I've never actually played it, but I do have it all - one thing I like is that there's nothing more in the pipeline, so if I do ever get round to it I have the complete set with all expansions.
Skirmish Game Design - An Ongoing, Open Discussion - 12-18-25 Is solo wargaming still a viable endeavor?
- Thread starter Mad Robot
- Start date
When it comes to warbands in a skirmish game, are you guys fans of the Necromunda model, where all of your Ganger‘s are leveling up and have a chance to improve?
Or are you more in favor of some thing like Frostgrave/Stargrave where you focus on the main character and the rest of the warband are more or less hired guns?
Maybe there’s a different approach that you prefer or even more?
Or are you more in favor of some thing like Frostgrave/Stargrave where you focus on the main character and the rest of the warband are more or less hired guns?
Maybe there’s a different approach that you prefer or even more?
I'm a fan of both, they've got their uses, but I'd personally prefer the everyone-is-an-individual approach, purely to have more investment and more uniqueness to a team.
Going to mention Mordheim's henchmen group mechanic as a courtesy, since it's a weird half-and-half of advancing multiple models the same way, but within set groups, unless you roll the "Lad's Got Talent" that took one out and made him a Hero. Maybe it's a happy medium, but I never got to play enough Mordheim to try it all out.
I like to have a small group of individuals. The experience I really like is when you have a guy who end up really good in something and/or bad in another area. Then they develop this personality that was out of your control. Those characters are super memorable.
I would love a system that allows you to get to know your characters and to be surprised by them, despite them starting out as faceless goons.
I would love a system that allows you to get to know your characters and to be surprised by them, despite them starting out as faceless goons.
That's interesting, like once they reach a certain "level", they develop some kind of minor flaw or trait. Maybe you roll for it or something.
It's been a long time since I played a campaign rather than a one-off game. I like the idea of everyone being an individual, with experience/development, but it is more to keep track of, so something like Frostgrave (or Mordheim) does simplify matters somewhat.
This trade-off depends on how many models you have. If you only have 4-6, then I'd expect everyone to be individual. If it's more than ten, then things start getting a lot to track (though this also depends on just how individual development really is).
This trade-off depends on how many models you have. If you only have 4-6, then I'd expect everyone to be individual. If it's more than ten, then things start getting a lot to track (though this also depends on just how individual development really is).
You could have it as part of a semi-random advance mechanic; roll for an advance, and if the one rolled isn't what you wanted you take a disadvantage/hindrance to modify it/pick your advance.
I'd really advise people have a look at Savage Worlds; it's derived originally from tabletop wargaming rules, and has Hindrances that negatively affect a character but give more points to spend creating or advancing a character. The Hindrances are minor or major, and are worth 1 or 2 points respectively.
The pdf is around $10 or £8.70 ("cheaper" if you know where to look), and is a thoroughly enjoyable RPG system that can be made to serve as a skirmish game ruleset with advancement/campaign rules, and could certainly provide interesting viewpoints on game systems/mechanics.
There’s a game called shock force from a long time ago that used flaws in a similar way. They would allow you to gain a few extra points when you’re putting your character together.
I’ll have to check out savage worlds it sounds interesting.
I’ll have to check out savage worlds it sounds interesting.
Late to the discussion, but I’m a fan of the ORB Necromunda system, where everyone is an individual and the rolls can give you some weird stuff that just gives the models character. Not necessarily flaws or drawbacks, but definitely not optimal builds.
Specifically what I was thinking of was injuries or a juve that lack all round development, or even luck (like when a leader only gets bad shooting rolls then develops a reputation among the players as a bad shot). That's what I mean by being surprised.
Let’s have a discussion about weapon ranges. On a smaller table, like a 2x2 or a 22x30, are ranges a waste of time?
I’ve seen/read/heard a number of discussions about this topic. Especially when it comes to modern weapons, wouldn’t everything technically be “in range“?
What do you guys think?
I’ve seen/read/heard a number of discussions about this topic. Especially when it comes to modern weapons, wouldn’t everything technically be “in range“?
What do you guys think?
spafe
Executive Officer in charge of Hats
Staff member
Necromunda Custodian
Yak Comp 2nd Place
Tribe Council
No.
Okay, yes. But really, no.
