I already do that. My IG army is a bunch of papercraft tanks. Fuck buying them, I'd rather be able to afford to eat.

I'm down to help.

>Here is the rules list as it stands right now.
> ...

Seems a little rules lite.

I believe we actually had a game at some point where all units were made out of paper clips and paper. Not quite the same thing though, I suppose.

>>6640360
I assume OP is typing it up

>>6640378
...Or perhaps that's the joke, and OP needs more help than I thought.

Either way, I'm down to help.

Each army is formed by an amount of points, that are spent on units with different BASE cost.


BASE refers to 1/2 inch, models have a cost according to how big they are, and this BASE also dictates how much total power they have to be spread around the unit's design.

Units also have FLEX. Flex is a whole point measurement that is applied for having a detailed, well built model. In theory, FLEX does not add to a unit's power directly, but rather enables additional attacks or powers. A well-made unit can be more complex than an easy model, but they should have similar total strength.


Finally there is ACT, the turn/scale system that we came up with... ACT is the speed your army can move... Essentially both players can spend points on ACT, and the lower act total gets 1 move per turn. The other player gets a matching ratio of whole moves, and if there is a decimal, then one ACT counter per turn, and when they have enough ACT counters, they get another move.

i.e. one player has 3 ACT, the other player 10.

ACT3 becomes 1 move per turn.
ACT10 gets 3.3 moves a turn, so the players agree that the ACT10 player gets 3 moves a turn, plus an ACT counter. Every time he gets 3 ACT counters, he gets a 4th move that turn.

Those are the general framework rules we have so far.
Moving on to specifics

OMFG o_o where did you all come from?
This forum moves a LITTLE faster than /po/.

Anyway.
So far Units have HP, movement, melee and ranged abilities we have decided.

We had HP cost, in terms of BASE, but they are imbalanced.

Since a 1/2 inch unit only gets 1 BASE, things can cost as little as 0.01 BASE

Also, adding an attack to the unit costs 1 whole FLEX at this time.

/po/, you are relatively cool and as such i hate to be a dick here. trolling /po/ is like telling a kid that Santa Claus isn't real, or punching the guy wearing the Mickey Mouse costume at Disney Land when he tries to hug you, and then he doubles over in pain and the nearby children are speechless with horror at your mistreatment of their cartoonish childhood idol.

that being said, LEAVE THIS PLACE, /po/!

it is a wicked hive of scum and villainy, and will do you no good. no benefit can come of this wretched place. better for you to retreat to your magical land of habanero-chans and wicked-awesome F-Zero papercraft.

i fear you will receive no second warning.

Here's the latest HP rules.

Let's try this:

Three grades of HP to purchase.

"Cheap"
A unit can buy cheap HP, 1 per half inch in model size in half-inches, for 0.1 per HP.

"Normal"
A unit can buy normal HP, up to total HP of three times model size, for 0.2 HP

"Heavy"
A unit can buy HP up to five times its model size, for 0.3 per HP.

"Oversize"
anything else is 0.5 per HP

Don't let >>6640452 discourage you. /tg/ loves homebrew.

I'm an idiot... LINK to the original games rules
>>>/po/286338

as well as some playtesting.


This is the "attack" rule we have so far.


A Basic Dice Melee attack (roll D6, inflict that many points of damage) costs 0.4 points, plus the cost for the range of the attack.

A range of 1/2 inch costs 0.1. The range is added to the damage-cost. The damage cost is 0.4... so

this 1/2 inch ranged dice attack costs 0.5 points total.
Any of these little rules for HP or attacks or anything could be altered.

>>6640452
I would like to hear more about these F-Zero papercrafts...

use a modification of GW's old vehicle design rules.

Motion rules...


Let's try this. Every 1/2 inch a unit can move, costs 0.2 BASE.

We can rebalance this later if need be.

I love the idea. I'd help, but I don't know shit 'bout wargames (I'm an RPG person).

>>6640452
Nah man, /tg/'s pretty good for such creative things. Sure, we get trolls, but they do something like post the trollface so you know, or troll on topics so obscure that someone who is not a fa/t g/entleman would not understand what the fuck he's talking about.

>>6640481
As would I. Anon loev F-Zero.

And ranged attack..
Ranged attacks do half the damage of melee attacks. The dice roll is halved and rounded down. Math gurus, this is 0, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3 for a damage average of 1.5...

The damage cost is 0.2 for a ranged attack.

Each full inch of range you can shoot, costs 0.1 point. You must have an unobstructed line to your target.


-----

WHEW~!
Ok, so lets start off with what should not change.

