8/6/2019 dERPS

1/19

Aqizzar's Automatic Anihilation Engine---------------------------------------Been ignoring this for a few days, but I've got the time to invest in it now. Afew things.

I like the idea of accuracy based on distance. With hexes that's a lot easier to eyeball than inches. To keep out too much weirdness like targets moving out o

f range, ranged weapons will just have realistically generous maximum ranges. Though really shot weapons like throwing knives are hard to place then.

My basic idea for a stat system is, stats are made from a roll-over base+roll.Say two models are beating each other up, using practically universal Strength and Toughness stats. Ignoring how they're actually hitting each other, their attacks are made as (Attacker's Strength stat + 1d6) vs (Defender's Toughness + 1d6). And everything else just kind of follows from there.

As there are no distinct Action or Movement phases, there's no need to distinguish between them. Units have a Speed they move at, but also some kind of Actionstat, which determines how many times a turn a model can do stuff, be it running

, attacking, or otherwise. For most models Action is just 2 - run and shoot, shoot and retreat, run like hell, or dig in and really shoot. Ponderous units like zombies would have 1 Action, anything more than 2 or 3 would be pretty Heroic.---------------------------------------Action - How many actions a model can perform each turn; two for most fighters.Movement - How many hexes a model can travel in one action.Initiative - How likely a model will react meaningfully in a situation the orders don't cover.Logic - How skilled that reaction will be (say shooting the most dangerous target instead of spraying fire).Some kind of accuracy stats for ranged and close combat weapons.Toughness to shrug off damage, maybe modified by armor instead of being separated.

I prefer the simplicity of Warhammer's very few Wounds system for tracking modelhits.Strength might be rolled into a general close combat ability. I had a possibleidea for strength governing carry-weight and suchlike for weapons, but that raises too many sticky questions about technical details to keep.---------------------------------------Well, I said that the crux of the rules is that both armies move simultaneously.Players give orders to each unit or squad or whatever each turn, but if the un

it runs into a situation that it's orders don't cover (target gone, ambushed, other stuff), it then has to act on it's own. Initiative measures a model's ability to jump into action, Logic covers had competent that action is.

Say two units blunder into each other, a pack of Sabretooth Tigers and a squad of Dwarven Machinegunners. The tigers would probably react first, leaping at thedwarves as animals do; while the dwarves would react with better strategy, shooting the leader or forming a defensive line. A model with low scores in both would be dimwitted like an ogre and in need of good supervision, while some ElvenSEALs would have high scores in both and could confidently be left to their owndevices. Obviously, reactions would rarely be automatic, relying on rolls, thentables or suchlike.---------------------------------------Okay, I've finally had the flash of inspiration I've been waiting for. At last,a stat comparison system!

All models have a stat line, whose numbers are fixed as one would expect. Attac

ks, armor, and other special stuff adds die-rolls to these fixed numbers when actions compare them. Allow me to demonstrate with a completely hypothetical scenario with hypothetical placeholder stats.

8/6/2019 dERPS

2/19

Two identical cavemen, Uhg-A and Uhg-B, are battling (there can be only one Uhg!). Both wear the same hide armor and carry matching clubs. First, they have toactually engage each other in combat - this a function I'll work out later (Initiative and so forth). For argument's sake, Uhg-A strikes first. His basic Weapon Skill is 5, and his club offers a to-hit roll of +1D6. Uhg-B's basic Agility is 5, and his light hide armor allows a +1D6 roll for dodging (you can see whe

re I'm going with this). Uhg-A connects, and rolls to wound Uhg-B. Uhg-A hitswith Strength 5, and his wooden stick rolls a +1D6 when smacking people. Uhg-Bwears some thick hide, adding +1D6 to his 5 of Toughness, and yeah you get the idea.

With this caveman example, let me stress a very important point. The system, asI envision it, makes absolutely no distinction between technologies, eras, or origins. For the purposes of balancing and model cost, it is the effect, and only the effect, that matters, not the explanation. If you make a unit of sling-swinging hobbits and say they do the same damage as riflemen, other players wouldbe perfectly entitled to make fun of you, but as long as you pay the commiseratecost of rifle-like damage, you can say it's because they throw rocks at the spe

ed of sound, and the system itself will not care one iota.

Back on point, the bonus rolls for "equipment" (explanations are meaningless) goup or down to represent various kinds of attacks or defenses, and also interactwith the target's options. Examples: A buzzsaw would have a high Strength bonus for cutting through armor, but a very low Skill bonus because it's clumsy. Aflamethrower would have relatively low Strength, but it's fan would downgrade the target's Agility bonus. A bulky suit of armor would have a high Toughness bonus, but add little to Agility. A very hard suit of armor would possibly degrade the weapon's Strength bonus or divide it's basic Strength, as it's designed towithstand direct blows. I'm picturing a large table of Weapon and Armor typesand their respective interactions with each other. And of course, some weapons(like guns) will have their own basic Strength independent of the model that car

ries it.

It also bears mentioning that these bonus rolls will all be D6's, D3's, D8's, and so on. As there's no physical table or models, any random numbers needed could really be of any possible range, but I think for nerd-dom's sake if nothing else I'd like to adhere to the Platonic polyhedrals.

So I still need to think through and devise the whole squad-logic-initiative-morale thing, and a weapon design system, and armor types, and a terrain system. But at least I've got the basic stat-use-comparison matrix hammered into place.Although no real stats to plug into it yet. Anyway, there you go. Thoughts?---------------------------------------Beats me! No really, I've thought about that, but I don't have a good answer yet. I'm specifically trying not to ape Warhammer, but there's no denying the difference between hitting someone really hard and hitting a bunch of guys in succession. There has to be accounting for that.

When talking about "weapons", I say again that there is no distinction between swords or teeth or a malignant aura. "Weapon" is just a convenient term for anydistinct option a model has for doing damage with. Obviously that includes a buyable option for multiple attacks.

