AirMech

Do you guys like mechs, fighter jets and transformers?  If so, then you have got to play this game!  It's in Alpha stages right now but the fundamentals and initial design work is amazing.  Check it out.

AirMech
Download for Chrome, it's currently based on browser.

Minis game mechanics

I'll try to keep this short but deep.

Do you like minis games with high lethality?  What I mean by this is how fast your units die on the battlefield.  An example could be a unit in Warhammer missing their armor save or a unit in Warmachine getting sniped.  How fast do you want your units to die?  What feels right to you?

What about damage on armor?  Do you like the Warmachine warjack design where you have to take off multiple boxes, thus damaging certain weapon systems before being boxed?  Or do you like the 40K mechanic there's a vehicle damage chart that determines what happens to your vehicle?  The difference between these two is that in 40K, your vehicle can potentially get 1-shotted off a lucky roll whereas in Warmachine, this is almost impossible.

Going off of vehicle damage, what about Flames of War?  This is where your M4 Sherman tank has 6 armor in the front and the main gun from the Panther is strength 13.  There's basically no saves you can take from this kind of firepower and once you're hit, you're good as dead (3+ firepower kills you instantly).  It's realistic, it's visceral and the damage feels very real.

So with that said, what kind of lethality feels good to you?  Do you enjoy the damage mechanic of Warmachine, Warhammer or Flames of War.  All 3 plays with armor so I'm a bit curious to see what your opinions are.  As you guys know, I'm designing a mech-style minis game on the side and I'm looking for feedback.

To keep the design gears turning, I want to talk about combat systems really quick.  Let's just take ranged skills for now and compare how it works in those games mentioned above.  Do you guys like the Warhammer mechanic?  I'm talking strictly Warhammer WHFB and not 40K (because 6th Ed. will see range modifiers).  You have a BS of 3, you normally need 4s to hit but in long range, it'll be +1 so 5s.  Do you guys like Warmachine?  You have a RAT of 7, vs. a DEF14 target you need 7s to hit on a 2d6 system.  There is no such thing as long range, but if you stand behind cover you get +4 to your DEF and if you stand still and aim, you gain +2 RAT.  Warhammer also has forms of cover, so the biggest difference here is the aiming mechanic vs. long range modifier.

Now, let's check out Flames of War.  You have a Trained soldier shooting at a Veteran soldier.  The Veteran soldier has years of combat experience and knows how to use the terrain to his advantage, knows when to take cover and how to respond to war in general.  The Trained soldier knows only what he has been taught (vs. a Conscript who's otherwise garbage).  The combat system in Flames of War incorporates battlefield experience with combat performance.  A Veteran soldier needs 4s to be hit whereas a Trained soldier needs 3s and so on.  There's also long range +1 modifier, concealment (from cover), and Gone to Ground mechanics to further increase/decrease your chances of being hit.

The one thing to keep in mind here is the lethality of the games mentioned and the weapons used in games.  The majority of the damage from Warhammer 40K and Flames of War comes from ranged weapons.  The majority of the damage in Warmachine is melee based.  Take a moment and look at how damaging certain weapons are in relation to proximity and the combat system itself.  FoW might have the highest lethality of all the game systems, but their unique combat system makes certain troops completely ineffective vs. others by default.  Of course, just in any miniatures game that uses dice mechanics, a lucky roll from a Lascannon can down a Land Raider when shot by a Guardsman.  Luck exists, so I'm trying to find that fine line where it fits my main design goals:  A deep game that's easy to understand and pick up.

Thanks for reading!

OT and WWII

Been on a huge WWII fling lately..

I watched all of the videos on this man's Youtube and have been brushing up on my research into Flames of War.  Sadly, none of the people around me share my enthusiasm for WWII and it doesn't help that the price for FoW models is ridiculous.  I thought GW was bad until I started doing some research around the net and holy ass monkeys, FoW's crazy!

As for reading material, I've recently purchased a Duel book entitled: Sherman Firefly vs. Tiger and I'm pretty excited to get it in the mail today.  I can't wait to read about how the specifications of the tanks, the aces who commanded them and the battles they took part in.  However, by looking at the FoW rules in comparison to what I know from real life, Company of Heroes and Men of War: Assault Squad, I must say that there's virtually no contest:  The Tiger should beat the Firefly almost every time.  17pdr gun or not, the armor of the Sherman simply does not compare to that of the Tiger.

Anyways, is anyone out there as big as a WWII enthusiast as I am?  I remember visiting Normandy a few years back and I was able to out-lecture my tour guide.  Call me a nerd, but I fancy myself a historian!  Sorry for the lack of updates guys, but Diablo III has to get out the door :)

Go big or go home?

How do you guys build your armies?  Build it up over time or do you guys buy it all at once and then assemble it.  I tend to fall into the latter category:  I like to design an army first, write out the list (go through several revisions) and then buy all the models the list needs.  This saves me time, I get to play with what I want, and most importantly, it saves me money.

What about you fellas?  Just in case you were wondering why I haven't posted.. overtime has started and I've been pretty tired when I get home.

Oh, the joys of working in the gaming industry..  Speaking of which, Mass Effect 3 comes out today and Street Fighter vs. Tekken (SFxT) later in the week.  Any of you keep up with video games outside of minis?