We DON'T want to remove FLEX or change the amount of BASE a unit gets.

Those are integral to the style of units being played (papercraft)

the rest, of the math... has been a sort-of halfhearted community effort.

I could easily be convinced of a revamp of any parts of it

My logic behind this stuff...

I wanted to base a basic attack off a single dice roll. Something simple with a small linear random factor.

Motion, should be reasonably proportional to papercraft size. Since a unit is 1 BASE per 1/2 inch, bigger units have more BASE to spend. But I didn't want to scale motion costs right off the bat, so I kept it linear (0.2 per 1/2 inch)

>>6640481

they are fucking awesome.

/po/ is very unassuming, but you would shit bricks if you ever checked it with any regularity. i know i did.

this is one of the shittier Blue Falcon papercrafts.

In the examples on the /po/ page, there is clearly a HP bloat problem... even with balanced spending between actions, cheap units can not come CLOSE to killing a bigger unit.

There needs to be a better HP balance... so I tried suggesting the current HP table... I think the whole thing may need a revamp.

Please see concrete examples on /po/ thread

Though just one dice roll is easy, it removes a lot of the fun. Consider adding dice as attack power increases.

In addition, you should have different attack ranges. Say, the bigger a unit is, the more possible forms of attack it can have--a wider range spreads the damage over the units hit, and a shorter range concentrates it. Bigger or more expensive units can have more forms of attack.

rolled 3, 8, 8, 5, 7 = 31

>>6640514
I'm still reading the rules, but if you'd like to try out some dice maneuvers, /tg/ has a dicerolling function. Just put dice+XdY in the email field (where X and Y are numbers).

Units are identified by style or clear markers (stickers) and each unit has a definition on a paper or card somewhere.

Every RULE for special powers etc. you add to your army, sits on a RULE CARD and costs some of your army points, so re-using powers and having more than one of a unit type is reinforced.

>>6640586
This I had considered, indeed.

In the current rules, a larger unit has to pay less to have a larger melee range. I feel very strongly this rule should stay in, as it mimics the very real reach advantage that a larger/taller person or unit has in real life.

But it creates a serious problem for teams of smaller units.

Absolutely I think special attack styles should be part of the game. Including ones that roll more than one dice.

Basically I wanted to do two things:

1. Establish a range of damage for the simplest, weakest attack, so a HP balance could be formed.

2. Enforce that DICE are used for every attack. Unless assaulted by an army of Statisticians and Tax Auditors (Which, I might add, should have special powers and special attacks) there should be no guaranteed damage totals.

Or the game loses some interest.

Also note under the current rules, a unit can have multiple attacks at their disposal.

Each simple attack has a cost in BASE, and also a FLEX expense of 1.

So a unit that attacks 3 times with a basic attack, would pay for three separate attacks in BASE, but would also have to pay 3 FLEX.

This rewards crafters with colorful, detailed units.

If your 6-inch unit is a 6-inch flat, blank square of paper, you don't DESERVE to have complex attacks and powers.


Catch my thinking?

>>6640647
Allow units to take special options depending on their size. Say, for an extra point cost, this small unit takes reduced damage from area effects or can sacrifice itself to deal much more damage than any larger one.

I highly suggest to model after the Fuzzy Heroes rule system, where a unit's attributes are based on it's physical composition. unit dimensions, paper color, crafted appendages type and count.. all effect stats, and the possibilities are quite large. Optional point-buy special abilities are simple to implement once the foundation is in place.

I would seriously suggest trying to remove the need for a pad of paper for ACT and whatever the fuck the rest of those point values were calculations. Just as a simplicist, that is my opinion.

I love this idea and have been turning the idea of either playing existing wargames with paper models (I am something of a budding /po/ enthusiast) or making my own system.

What if for designing units, their abilities, etc., you have a table of abilities with various costs, requirements, and 'weight' (or some way of avoiding super-units unless someone makes a gargantuan model). Basically, the player can make models LOOK however they want, and can even fiddle with BASE and FLEX as long as they meet the requirements for say, adding a ranged attack (which might also require the model have some feature that suggests such a function). This way, a player is fully able to pointbuy-design their own custom unit types, the game gains more depth and variety of things, but at the same time, it's probably also less DECIMALS.

>>6640707
My thoughts exactly.

>>6640703
I need to check this game out.

>>6640707
Defining a single list of features, will ultimately limit the game and prevent people from becoming fiendishly creative with this.

>>6640690
That extra point cost is both in BASE, and FLEX. To ensure that only complex units get the advantage. But yes, that's the plan.