It works like this. You design the basic model (say, a Dwarf). Then you designdifferent "weapons" (like a pair of axes, an uzi, and a headbutt). Then you design different "armors" (like a suit of platemail, a forcefield, and a booze ste

nch). Then you design the units themselves, made of models, weapons, armors, and miscellaneous options. I guess a model could have as many "weapons" as you want to load on him, but you can only use one at a time. And the point-value calc

8/6/2019 dERPS

3/19

ulation will algorithmically make a unit more expense by the variability and power of options it has. Armor is a bit trickier - maybe armors can be designed inlayers, so you can make platemail and forcefields, and some models might be given one, the other, or both, but not multiples on the same layer.---------------------------------------Exactly. [Hexes] Should be height values too, which would give improved range (and ergo accuracy do to the prorated to-hit system) and make the model a little h

arder to hit due to the slope cover. Of course, the terrain effects could be designed like everything else, probably best left to the Game Master, with obviousstock options.---------------------------------------I don't have stats down, but I do have a simple comparison system. I have a stat skeleton that needs flesh. In ascending level of interdependence-

Strength, Toughness, Agility, Shooting Skill, Fighting Skill, Action, and Movement are all pretty much in place.

I need to settle on a close combat mechanic, and describe an "Attack" type statto govern it.

Initiative, Logic, and Bravery (or suchlike names) all need defining, to build the combined unplanned-squad-action and morale system, and decide how pervasive squad-determined activity will be. Along with some basic semblance of actual orders that you give each unit.

The fundamental basis of defining "weapons" and "armor" needs to be written.

After all that, individual models will basically be complete, functioning beings. Then comes a squad system to combine models into cohesive blocks with individual-model options within the squad, so it's not just managing a bunch of freebooters. Once all that's in place, the game will have all the constituent parts itneeds to be playable in a very basic way (that I can foresee at least), and tes

ting, refining, and addition can begin in earnest. Keep the ideas comin', and hopefully I'll have another flash of genius inspiration.---------------------------------------Agility is just a flat rating of a model's ability to dodge blows. Initiative is the speed with which a model reacts to a situation. I think there are enoughimportant differences between them to separate them.

Mostly, initiative determines whether a model will act on it's own in a turn ifit's presented with an opportunity or lack thereof that the player's last ordersdon't cover. It would also have an effect on who strikes or shoots first, butprobably on in the first round of the engagement. I.E., the faster thinkers draw first, but the faster movers strike quicker once the fight is underway. Likewise, this plays into who shoots first in determining ranged attacks.

While each turn is simultaneous, each unit will be handled one at a time, basedmostly on Initiative. Units with the highest scores will act first, units withthe lowest scores might not survive long enough to act at all.

Bravery handles what Warhammer does with Leadership, as far as determining whether a unit stays in the fight against difficulties. When it comes to tactical maneuvering, Logic comes into play.

---------------------------------------I emerge again from my rulesmithery, with a big lumpy block of Action rules! First, the final stat list.

Action - How many actions a Unit can perform in a turn.Movement - How many hexes a Unit can travel in a Move action.

8/6/2019 dERPS

4/19

Fighting Skill - Base To Hit score, which HtH Weapons add die rolls to.Ranged Skill - Base To Shoot score, which Ranged Weapons add die rolls to.Size - Governs how many models can fit in a hex, and some Weapon effects.Wounds - How many times a model can be wounded before being removed.Strength - Base To Wound score, which (mostly) HtH Weapons add die rolls to.Agility - Base To Dodge score, which enemy attacks must beat to hit, and HtH hitrotation.

Toughness - Base To Resist score, which attack Strengths must beat to wound.Initiative - Governs Unit action order, acting without orders, first round HtH attacks.Bravery - Base for Morale, which leaders add die rolls to, for Panicing and making Charges.Logic - Governs Unit ability to follow orders, attack chosen targets, and make decisions.

Most of my calculation theory assumes checks from a median model; "Normal" statsfor a competent warrior-

#-2 M-3 F-5 R-5 Z-5 W-1 S-5 A-5 T-5 I-5 B-5 L-5

I'm sure you can figure out the notation. This next part is all the rules and situations I can think of for Unit Order interactions, charging and breakoff rules (but not the rules for close combat itself), and Initiative/Bravery/Logic uses(though not Panic rules). I haven't proofread any of this, and there's probably lots of situations left unaccounted for. Follow the system logic as best youcan, and fire away with any points of concern or contention you have.

All Units act by Initiative Rolls

Bravery Rolls reduced by -1 per 25% of largest squad size reached, to a minimumof 1.

When regarding close combat, Bravery is reduced depending on the Unit sizes.If outnumbered, bravery reduced by -1If outnumbered twice over, bravery reduced by -2If outnumbered thrice or more over, bravery reduced by -3This does apply to the Bravery Roll made to initiate a charge, and to staying inthe fight.

Logic Roll is Base Logic + Leadership BonusNormal Leadership Bonus is +1D6, barring special rules.Die size purchased up for particular Models (Leaders), but independent of ModelStats.Highest Leadership Bonus in the unit applies to everyone, depending on who's alive.

Normal Orders - default up if roll failsCharge Nearest Hex - basic HtH attack, clear Bravery Roll 8Charge Nearest Target - spread charge over enemy hexes, clear Bravery Roll 8, Logic 3Charge Chosen Hex - does that, clear Bravery Roll 8, clear Logic Roll 6Charge Chosen Target - spread charge over enemy hexes, clear Braver Roll 8, Logic 6Charge Chosen Model - allocates blah blah, clear Bravery Roll 8 and Logic Roll 11Shoot At Nearest Hex - basic ranged attack, clear Logic Roll 3 or unit Charges Nearest

Shoot At Nearest Target - spread fire over enemy hexes, clear Logic Roll 6Shoot At Nearest Open Hex - does that, clear Logic Roll 5Shoot At Nearest Open Target - ditto, clear Logic Roll 6

8/6/2019 dERPS

5/19

Shoot At Chosen Hex - does that, clear Logic Roll 8Shoot At Chosen Target - spread fire over enemy hexes, clear Logic RollShoot At Chosen Model - allocates hits to chosen model first, clear Logic Roll 11

If Chosen Hex/Target/Model is not available to attack-clear Initiative Roll 10 to attempt Charge/Shoot order on highest value target a

vailableclear Initiative Roll 7 to attempt Charge/Shoot Nearest (Open) Target orderclear Initiative Roll 3 to attempt Charge/Shoot Nearest Hex order

