations of the gods.

>>6452742
Yeah, well, he's got no chance against our machinations of the gods!

>>6452683
Same as melee, but penalties for going over recommended range, ala D&D. To Hit at least, anyway.

>>6452683
Why would we have rules on AOE? Nothing has an AOE attack. I think the archery rules are fine.

>>6452733
Yeah, I've been adding bits as we come to consensuses on them. It's not really much trouble.

>>6452742
And I'm sure it's fantastically interesting, but he's no Gaius Marius, now there was a man!
...Anyway, long story short, unless he invented highways while I wasn't looking, he's got nothing on the Seven Hills.

>>6452777
>Nothing has an AOE attack

Greek fire would like a strong word with you.

>3. Deal wounds. If the defender is of the same or lower tier, one damage is equal to one wound. If the defender is of higher tier, it takes one wound for every 10 damage if the tier difference is 1, 100 damage if tier difference is 2, and 1000 damage if tier difference is 3. Discard fractions

Do you round at the end of turn?

>>6452817
I believe rounding down is what we agreed on.

>>6452801
Nothing has Greek Fire.

>>6452823
Yes but when does it occur? At the end of the unit's attack phase or at the end of turn?

>>6452849
End of turn.

>>6452835
Not mechanically yet. It was in one of the bouts of writefaggotry, though.

I gotta get to sleep, /tg/. Great job so far, let's keep this going as long as we're able.

For AOE we could work it as
determine point of impact, make a ranged attack from that point on everything within the "range" of the blast

>>6452906
I definately want to see this finished, if we're close to the stage of playtesting by friday i'll print out what we've got and see what my gaming club thinks.

>>6452930
Looking like we will be.

>>6452921
I support this.

>>6452921
simple enough.

For another AOE, we could have formed archery units do volleys.

>>6452921
if we standardise the blast ranges we can then use templates for simplicity of determining who's in range

>>6453033
Good thinking. What are some radii that blast templates frequently have?

>>6452989
Not period-appropriate.

After the main part of the game, can we have expansions added on, like King Arthur in the Celts and the New World Empires, maybe even a Bizzaro World version of the age of Discovery with armed navies sailing over the horizon to land at Spain and North Africa, maybe Ireland.

As for Japan and others...lol I dunno.

Wrote up some potential sizes for you guys.

God Machines 4
Man Machines 3
Faulty Machines 2
Heralds 3
Ascendants 2
Christians 1
Dragons 4/5
Jade Wagons 3
Terracotta Warriors 2
Greater Avatars 5
Siddhi Monks 2
War Elephants 3

Treemen 4
Taken Weapons 3/2
Champions 3
Woaden 2
Old Ones 4/5
Spirit-kin 3/2
Warriors 1

Norsemen 1

BEARS 2
Gauls 2/1
Jewish Golems 3
Beduin 3
Peri 2/3

>>6453163
>God Machines bigger than Heralds
>Siddhi Monks, who are essentially normal humans from a physical point of view, larger than Christians, who are also human sized
>Ascendants smaller than elephants


... Yeah, I think
>>6451504
works just fine....

Added movement rules to the wiki; I used changes here and simplified a bit from the WHFB rules.

Thoughts?

>>6451790
what about a machine created by mercury
>>6451748
supported
>>6451753
is there a movement stat

>>6453886
>what about a machine created by mercury
Note the "roughly". Though all the mechs are made by Vulcan, it would just be in Mercury's image.

>is there a movement stat
Yeah. It wasn't added in that post because we hadn't worked on it yet.

>>6453886
that could well be the Mercury Godmachine's thing, It's the only(or one of few) primary tier's that strike first.

http://www.playlist.com/blog/entry/12440877571 dravits syndrome
<a href=http://www.indianpad.com/user/rxdrugs24x7>first health </a>

>>6453949
It probably should have relatively many attacks too.

So, are we agreed on sticking with the WHFB turn order?

That's Move -> Magic -> Shoot -> Melee for any who doesn't know.

im reading off 1d4chan... is this really suggesting i need 50 christians to do 1 wound to a primary tier unit? By the averages christians are tier 3 so they'd hit 20% vs a tier one so thats 10 hits on dmg assuming no + attacks thats 50 models causing 1 dmg 2 if they were knitted witha weapon that had +1 attacks. This would be assuming you remove the BtB contact rules from WHFB....