>>6640703
That makes it so what your "unit" is, is defined by its characteristics... and in other words, what your unit is, will be determined by the time it is done. Units that are similar (army guy with rifle, army guy with binoculars) may be TOO similar to notice a significant stat difference, or may not carry the specific unit style suggested by the art.


It's very important that units have powers associated to their APPEARANCE, in this. No telling what people will want to create in terms of appearance, so making a "blue = armor" rule set is out.

>>6640738

I love their goal of getting players to make better and more complex models though. Which is why I encourage use of FLEX in the cost for adding abilities to units/squads/armies.

>>6640707
I agree that simple is good, but if we do away with ACT;

1. We need a way for large-scale unit conflict to resolve with SPEED. i.e. alternating turns, fast.

2. VERY different unit counts (1 giant 3-foot mech model vs. two dozen little 1 inch paper dudes) need to stay balanced.

ACT has to be calculated just ONCE at the start.
Then the rules are set for the whole match.


So.
If you have a better idea, speak right up

Someone archive this if /tg/ winds up getting shit done, ok? This sounds genuinly interesting but I wont be able to stay up for the conclusion.

>>6640771

The lack of explanation (did I miss a post?) on how anything other than basic attacks are created and balanced makes me believe that there is no further creativity in a world where simply being large and complicated makes you able to smash everything in your way.

I see that you are trying to add those possibilities though. And they pretty much serve the exact same purpose, through the same means. So I think we are arguing while agreeing?

>>6640815
I was more talking about all the costs for attacking and such. I misinterpreted those costs as being ACT points being spent by the units each turn. Which made perfect sense to me since I hadn't seen the part where a units' actual speed is basically determined by FLEX and BASE.

I think I simply misinterpreted the purpose of the number.

>>6640829
I don't know how anything other than basic attacks are created and balanced.

I ran into a big problem while trying to balance HP alone.

So, that's why I'm here =)

We kinda... HAVE to handle decimals a bit.
Mainly because the smallest unit (1/2inch) has a BASE of 1.
And we have to split that 1 point up across HP, movement, attacks, etc.

Those abilities will get a portion of the 1 power from that 1 BASE unit. And people LOOOVE making little tiny models, so it's gonna end up happening...

I wanted to stay out of decimals too, but if you change the BASE for a 1/2 inch model to 10, now you got people with their rulers out trying to figure out how many millimeters tall their unit is, scraping out every last point of BASE.


I figured splitting it up by 1/2 inch is a fine enough comb.

http://suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com/archive/6640323/

Thread archived for future reference.

So right now,
here's what we have for CORE RULES.
I've tried to stick to tenth decimals...
If we say each BASE is 10 points... then

Motion is '2' per half inch.
Basic attacks are '4' plus '1' for each half inch.

The cost goes up though each time you go past a range of the unit's size in BASE.
For a 1/2 inch unit, the cost is '1' for the first half inch
then '2' for the next
then '3' for the next...

Damage is just a six-sided dice roll. That means the average damage - to - cost is
3.5, to '4' points of base.

I tried to keep it fairly close to 1:0.1, with a little overhead for adding an attack, and a distance surcharge.

Just my loose thinking that made me decide 'adding a 1-dice attack is 4.'

Fitting everything into a 1/2 inch unit, we have
1 BASE =
0.5 per attack minimum (1/2 inch range)
0.2 per 1/2 inch of motion

And that leaves 0.3 that the unit can spend however.

Options include:
1-inch range melee attack, 0.5 -> 0.7
1-inch range motion, 0.2 -> 0.4

It is assumed the unit MUST have 1 HP...
And points could be spent adding more.
Which is where we are. How many HP per 0.1?

>>6640895

Most systems round to the nearest X. And then beats a player about the head for being anal about optimization. Making rules like "Units between X and Y size get Z BASE." would avoid the issue, create discrete size classifications (losing the nonexistent differences between units that round to the same BASE but are somewhat differently sized) and generally allow you to go THIS UNIT HAS <insert arbitrary number of build points that would avoid the need for decimals>.

tl;dr You CAN make that 1/2 inch worth 10 points, and it doesn't change anything. The players can accept that points are used in intervals of 10, particularly when the reason is to MAKE THE SYSTEM EASIER TO USE. (Even if only slightly, I don't even know why I care anymore.)

Looking back on the ACT rule, I have no idea what it's supposed to simulate, I see the result is that whoever has the most BASE/FLEX left over from army construction is going to get to move faster, but that seems to encourage a metagame full of simply fielding a few less units than each opponent so that you get a single extra turn every now and then, making all the difference.