Taking Fire Reactions - compare models lost against current unit size>25% Models Lost - clear Bravery Roll 6 or lose turn, clear Bravery Roll 3 or Panic25% Models Lost - clear Bravery Roll 7 or lose turn, clear Bravery Roll 5 or Panic50% Models Lost - clear Bravery Roll 8 or lose turn, clear Bravery Roll 6 or Panic75% Models Lost - clear Bravery Roll 9 or lose turn, clear Bravery Roll 7 or Pa

nic

Being Charged Reactions - compare Unit sizesTarget >2> Charger - No Bravery Check by TargetTarget > Charger to Charger > Target - clear Bravery Roll 5 or PanicCharger >2> Target - clear Bravery Roll 6 or PanicCharger >3+> Target - clear Bravery Roll 7 or Panic

Staying in Close Combat - Both sides act in Initiative orderclear Bravery Roll 5 or Panic, do not proceed to breakoff, until all InitiativesrolledIf any units Panic, only units that don't breakoff make Break Attacks

Breakoff Attacks - compare Agility Rolls to cause attacks, not Initiative, thenproceed

Things To Do -panicking UnitsTo Hit tables over hexes for ranged weaponsrules governing close combatrules to combine Units together into larger unitsinteract that with close combatunit types and armors, weapon types, how they compare and interact---------------------------------------Yes, the general idea is that an ordinary unit with no leader has a 50-50 shot at passing Charge tests (against similar or smaller units anyway). Ergo, you should get a leader. Specifically, Leaders would probably have a larger die (D8, D10, D12), and possibly a larger base stat.

Also, that means lone heroes who intend to charge enemy squads should invest inBravery 7 or 8 with a bigger die roll to counter the inevitable -3 for being outnumbered.---------------------------------------Answering in reverse order-

Stat and tactic based. I just had an idea that some units might have a specialability for the player to redeploy them after the initial placement, in response

to the enemy's deployment. But other than that, units will have to hoof it everywhere, barring some kind of transport or a special teleport rule.

8/6/2019 dERPS

6/19

The basic leadership "package" would be a higher die roll that only effects hisown unit. Basically, increasing the die-size would be cheaper than increasing the base state, because of the variability versus guarantee. Like the teleport thing, I have a whole slew of unit and model "special rules" in mind, that coulddo thinks like letting other units use a model's Logic. I'm saving that kind ofcrunchy stuff for later, after I have the fundamental system hammered down.

There will be hard guidelines on stat designs. For instance, Size, Strength, and Toughness are all closely related - it's hard to imagine a creature twice thesize of a man not being significantly stronger and tougher. Larger Sizes woulddemand a minimum in some stats, and probably cap a maximum on Agility. Likewise, Strength and Toughness being functions of mass, they couldn't be too far apartfrom each other, probably required to differ by no more than 50% going either way.

I don't have anything more detailed to say on model creation, especially with the weapon and armor system still up in the air. But feel free to brainstorm allthe unit designs you like. Heck, I encourage you post them. The more ideas I get for things to make, the better I'll know how to shape the system.

---------------------------------------I'll figure out force organization later, after I figure out units, after I figure out models, after I figure out weapons.

But yes, Bravery especially will cause massive changes when altered up or down by even one point. I might change that, to allow for greater variation or possibility, I don't see any good reason to. It's this rather harsh system, or a lackof chance and penalty at all.

Also, you know there's an EDIT button right? Don't think the timeframe means you can't use it.

---------------------------------------Okay, I kind of fucked things up with the first go around there. Let me clear some this up.

Re: "Leaders" - Yes, they confer their Initiative, Logic, and Bravery to the whole unit. However, to avoid the cracked option of a high-stat guy leading a low-stat squad, the cost of upgrading a Leader will scale up based on the stats of the model he's leading, to try to make it cost prohibitive for a Leader to be toofar out of line from his troops. Of course, that will have to wait for actualrules and costs for unit creation. Even if you did that though, having one guybe the mental linchpin of the unit would be pretty risky, with the (rather difficult) option for attackers to single out the Leader.

Re: Examples - I made one mistake in the statline. Base Size (Z) should be 1, not 5. Size refers directly to how large the unit is in a very physical sense, determining how many models can fit in a 100mm hex. 1-25mm, 2-40mm, 3-60mm, 4-100mm, following modeling conventions.

Re: Other stats and costs - given the rapid difference in effectiveness once a model moves in either direction away from the basline, I want stat costs to be curved, not linear; the model's final cost should (with another math function) take into account the overall design of the model; ditto all that for units. Obviously, I don't have a clue what anything should "cost" at this point, especiallywith the weapon and armor system left to write.

My plan there is to just eyeball some "basic" units, assign arbitrary values, compare them in battle, readjust costs, and try that over again a few times. Oncemy test units seem relatively balanced, I'll reverse engineer them to break dow

8/6/2019 dERPS

7/19

n why they cost what they cost, then go from there.

If you think that sounds contorted, bear in mind that guys from Games Workshop have admitted that when they rewrite the Warhammer books every few years, they'llrun maybe a half dozen test battles before printing.---------------------------------------What, did you guys coordinate on Question Time? Okay, here I go-

Quote from: bjlong on June 14, 2009, 09:24:45 am

Base size is 1? Oops, that'll change things. Does this correspond to a human? And if so, will there be a size 0, for things smaller than a human?

Yeah, size 1 is anything within, say, 1 to 2 meters tall, and fitting within that kind of box. There could be a provision for extra small, half-sized creatures. I'll nail down model forms and types next, moving into the weapon system.

Quote from: bjlong on June 14, 2009, 09:24:45 am

I tried to keep what you said about logic, initiative, and bravery in mind when making the decisions about those units. If you could hash out some combat rules, I can try to incorporate them more into my designs. If not, then giving mean idea about how the scale works would work fine. (i.e., 10 means this, 5 meansthis, 1 means this.)

Scale moves up or down from a baseline of 5 for all the mental stats, with mostactions rolling a D6 or similar a beating (not equaling or less) the numbers inthat list. That means there serious curves of diminishing real effect after about +/- 3 to any stat. I know that's a pretty arbitrary and limited system, butit's what I'm going with for now for simplicity's sake.