A rifle can propel a bullet with lethal force a long way. A long long way. A trained specialist marksmen can hit a target with said rifle a long way. An average trained squadie with said rifle can hit a target some distance. A enthusiastic amateur can... hit near a target over there.
Basically the 'combat effective' range is actually not very far for most weapons. This is very true of PDW, SMG, pistols, shotguns and the like. An assault rifle does have a fairly decent range, but still I would be saying you are nearing the limit at 30" with a trained operator.
So... it's up to you if you want to consider the range as a thing, or just go with everything is in range, although personally I would still limit shotguns to 18, and pistols to 16 without some decent justification.
One thing I have seen used (cant honestly remember if its bolt action or flames of war), is the idea of how hard it is to hit a target is based on the targets experience. A veteran is better and making the most of any and all available cover, while a green recruit...isnt. On the other hand, any trooper who has passed out of basic is going to be more or less good enough to put fire down range in the right target area, so how experienced the shooter is matters less.
I remember reading something about FBI statistics on actual gunfights. Most take place at very close range and involve a lot of bullets that don’t hit anyone taking part.
There was also something interesting I read about why targets are now human shaped instead of bulls-eye shaped. Somehow the department of defense discovered that during WW2 most munitions were fired in the general direction of the enemy without being fired directly at the enemy. The belief is, even though they’re the enemy, they’re still human and most soldiers didn’t want to kill. So by changing the targets to human figures, more fire was directed AT the enemy instead of in sorta towards them.
There was also something interesting I read about why targets are now human shaped instead of bulls-eye shaped. Somehow the department of defense discovered that during WW2 most munitions were fired in the general direction of the enemy without being fired directly at the enemy. The belief is, even though they’re the enemy, they’re still human and most soldiers didn’t want to kill. So by changing the targets to human figures, more fire was directed AT the enemy instead of in sorta towards them.
I would look at the flow of the game and base it off that. Say 1 to 2 turns where mostly you are free to move and get into cover. Two or three turns to be able to cover the distance to melee a firing line so in this time you are vulnerable to the primary guns of the game. All (but not all, one could make one or two exceptions if they are wildcard weapons) guns should have a range longer as a charge distance. As an example.
But naturally that changes from game to game. Imagine the flow of two samurai facing eachother, a breeze, a stillness. Then a quick charge forward, katana drawn and extended beyond their opponent. Another stillness and then it's over. That has very little action but still tells a story and is entertaining.
Yet another example of a different flow is paratroopers dropping under fire. Bam! From the very beginning action, action, action.
Personally I would usually go for the first flow as it's more tactical play, but the other two flows can work.
But naturally that changes from game to game. Imagine the flow of two samurai facing eachother, a breeze, a stillness. Then a quick charge forward, katana drawn and extended beyond their opponent. Another stillness and then it's over. That has very little action but still tells a story and is entertaining.
Yet another example of a different flow is paratroopers dropping under fire. Bam! From the very beginning action, action, action.
Personally I would usually go for the first flow as it's more tactical play, but the other two flows can work.
Wow @Biggle_Bear that's some deep design theory. No joke, that's like Zen game design.
Giant junkyard. A trash planet, if we are talking scifi. Gangs of scavengers fight over loot using weapons and equipment made purely of junk and discarded items. Something that would make a Mek grow the greenest ork with envy, but still somewhat possible.
Some may say it is too similar to Mad Max, but Mad Max is still high-tech than what I mean. I'm thinking of improvised pipe guns and various wacky things, like pneumatic cannons shooting sharpened bowling pins, electrified net launchers, old lightbulb slingshot, airguns made of bicycle parts (Hello, Moscow Metro), microwave magnetron array with focusing deflectors, leafblower with glass dust injector, and this, but not rapid-fire...
Some may say it is too similar to Mad Max, but Mad Max is still high-tech than what I mean. I'm thinking of improvised pipe guns and various wacky things, like pneumatic cannons shooting sharpened bowling pins, electrified net launchers, old lightbulb slingshot, airguns made of bicycle parts (Hello, Moscow Metro), microwave magnetron array with focusing deflectors, leafblower with glass dust injector, and this, but not rapid-fire...
Last edited:
Similar threads