There's a reason that most wargames simulate action speed through making faster UNITS. It's about a billion times easier to balance, and the incredible numbers-juggling that I am seeing in the system (which doesn't seem to actually be posted, I am assuming the ACT points come from whatever you don't field) will only cause strife in the (hopefully) amicable and casual atmosphere this game should strive for.

tl;dr What the heck is this ACT stuff I didn't really read that the first time through and looking back I am confused.

"Cheap"
A unit can buy cheap HP, 1 per half inch in model size in half-inches, for 0.1 per HP.

"Normal"
A unit can buy normal HP, up to total HP of three times model size, for 0.2 HP

"Heavy"
A unit can buy HP up to five times its model size, for 0.3 per HP.

"Oversize"
anything else is 0.5 per HP

This was our last solution.

Under this solution, a unit could spend
0.5 basic attack, 1/2 inch + 1 FLEX
0.2 basic motion, 1/2 inch
0.3 HP, +2
total 1.0 BASE, 1.0 FLEX

And our basic unit, "CHIT" is born

Let's make another
0.5 basic attack, 1/2 inch + 1 FLEX
0.4 basic motion, 1 inch
0.1 HP, +1
total 1.0 BASE, 1.0 FLEX
Unit "Dasher"

Here's our two basic melee units.

>>6641050
I hate to be a wet blanket, but if OP wants to get this off the ground, it might need a total rewrite.

/tg/ knoes gaems.

>>6641050
Well, if you have units rely on different SPEEDS, and two unit teams are vastly different sizes, it becomes irrationally unbalanced in terms of who is taking moves.

You get one guy moving 12 units while the other guy twiddles his thumbs to move his three... then it turns out the guy with 12 units are all super-fast so he's making 24 moves versus three...


... and this kind of long, drawn out, "did I already move this one" style of combat, does not work for me.

I have experience with it and it falls flat on its face.

ACT relies on a "spend on units, or on turns" type of system, and it sounds like you have experience with that sort of system... so it may have a fatal flaw... but people who do this sort of game, are going to want to make HUGE armies. Possibly numbering in the hundreds.

Hence, there has to be a better turn system.

If you can help, please do =D

>>6640895

you could easily get rid of the decimals there by making a half inch worth 10 base

>>6640423

>ACT10 gets 3.3 moves a turn, so the players agree that the ACT10 player gets 3 moves a turn, plus an ACT counter. Every time he gets 3 ACT counters, he gets a 4th move that turn.

I possess little to no experience in playing or designing tabletop wargames, but I can inform you that such games involving complex turn systems, especially one involving decimals and a statistic for number of actions per turn, rarely ever plays out well. They are acceptable for console RPGs where the computer can calculate them, and even then, whatever determines action rate (usually called "Speed") is usually far and away the best statistic in the game to the point of overpoweredness. On the other hand, for a game played out through miniatures, pencils, paper, and dice, such a subsystem is tremendously hard to balance during the design process and manage during actual gameplay.

>>6641150
OK, call it done.

each 1/2 inch is worth 10 BASE, and ony full half-inches are counted.

Thanks for the first major design improvement

>>6641104

Situations like those are avoided by having both sides fielding relatively equally valuable forces, which should be the assumption in all wargames.

Your post makes me realise the purpose of ACT must have been to allow people with less time/new to the game/whatever to make a handful of units and throw them on the table against a full force and still see how they do for a turn or two before they get smashed by numbers and synergy. To which I say; when bringing in a new player who just has a handful, field a handful as well.

Though the possibility of getting a smaller force of little guys moving really fast to take on behemoths and shit is kind of attractive in some ways, I think it can still be accommodated in other ways?

>>6641150

oops. needs to learn to read the whole post before replying. my bad

It seems a number of you are in agreement that the ACT system needs replacement.

Next question: Replacement, with what?

Could always go with Brikwars.

>>6641168
If you will see the previous example, it is fairly easy for a unit with 60 BASE ( a 3 inch sticky note) to defeat an entire squad of six 1/2 inch papers, regardless of their composition or strategy.

More importantly, the requirement to move ALL units is ridiculous (move 100 fielded units? No)
and to move one unit per turn, auto-wins the biggest unit.

>>6641183
True.

>>6641168
It was actually to allow a smaller, physically larger force, to take on a more numerous, smaller - in -scale army.