Quote from: bjlong on June 14, 2009, 09:24:45 am

Also, how are #, M, and W scaled-- from 1 to 10? Or something different?

# (Action) is probably the most powerful stat, since it's the number of orders aunit can execute in one turn. As I said in the OP (or somewhere), two is normal - run+run, run+shoot, shoot+run, shoot+shoot. Really slow creatures like zombies could have one action. Anything over three is mind-bendingly capable.

M (Move) is governed more by practical reality than anything else. I say M-3 isa "human" normal, because a 1-inch model only crossing two 4-inch hexes feels too slow, and crossing four feels too fast. While there is no real tabletop involved, try to picture one when thinking of how much distance a model can cover inthe roughly equivalent time it takes to crack off some shots or beat each otherup.

W (Wounds, name open to change) is how many times a model can be injured beforebeing removed. I can't imagine this being any more than 2 for most non-heroic humanoids, and even then a 1/2 wounded humanoid should have an injury penalty orsomething.

Quote from: Org on June 14, 2009, 09:36:32 am

Aqizzar:What about having two H2H weapons?

8/6/2019 dERPS

8/19

Like, in my army, knives/daggers deal d3+S, while Swords/Maces/Axes deal d6+S, and 2Handed weapons deal d8+S. Would having two swords(giving a guy 2d6+S)make 2 Handed Weapons Obsolete?

All those times I said "weapon" before? Replace that with "attack", because thename is obviously misleading. "Attack"s are purchased based on effect, not exp

lanation. It doesn't matter if it's a one-armed guy with a claymore or a spidersexta-wielding morning stars.

To answer your concern though, yes, there should be a difference between hittingmore and hitting harder. "Attack"s will be rated both on their damage roll, and their number of chances to hit (among other factors). To use the examples - a"two-handed sword" attack would have one hit chance and roll S+1D8, while a "dual wielded swords" attack would have two hit chances and roll S+1D6 for each ofthem. Hypothetically anyway.

Quote from: Org on June 14, 2009, 09:36:32 am

Today is my Birthday.

That's great.

Quote from: Org on June 14, 2009, 09:36:32 am

Edit:Not sure about the Leaders thing. Kind of unfair when you think about it.

Do you mean Heroes, or like Sergeants?

I don't know what you mean by unfair. A "Leader" is just any model with a givenmental stat bought up (can be any combination of them), and/or designated within a multi-model unit and bought with a higher roll for mental stat checks (stillany combination). What they're called is entirely your choice.

I guess as examples, a "hero" type leader would buy higher Bravery or Initiativeas an inspiring commander, while a "sergeant" type would buy higher Logic to better direct his squad's activity. I see no good reason to allow or prohibit more than one "Leader" per squad, so I guess you could spread the abilities aroundif you wanted to.

Quote from: Org on June 14, 2009, 09:36:32 am

And you haven't answered a question. Are Vehicle Rules and Magic Rules up tothe player, or what?

I'm trying to get the most conceivably fundamental type of units, infantry, hammered into shape so the rest of the rules can then be built around them. I wantthe game to actually be playable first, then I'll go back and figure out wacky extra stuff like vehicles and special effects. First thing's first.

But hey, if you've got any ideas, don't be afraid to pitch 'em.---------------------------------------Quote from: PTTG?? on June 15, 2009, 10:07:53 am

...resolve in initiative order, which could be modified by a number of things. Breaking and fleeing combat would potentially have a higher initiative than a

8/6/2019 dERPS

9/19

ttacking at range. some units may have natural initiative bonuses and penalties.

I like the idea, though it would introduce some complication that I wonder couldbe rolled into a single area. That said, yes, I think this would have application for something like musketeers, who would shoot at a lower Initiative than they would draw swords at. Not sure whether to make that a blanket function of t

he combat mechanics, or specific to the model, or specific to the attack. I'm think making it a matter of the attack would be clearest, like designating a attack as "clumsy" or "light" or something to say how it impacts initiative order.

Quote from: PTTG?? on June 15, 2009, 10:07:53 am

The biggest flaw I see would be that the GM's head might explode. Perhaps some automation of routine combat rolls would be needed.

Having run a couple forum games, this is indeed a dire concern for me. In an optimal world, there would be an Army Builder Program that the players would write

their army list with, which would be loaded into the GM's Master Comparison Program. Then any time two units interact, the GM would just select the unit, runthe action function, and the effects on the units would be stored and reported.That said, my grasp of even C++ is tenuous at best, so I'd probably be doing all the work longhand, especially while the system is still be tweaked and tested.Any coders in the audience willing to lend a hand afterward?

---------------------------------------Org, I already answered both of those questions, several times. A model's number of hits in close combat is part of the design of the "attack" they use. ForceOrganization comes after unit construction.

Going back to earlier stuff about magic, lemme clear up a couple things. Clockwork reliable stuff like Magic Missile or Burning Hands crap can be designed by e

ffect like any other attack, and just rationalized as magic. Any extra effect of that concept, or more complicated Warhammery "battle magic", lies way in future, behind more pertinent stuff.

Again my goal is to lay down enough basic elements for the game to actually be playable, then comes fancy stuff. Remember this mantra: you can't have special effects without first having basic effects.

Quote from: inaluct on June 15, 2009, 10:19:49 pm

So, how's this coming? I'd be willing to help with the coding by learning C++ and then trampling and breaking everything in my futile attempts to be competent, if that's what you need.

The programs couldn't possibly be more complicated than data-entry and comparingthat data. Just putting stuff in packaged objects, loading those objects fromfiles, and running stuff against equations, RNGs, and tables. Knock yourself out.LoggedQuote from: Duke 2.0 on October 02, 2010, 10:---------------------------------------Oh yes, I've been thinking about it a lot. I'll post something bigger later, but as for weapons and resistances, it's an open question, which I'll need a lot o

f help with just to think of stuff and interactions.

I have some screwy philosophies about game design. On some level, I consider co

8/6/2019 dERPS

10/19

mplexity to be vulgar, and that the mark of an elegant system is simplicity. Likewise, especially after perusing games like FATAL and Synnibarr (for God's sake, don't look them up), imagery-dependent mechanics strike me as... juvenile would be the best word.