Time limit per turns

First, I would like to say that this is something that I love from PP tournaments.  In the SR2012 rules, players can only take 10 minutes per player turn in a 50pt game.  This is fantastic.  I have no problem with people wanting to play a beer and pretzels game, but when you take 10 minutes to move one freaking jack, then I think that's a problem.  Don't get me wrong, if we're playing friendly loo-dee-da games and we're not playing in a tournament, I have no problem with players taking their damn time.  I just think it's fantastic that PP is actually forcing players to play faster.  This is a skill filter:  Lesser players simply cannot handle the pressure of micromanaging their armies in a certain time frame.  This makes RTS players like me very happy.

I think every miniatures game involved in the tournament scene should integrate something like this.

Serious Warmahordes talk

Alright guys, serious question time and I want you guys to speak up.  The question of the day is:  Is Warmhordes really balanced?  A lot of people say different things, but most people can agree on the following:

• There are some bad match-ups in the warcaster/warlock department.
• There are some units more cost effective than others.
• There are some warcasters/warlocks that can play scenarios better than others.
• I'm sure there's more out there, but these hit home the quickest.

So this leads me to ask myself:  Is the game more balanced at 35 or at 50 points?  A lot of people say 50 points and with good reason.  More units allow you to take more answers right?  That seems to be the most common answer I get from people.

Is it true?  Of course it is.  It applies to any and every minis game that I've encountered.  More points gives you more options and more options leads to less hard counters.  In 40K, you can play Dark Eldar vs. a GK army fielding 6x Psyfleman.  Aside from bending over and asking kindly, the odds are going to be against you no matter what.  This is known as a bad match-up.  Not to be confused with any form of skill.. but the composition of his army vs. your army is going to suck, period.  The same could be said about Terminus vs. Caine, or Karchev vs. Rahn.

So back to the more options, more answers thing:  Does this principle really exist?  And, is this a sign of bad game balance or possibly even design?

Let's go over some quick points really quick:

• Bad match-ups because of certain warcaster pairings requires more options.
• To get more options, you increase the points from 35 to 50 points.
• However, in doing so, the better and more cost effective units will make the transition easier (another unit of Bane Thralls + UA why not!)
• These units are often the ones that are self-reliant and don't need many warcaster buffs.  The reason why this is so is because they are flexible and can be taken with virtually any warcaster.
• Points increasing works like 2 people climbing a mountain: Just because you can take some answers doesn't mean your opponent can't as well.
• So as both players take more options to make their lists even more well-rounded, you still reach the top of the ladder with the same old bad match-up.

I'm just thinking outloud here, but what exactly does 50 points do that 35 points can't do?  It alleviates bad match-ups, yes, but who's one to say it's more balanced than 35?  If you're running into a bad match-up, just play another list.  Isn't that why most tournaments and events have multiple lists to begin with?

So that brings us back to the original question, rephrased and spit out:  If bad match-ups occur due to game design, possible balance issues within the army books themselves, and via scenario play, then why even bother increasing the points from 35 to 50 if the result is the same?

Let the discussion begin!

WHFB: Player Tips and Advice

Player Tips and Advice

Knowing your Enemy

The first piece of advice I have for newer players is knowing your enemy.  There is nothing more important than this piece right here.  You look across the table and you see a bunch of units you don't know, you already know this game is going to head into disaster.  Very few players have the ability to asset threat, damage and power on the fly so its best you go into battles prepared.  Key units like the Skaven Doomwheel, the Bloodthirster or the horde unit of Khorne Marauders with Great Weapons, all of these are important pieces on the battlefield.  The best thing to do in these situations is to point across the table and ask.  If the player you're playing with is a gentleman, and it's a friendly game, I hope he can tell you what each unit does.  In a tournament setting, forget about it.  Fantasy already takes a day and a half to set up, so it's best you do your research ahead of time.

Think of it like this:  Every game of fantasy (the actual) game is a test of skill and generalship.  Any good general takes the time to learn about his enemy and so should you.  That's why I buy every army book GW prints.  Not only is it superb shitter material, but it's also valuable information on what kind of ridiculous combos, units or special characters that might show up on the battlefield.

Understanding Your Army

I almost think that knowing your enemy and understanding your army works hand in hand.  If you think about it, you spend all this time making up your army list and for what?  Each army list is designed to accomplish a certain thing on the battlefield.  Playing for fun is one thing, but you're also playing so your troops are victorious on the battlefield.  This is why army design is crucial and how you can make the best out of your army composition.

Keep in mind that this is not advice on how to min-max your army, it's about making your army work for you.  As a general of any given army, you must find a medium where you're comfortable with the units you've taken, and you understand fully how they work.  The best way to do this is by assigning battlefield roles.  Take Sword Masters for example, what do they do best?  They generate CR by ripping up lowly troops in combat but they die as fast as a swift breeze.  What's the job of Spearmen?  Or Skavenslaves?  To hold the line and await reinforcements, using their superior numbers and ranks to tie the enemy down.

To be a successful general, you must know your units like the back of your hand.  Understand each unit's functionality and purpose, but most importantly, understand why you put them in your army in the first place.