I will just say this, we had a guy who played a 150+ (minimum) model ork army in 40K he never to my knowledge finished a game (we're talkin 2-4 hour windows too) and was not allowed in the tournament with said army. Im not gonna touch how long the painting and transporting took. Course if your using vassal this might infact be doable but would still need alot of alterations to BtB rules

>>6454029
essentially yes
but those 50 guys aren't individual models but grouped together on a larger base akin to swarms in warhammer.

>>6454029
You're forgetting Options. Christians, as an army that relies pretty heavily on tertiaries, will have some kick-ass options. Let's say they get a sword which gives bonus attacks. That's cool, but even fodder can have that. The important powerful thing about Christians is the replaced body parts. Let's suppose those Christians have, for example, Arms as Lighting - They can damage higher tier units at half the reduction.
What about if they also have Sinews of Steel - They get their to-hits two better. Those seem like some reasonable options to me. And their to-hits should probably already be one better as a bonus from being Christian, since each has lived (or not lived) through countless battles.

>>6454093
>Grouped on a larger base
I thought we decided against that; and only fodder gets shared bases.

>>6454152
Second Tier creatures get options too.

>>6454152
That works out to eight wounds, if the secondary has no defensive Options. That could it in one turn.

>>6454168
Man-Machines likely won't have much by way of Options though. They're designed to come un-augmented in significant numbers.

>>6454187
That could take out two in one turn, probably.

>>6454163
your right sorry, i got the 2 tiers mixed up

I thought that was sort of the flavour we where going for, sure the christian warriors are tough but if the romans march out a God-Machine then the only practical option would be to summon a herald, or at least some acendents.

>>6454152
i do apologize for the assumptions i made but it is important to remember that options are just that options (most ork armies arent 200 some models but they CAN be and thus some are)
>>6454163
IF it does end up that 30-50 (or oh god more..) model count units are available condensing into larger bases (ala epic 40K) is a wonderful way around that... seriously moving (1) 30 model unit is a pain in the ass

>>6454296
Christians are intended to pretty much always have some Options. They're like nids that way. I think all armies will tend to have Options more than GW games though.

I think we'll probably encourage trays, even for unformed units, but yeah.

Only the Chinese are liable to get units much bigger than that, and they at leas use formations, so throwing them on a tray is pretty much trivial.

the more i think about it the more i think you should look to epic 40K as the scale (and possibly some rules) for this project... I believe the rulebook was released as free a few years ago, anyone got a link?

>>6454344
>scale
We decided on 15mm, that's about what Epic uses, isn't it?

>>6454386
i believe epic uses matchbox scale which is like 1:64 but i may be wrong. A human is 6 mm in epic and near 28mm in 40K

>>6454029
wait i think i did that math wrong 50 christians would be 10 hit and 10 dmg and since its 2 tiers different they'd need 100 dmg to do one wound even with double attacks a 50 model unit wouldnt do 1 wound a turn... hell a 100 models with 3 attacks would be 20 hit x 2 attacks = 40 dmg total not even half one wound

I see this model for dmg resolution only being overcame with massive amounts of special options for every tertinary unit which in turns means youll have more special rules to memorize... the base system should simply be altered

>>6454423
yeah epic is 6mm, though I don't think the difference between that and 15 will have any real effect on determining crunch, so we can probably just leave that up to people when(if) they start gathering models.

>>6454576
it doesn't necessarily have to be 10
making it 5 for example would reduce the required amount in that situation to only 25 instead of 100

>>6454576
Tertiaries aren't really supposed to have much of a chance against Primaries. But perhaps the gradient is excessive. What numbers would you suggest?

10 was just an arbitrary number somebody picked as an example some time in the last thread. It can certainly be different. About how many wounds do we think that the situation posited in
>>6454576
should yield? And the intermediate situation, which should be much more common?

>>6454661
I'd say the given situation should yield 1 or 2 wounds, If we drop the teir multiplier to 5 and make the christian tertiaries (at least the anti-mech ones) attack as if secondaries then we get 2 wounds, while still having primaries out of the league of things like fodder.

>>6454661
Those 50 unmodified units can generally wound the unmodified primary. They average three wounds on a secondary - should be enough to take him down in a couple rounds most of the time. Meanwhile, he'll be taking out only small chunks of their ranks.

If we use 3, the Primary takes 1 wound on average. Secondary takes 5 wounds on average. Of course, these secondaries and primaries aren't dealing particularly many wounds either.

Okay, changed it to 5 in the wiki.

Also we appear to have hit auto sage so new thread at
>>6454935