This is a bad approach. On my first attempt to design differences between attack and defense types, I filed it down to less than a half-dozen total, which were

so universal that I had to explain them to myself. I was in danger of simplifying and generalizing the system out of existence. So I'm taking a different tack.

If people are going to design their own armies, they're going to want the rulesto reflect their creative vision. Short of letting players design their own rules (dark can of worms if there ever was one), I'm thinking there will be maybe adozen or two types of attacks and defenses, representing some universal distinctions like "Hard" armor or "Skin" armor, and "Fire" or "Bullet" attacks. Somewhere in the thread, I said that comparing attacks and defenses work by adding different sizes of bonus dice to the models' base stats (or the weapon's base for guns and such). Comparing the types on a table (think Pokemon), will make the di

ce of one or the other larger or smaller.---------------------------------------Two weeks, and not even a bump from Org. Well, I'm finally on vacation, and I'mgoing to get this stupid project into a playable state if it kills me. Or not,but whatever, I've got it on my mind. Making progress...

Among other things, I've changed up the rolling system. A while back, I posteda big list of check numbers for morale tests and charges. It now strikes me askind of silly for there to be concrete numbers for such things.

There are two kinds of die rolls. "Contest" rolls are what normal attacks consist of - two units adding their base stats and bonus dice, with victory to the highest. "Check" rolls are anything that involves just one unit - called shots, i

nitiating charges, break tests, poisons, difficult terrain, whatever. For these, a die (determined by type, with more tables) has to be rolled under the unit'sbase stat.

Modifiers like type advantages and leadership bonuses adjust the size of the dierolled "up" or "down" depending on the type of test - sizes being 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12.

I'll get to the types and advantage tables and such probably later today. First, Army Catalog design, soon.---------------------------------------Big Post Ahoy! Answers some questions. I've been writing this on-and-off all day, so it might meander a little...

Preliminary Army Design and Components

Spoiler: Models (click to show/hide)StatlineExactly that. All the base stats - Actions, Movement, Fighting Skill, Ranged Skill, Size, Wounds, Strength, Agility, Toughness, Initiative, Logic, Bravery.

Model TypeThis is reflection of the model's basic construction, and mostly interacts withthe Targeting Type of Attacks (see Elaborations below). This is different from

elements and such, below. There's three types (so far)-Critical - Living creatures mostly. Essentially any being with organs or critical parts (hence the name) which, however tough, could still be laid low by a luc

8/6/2019 dERPS

11/19

ky hit. This is the default type, cheapest, and the attack system assumes thistype before being modified by anything.Solid - Robots, zombies, snarling beasts, and any other creature that still hasdistinct parts, but is single minded enough to keep fighting despite grievous injury. For instance, if a human loses an arm, he might not die but he'll certainly be out of the fight. This refers to creatures that needs to be hacked apartto go down. This doesn't confer any particular durability - the classic flimsy

skeleton would be a Solid Model with low toughness.Amorphous - Slimes, ghosts, swarms of insects, anything that not only doesn't have vulnerable organs, but doesn't even have enough structure to hit properly. Amorphous Models are largely immune to things like bullets or sword swings, but are extra susceptible to explosions and other broad area effects.

Model NatureThis is where elements, origins, resistances and vulnerabilities and so forth go. Typically, this effects the size of the model's Toughness roll. Rather thandistinct sets, strengths and weaknesses to attack effects will probably be set individually, with the default being leaving the attack unmodified.

Spoiler: Attacks (click to show/hide)Base Use TypeWhat the Attack actually is, especially whether it's a Close Combat or Ranged attack. More could probably be done with this, but I haven't thought of much yet.A few types I can think of-

Basic Hand to Hand - Most weapons used in model on model brawls, whatever the other factors. Requires engaging the target in the same hex and therefore being open to counter attack and other attendencies.Long Hand to Hand - Really long weapons like spears and pikes, used to attack targets in other hexes or up on walls. Generally, attacks that use the Fighting Skill but don't lead to a full on melee.Basic Ranged - Shootin' stuff. Needs no explanation.Indirect Ranged - Not sure if this should count. Ignoring Terrain might work be

tter as a separate effect, but this does at least cover weapons that can't be used for called shots on specific models.

Target EffectThis describes the general effect of the attack, rather than it's specific nature. (see Elaborations below)Focused - Bullets, lasers, arrows, spears, knives, anything that puts all it's damage in a small spot.Area - Most melee weapons, shotguns, ballistas, catapults, stuff that damages over a broad location.Explosive - Just what it says. It's hard to think of a close combat explosive,but the option is there.Flowing - Gas, flamethrowers, engulfing, more than Area damage, actually spreading over the target.

Damage NatureDitto for all the elemental stuff from models. They won't actually be the same,but so long as they're all referenced on a table together it doesn't matter.

Range IndexOnly applicable to Ranged attacks obviously. The vagaries of weapons being whatthey are, a simple Distance/Hit modifier isn't enough. Stealing a page from Inquisitor, there will be several different tables of distance vs accuracy types to choose from. For instance, a sniper rifle is unwieldy at close range but accurate at long range, while a throwing axe is accurate (enough) but just drops to

the ground after some distance.

Accuracy Bonus

8/6/2019 dERPS

12/19

Rolling to hit is already covered by the model's two hitting stats, but it's conceivable that some weapons would be harder or easier to hit with. I'm not committed to keeping this, maybe rolling it into the Index.

Base Strength and Bonus DieThe all important die roll that gets added when attacking. Base Strength is taken if a weapon is supposed to cause the same damaged regardless of who's holding

it (like most Ranged Weapons), as opposed to Model Strength. Each prorates it's cost differently depending on the Strength of the model it's given to.

Spoiler: Defenses (click to show/hide)I haven't entirely decided how Defenses should work, but I think this is a goodstarting point.

Basic Level DefensesThis is the Defense a model uses against all Attacks, regardless of other factors. Units must assign every model one and only one Basic Level Defense, be it abattlesuit, a magic cape, or bare skin.

Toughness and Agility BonusesBasic Defenses must have bonus dice for each of these. Optimally, the point cost would be based on the total, encouraging a balance. Low or high scores in both is possible, being very low or very high priced respectively.

Defense NatureSame as above. Typically, this effects the size of an attacker's Strength bonusdie.

Extra Level DefensesThese are appended on top of the Basic Level, if the form of extra bonuses thatare only used in certain circumstances. For example, a heavy shield could add aToughness bonus in Close Combat, and a cloaking field could add an Agility bonu

s against Ranged attacks. (see Elaborations below)

Spoiler: Special (click to show/hide)As the name implies, this is where you define anything that doesn't fit elsewhere, which causes a model or unit to behave differently from the expected default.Probably endless, but I can think of a few typical Special Rules.

Leadership StatusAs I described before, this will be appended to a unit, or more often a specificmodel (or models), which reduces the size of the Logic or Bravery die to roll under the unit/model's base stat. Logic and Bravery are separate bonuses, but for extra cost could be rolled into one model upgrade.

Model MindBy default, the game assumes every model is a mentally competent and coherent enough being to make it's own decisions, however well or poorly, in the interestsof the army at large without someone to watch over it. There will of course beexceptions like riding mounts, war beasts, golems, recalcitrant slaves, and anynumber of other creeps that must be accompanied or instructed in some way in order to act in concert with the army, and who will go off on some kind of tangentif left alone.

Different DeploymentBy default, when the game begins, the Game Master says what areas the players can set up their armies in. These rules would afford the player more options. Ma

ny different ways of handling this.

Different Movement

8/6/2019 dERPS

13/19

By default, the game assumes that every model is slogging it's way along the ground on the functional equivalent of feet. Plenty of other methods exist, flying, hopping, swimming, whatever.

Spoiler: Elaborations (click to show/hide)Some of that stuff doesn't make much sense on it's own. Here's some explanations of how all the different Types and Natures should interact.

Model and Target TypesAs said, the Types have more to do with physics than origin. Effects-Critical models take the normal damage dice from all types, being the assumed default.Solid models resist damage from Focused and Flowing attacks, lacking weak pointsto minute strikesFocused and Area weapons usually pass right through Amorphous targets, but theyare more susceptible to Explosive and Flowing damage.

Natures and ContestsThe typical contest between an Attack and it's target involves the Model and Tar

get Types, the three different natures of the Attack, Defense, and Model, and the four different bonus dice. Extra Level Defense Natures might even complicatethings more, but I haven't settled that yet. Typical combat plays out like this-

First, the aggressor has to make a "To Hit" Contest roll, his hitting skill, modified by Range Index (if applicable), against the opponent's Agility, with it'sbonus stat from it's Defense, and modified by terrain (if applicable).

Then comes the chunky part, comparing Natures for the "To Wound" Contest roll.The opponent's Basic Level Defense modifies the aggressor's Strength bonus (notsure what to do with Extra Levels yet). The opponent's Model Nature modifies it's own Toughness roll. Both are determined by the Nature of the aggressor's wea

pon.

These four elements (Models, Attacks, Defenses, Specials) constitute the Army Catalog, and the building blocks of units. Units are made up of at least one Model, one basic Defense, and one close combat Attack. That's just to avoid any weird situations like a model that can't fight - while perfectly applicable to vehicles and the like, that sort of thing is Way In The Future, behind making sure the damn game works at all. The actual Unit creation rules will be a full chapter in themselves, and not really necessary until after I test things out with myexample armies. The Army List is all the completed Units, and any special non-unit-dependent army-wide rules, but I haven't decided if I want that, and it's WITF anyway. Then of course the Army is whatever the player decides to field fromthe list.

That's where I stand. Now I need some tables of Attack and Model/Defense Natures, more tables for Bravery and Logic rolls, decide what to do with Extra Level Defenses, make Range Indexes, some simple terrain rules... Then just throw someplaceholder numbers into my experimental example armies, and a playable V0.01 will be go. Not playable in any meaningful sense, but enough to make sure the combat system actually works.---------------------------------------It's obvious the time has come to stop kicking around theoretically and make some working examples. I already sketched out some example armies, designed to usea lot of different mechanics, and I've so far been building ideas around what I

think I need to make the examples work. Then I just turn that around into a more general system. However, I haven't assigned any hard numbers to things yet,so I'm making this up as I type it.

8/6/2019 dERPS

14/19

Example Unit Construction, spoilered for bigness.Let's start with a Dwarven Gunner. First, he needs a statline, a model, and a model nature.

Model Name: Dwarven Gunner#-2 M-2 F-4 R-5 Z-1 W-1 S-5 A-4 T-6 I-4 B-6 L-4

Model Type: CriticalModel Nature: Mortal, Flesh

I just pulled "Mortal" and "Flesh" off the top of my head, signifying him as a living dude with all that implies. Next, he needs at least one Close Combat attack, so if stuck in melee he can fight and not fuck up the system.

Attack Name: "Fists"Use Type: Basic H2HTarget Effect: AreaDamage Nature: Blunt

Range Index: N/AStrength: Base + 1d3# of Hits: 2

I forgot to mention in the other post that Attacks should have some number of hits per use, probably with point cost rising geometrically. Anyway, that's a basic attack, but as a Gunner, we'll make a ranged attack.

Attack Name: MagbowUse Type: Basic RangedTarget Effect: FocusedDamage Nature: PiercingRange Index: Rifle

Strength: 5 + 1d6# of Hits: 1

Where "Rifle" is some predefined set of range/accuracy modifiers reflecting a rifle-like weapon. I'll need to type those up too. The listings for "Strength" reflect whether the weapon uses the model's own strength (most H2H attacks) or ifit's strength is independent of the model using it (most Ranged attacks). Now,a Defense.

Defense Name: ChainmailType: Basic LevelDefense Nature: Metal, OpenToughness Bonus: +1d4Agility Bonus: +1d4

Simple enough. Defenses probably shouldn't confer a base stat in themselves, like Attacks can. Just for the sake of example, let's throw in an Extra Level.

Defense Name: Antimagnet FieldType: Extra Level, Only VS RangedDefense Nature: Field, EnergyToughness Bonus: N/AAgility Bonus: +1d4

Extra Level Defenses don't have to have a Toughness and Agility bonus, and should never work against all kinds of Attacks or else it'd be Basic Level. Anyway,that's everything that Dwarven Gunners really need. But that doesn't show off a

8/6/2019 dERPS

15/19

ll the stuff that needs explaining, so I'll make some back-up.

Model Name: War Crocodile#-2 M-2 F-5 R-0 Z-1 W-2 S-6 A-3 T-7 I-3 B-8 L-1Model Type: SolidModel Nature: MortalCode: [Select]

Attack Name: "Croc Jaws"Use Type: Basic H2HTarget Effect: AreaDamage Nature: GoreRange Index: N/AStrength: Base + 1d8# of Hits: 1Code: [Select]Defense Name: "Croc Hide"Type: Basic LevelDefense Nature: Hard FleshToughness Bonus: +1d6

Agility Bonus: +1d4

Fuck War Dogs, we're going to the big leagues. This is most of why I didn't want Attacks and Defenses to represent some kind of equipment/inventory system, because there's plenty of ways Attacks and Defenses can represent something a modelcan't pick up or drop. At any rate, the War Croc isn't finished, because it needs to think like a crocodile. One asspull later-

Special Name: "War Animal Mind"Special Type: Activity LimitCondition: must be in Unit with other Default MindsConsequence: Normal ActivityNull Consequence: Random Movement, Engage All Units

Bit of mental pseudocode meaning "keep models with non-war animal minds in the same unit, or the crocs go berserk on their own". Speaking of Specials, those Dwarven Gunners will want a squad leader, so let's make that too.\

Special Name: Squad LeaderSpecial Type: Leadership Bonus (Bravery/Logic), One Model DesignationCondition: Designated Model must be in Unit, Only Taken OnceConsequence: Reduce Bravery/Logic Rolls 1 die sizeNull Consequence: Inapplicable

Here, if the Special is taken for the Unit, one model must be distinguished as the Squad Leader. So long as he's alive and in the squad, any time the squad hasto pass a Bravery or Logic Check roll (example: roll a 1d10 under the Unit's most common Bravery stat), the dice rolled will be knocked down a size (same example: roll a 1d8 instead of 1d10).

However, we're still not done. Models, Attacks, Defenses, and Specials don't doanything floating about in the ether, they need to be combined into a Unit, andthis isn't as simple as just saying who gets what (though it can be for a one-model unit). Unit construction is by no means settled, and point values even less so, but a Unit card might look like this-

Unit Name: Gunner Squad

Members:Dwarven Gunner w/ "Fists", Magbow, ChainmailWar Crocodile w/ "Croc Jaws", "Croc Hide", "War Animal Mind"

8/6/2019 dERPS

16/19

Numbers: 5-10 Dwarven Gunners, 0-10 War CrocodilesCosts: +10 Points per Dwarven Gunner, +12 Points per War CrocodileOptions:

Squad Leader: +10 Points, Dwarven Gunner onlyAntimagnet Field: +5 Points per Model

And that's everything I can think of for how to design and lay out all the const

ituent parts of Units and then combine them into something resembling a coherentsquad of dudes. Of course, there's much more to be done.

Holy crap. Well, I hope that at least starts to clear up how I'm approaching this. And the last (first) question-Quote from: bjlong on August 16, 2009, 07:59:43 am

Just a note: You've neglected to mention any drawbacks to being a solid-typecharacter. It seems to me that there should be some--pain exists for a reason.Perhaps a general penalty in defensive rolls?

The drawback is that Solid models cost more, because they're harder to kill. Point Value is---------------------------------------I should throw in something about Natures. Models and Defenses use one list ofNatures, representing what they're made of or effected by. Attacks have their own list, representing how they do damage. In my examples, "Flesh" would be moreeffected by Fire, "Piercing" would work better on Hard stuff, etc. Obviously,a lot of Natures for Models and Defenses will represent more what they're vulnerable to, with no concurrent advantage. The incentive is they become a lot cheaper.

If no relevant Nature is listed for the situation, the Attacks and Defenses justwork as listed. However, I plan to arrange them all in a spreadsheet, so there

's really no limit to how many modifiers can be attached to each Nature. Allowing multiple natures is necessary for full representation - It shouldn't fuck anything up with double-bonuses, because the Defense's Nature alters the Attack's die while the Model's Nature alters the Toughness die.

All of these different tags are of course placeholders for now. Nothing is setin stone, and that's probably what I should work on next. It's not actually critical for testing the system's basic function, but I've made a big deal of it.---------------------------------------Uh... Which line am I supposed to be typing into? Because every time I've usedone of these before, I would fuck something up until the sheet corrupted or theprogram crashed. Anyway, a few changes are in order-

1- "Human" standard Size (Z) is 1 not 5. I explained here, I fucked up the example statline. 1 is both the minimum and "default dude" size, 4 is the "fill upthe whole hex" maximum. Anything smaller will have to be represented in other special way (Amorphous swarms for instance).

2- "Human" standard move should be reduced to 2, instead of three. With Movement 3 (that's 3 four-inch hexes) and two Actions, a unit could run all the way across a four foot map in less than three turns. My bad.

3- F, R, S, T, A, I, L, and B should have a maximum of 10. These stats could conceivably need to pass a "roll-under" check, and (I might change this later) thelargest die used will be D12, so failure still needs to be possible.

3- F and R can remain free, but that's because the don't have a cost in themselves, rather that they'll alter the cost of Attacks given to them, since changes h

8/6/2019 dERPS

17/19

ow effective they are.

4- I'm not sure why I (initiative, used for determining model action order and close combat engagement) and B (bravery, used for bravery stuff) need to be linked to each other.

5- Why 215 as a "default" price? I get that you want some fudge room, but 215 f

or just one basic model without any other necessary parts would mean that even a30ish model army would run into a five figure total. Not that that has any problem in itself, but I feel like the scale of the numbers would start to run awayfrom the player.---------------------------------------I said several weeks ago that I'd come back to this in a week. Obviously I didn't, but I haven't been idle either. With all this talk lately of game design and documentation, I'm trying to kick this back into gear. Where my schedule allows of course, but whatever. Enough excuses, I want my game to actually work.

One problem is that this thread is the closest I have to a design document. I need to consolidate stuff somewhere other than inside my head, or at least gather

some hyperlinks to index everything. The problem is, I write notes best when I'm describing stuff like a conversation, so I have to inflict my half-baked ideas on other people. Or I just feel weird writing notes to myself. Ergo, here'swhere I think I stand-

Spoiler: Breakdown of Game Elements (click to show/hide)Core ElementsStat breakdown itself, the dice used, the stat comparison model, the turn-by-turn activities, the various actions (like moving and fighting) units can perform,probably the morale and target selection charts, and all the other little thingsthat make up the basic game engine. These can be altered as the Game Master and players wish, but gameplay will then be fundamentally different.

Required Additional ElementsArmy element Nature chart, terrain types, characteristics for Specials, the pointcost algorithm, the weapon range/accuracy table, and other crunchy bits that should be swapped around and altered to reflect the style of the game. In other words, everything that can be changed as the players wish without much trouble, but which are necessary for the game to be playable.

Optional Flavor ElementsExternal rules and complications that make the game play differently, but are not necessary to playing it at all. For example, wounding effects, "campaign" effects, an extra bitset describing Unit elements as items that can be gained and lost, "magic" actions too esoteric to be covered by basic Unit creation, greaterrules for single-model units to make the game more RPG-like, etc.This is just the theoretical underpinnings of the system itself.

Spoiler: Statline (click to show/hide)First thing's first, I want to differentiate my game from Games Workshop's products, and cut out some redundancy. To that end, the Fighting and Ranged Skills are gone. I'm not completely settled with this new setup, since it wraps a lot of activity into fewer measures, but I figure it's better to start simple and expand if necessary instead of adding encumbrance first. For clarity, the Statlineworks like this-

# M Z W S T A I L B

Actions (#) are the number of things (moving, shooting, attacking, whatever) that a Model can perform in one turn.

8/6/2019 dERPS

18/19

Movement (M) is the number of map Hexes a Model can cover with one Action.

Size (Z) is physical scale, used for determining how many Models can fit in oneHex. Also imposes high and low boundaries on Wounds, Strength, Toughness, and Agility.

Wounds (W, and the name should probably be changed) is just how many times a mod

el can lose a Defense roll and still fight. Expanded rules can cover whether partially wounded Models will behave any differently.

Strength (S) governs base hitting power with some attacks, especially in melee.Will have other uses in expanded systems, like extricating from rough terrain or carrying equipment.

Toughness (T) governs the Model's base ability to shrug off damage. Simple enough.

Agility (A) is the base for both landing and avoiding melee attacks (mostly), along with expanded rules like rough terrain or hidden movement (maybe).

Initiative (I) serves two big purposes - determining the order that Units move each turn, and the base for landing and avoiding (most) ranged Attacks. The ideabeing that shooting over a distance, or not being shot, is more a matter of awareness than raw dexterity, but I'm not totally committed to this.

Logic (L) mostly determines how a Model will react to the actions of other Units, such as opportunity fire, acting outside of orders when necessary, and fillingother holes in the game's own logic, as well as altering other actions like target selection and panicking.

Bravery (B) also covers actions and reactions, especially launching and absorbing melee attacks. Naturally, also governs when and how a Unit panics, which will

probably be encompassed in a phase outside of normal activity.

For more clarity, here again is the Statline the stat comparison, morale rules,and so forth will assume as "normal"-

#-2 M-2 Z-1 W-2 S-5 T-5 A-5 I-5 L-5 B-5

This is still subject to change, especially the W-2 which assumes that the gamewill be played with some kind of wounded-models extra rule as "standard". If not, W-1 would be more sensible.Big ol' statline description, just in case.

Spoiler: Dice and Rolling Them (click to show/hide)Dice, breakfast of champions. The game uses all of the following dice-D2, D3, D4, D5, D6, D8, D10, D12

Each of these sizes are referred to as Die Steps, because the die an action (like an Attack or Defense) rolls can be Stepped "Up" or "Down". Up is always bigger, Down is always smaller, regardless of whether a bigger or smaller die is a good or bad thing (as will be evident later).

Because it's possible for the combination of base stats and bonus dice to wind up making success or failure guaranteed, this necessitates an expanding-dice rule. Namely, 1's and maxes. If a Bonus Die turns up a 1, the action (whatever itis) automatically fails, even if the base+1 result would be successful anyway.

If the die turns up it's highest number (i.e. 8 on a D8) the die is rolled againand added to the result. So a 4+D2 could still beat a 6+D6, provided you rolla whole buch of 2's. The "1's are automatic failures" rule does not apply in th

8/6/2019 dERPS

19/19

is case, only on the first roll.

Obviously, that's a lot of freaking dice to keep track of in a wargame, and is one of many areas that computer assistance will be hugely important.Clarity's sake.

Spoiler: Morale and Logic (click to show/hide)

This area still needs some hammering out, and panicking units are completely untouched. Way back in June I made a list of checks for charging, picking targets,and other activities, but I want to replace check-numbers with rolling a die under the relevant stat (i.e. different size dice representing the difficulty). Bear in mind that these Check Dice are different from the Bonus Dice described above, and are not affected by the rules for 1's and maxes.

What I'm thinking is, at the end of each turn, every Unit must test (against Bravery) whether it panics (with the chance such that an undamaged Unit would neverfail). At the beginning of the next turn, the controlling player would have togive them some panic-relevant action, be it running away or recovering and reforming. The farther away from running away screaming the action is, the harder t

he test against Logic to pull it off (moar tables).This stuff needs work.

For that matter, a lot of other stuff does too, namely melee combat rules. Which I have none of. Obviously, there should be some kind of effect from charging,normally an advantage of extra fighting impetus, including Attacks with specialcharging rules. The defender should get some effect as well from special effects like terrain and defenses. Also, rules regarding how the models interact over hexes, like piling into a space, and whether there's enough room for everybodyand so forth.

In other words, I'm a lot farther from a playable game than I thought I'd be, but I think I can get there soon. At that point, I need to start consolidating al

l of this into a single Preliminary Rulebook of some kind, and I'll probably start a new thread for Version 0.1 and player testing. There's a lot more stuff Ishould be covering right now that I can't think of, but I want to post this nowwhile I have time.

At any rate, the ngine is back in business. Commentary is always welcome.