Which given the nature of origami and papercraft, size mismatches would be near constant

>>6640323

I haven't read everyone's comments yet but the only way I see this ever being possible is if we came up with a point buy system where players choose from a pool of powers to make types of mass produced units and have to pay extra points to create unique "hero" like (or establish a limited number of pieces.) Thats, how I'd do it anyway.

>>6641173
Your smaller and less intimidating post got it added faster, I don't care to get much credit here.

>>6641178
Assuming you are still attached to what I think the purpose of a complex turn system is, and want large army sizes but reasonably back-and forth gameplay without one or the other player sitting around for years only watching to play rules-lawer. I suggest making squads have 'initiative' Players have a stack of index cards for their squads, and they cycle through them.

BAM, faster back-and forth interaction, and meshes into huge armies.

>>6641198
More details needed. Googling

Result: It standardizes soldiers. Don't know if want

>>6641227
This index-card system sounds good.
I am not familiar with it. Please a link to an example, or more details?

Aww guys look, /po/ thinks we can do crunch

IF only Touhoufag were here. He's most excellent at crunch.

>>6641267
>Hey guys, I get my news from stale memes

>>6641260

Players somehow decide how to stack their squads' movement. Whoever goes first moves their first squad and moves the card to the bottom of the stack, other player does the same, repeat. DMs use index cards for handling initiative in RPGs like D&D all the time.

If you want, you can add rules for the players to move a squad up or down (speed up or delay actions) when a squad/unit is in trouble or whatever too, but that is unnecessary and may be difficult at this stage in design. (Also probably needlessly complex for this game.)

Let's put hope on squad-card system for now.

As it was, ACT was a separate expense, let's cross it out.

We still have a HP bloating issue.

>>6641300
I see!

So the key elements are:
1. Definition of squads.
2. Assignment of squads to a stack of cards.
3. A 'squad' or 'formation' or 'cluster' takes a turn as opposed to a player.

This is good. I like this, I think.
It needs refinement, perhaps, but the simplest dividing point is UNIT TYPE.

Maybe critical mass should be used, though.
Another easy way is - the speed of a squad is tied to how many units are in it.

A squad of 1 has a 'speed' of 1.
A squad of 6, a speed of 6. And lower numbers are faster.

This could be good, maybe. Until someone makes a squad of fucking 100.

Needs limits.
Good start, more polish

>>6641309

Addendum; you can totally have those cards detail the unit's stats and abilities too, for quick reference. It's quite possibly the most convenient thing possible unless /po/ can somehow design a better notecard.

Reading HP rules now. I posted in the /po/ thread asking for possible IRC conversation/rules.txt, by the way.

>>6641355
Yes, it sounds very good.
Unit types can divide up into squads. Very good.

Maybe multiple squads of same type, but for the most part I am liking the design

>>6641370
Can you give us a breakdown of what the HP bloat thing is about, i.e. the HP/damage system?

QUESTION: what is stopping someone who simply makes a big origami crane out of newspaper from coming along and wrecking the shit of someone who put a lot of love and care into his models?

>>6641400
The previous version of HP, was 1 HP per 1 BASE (where a 1/2 inch unit has 10 BASE)

A 1/2 inch unit would typically have 1-3 HP.

To test the system, I made a 60-Base unit called Sticky Note (3 inches) and that unit had 38 HP.

No collection of 6 1/2 inch units were able to kill it despite having the same cost, no matter what tactic they tried. They are NOT able to do enough damage fast enough.

>>6641447
How about damage works like getting strikes in bowling, i.e. lil' unit #1 does 1d6=3 dmg, lil' unit #2 does 1d6+3=5 dmg, and lil' unit #3 does 1d6+8?

Just an idea

>>6641348
I assume games like 40k have a number of ways of restricting squad size, from the requirements of fielding more than ONE TYPE OF UNIT to maximum squad sizes and various other things. You can do it by FLEX or BASE as well in something like this. I didn't feel a complete set of rules was really something I was authorized or ready to make just now.

HP Rules as I see them:

Cheap units get a max of BASE and spent 1:1
Medium get a max of BASEx3 and spend 2:1
Heavy get BASEx5 and spend 3:1
Oversize spend 5:1

This seems to favor Cheap units, in my view. A high BASE high FLEX unit can take Cheap HP, max it's health for 10% cost, and then spend the rest of its points on being big and scary when it comes to attacks.

>>6641447
Can you post the math, I am tired. is that a 2" by 3" piece of paper spending 38 points on HP and 22 on attacks?

>>6641434
First: FLEX.

The longest edge is counted, in half inches, and divided into the size of the unit in half inches.

(Size of unit / Longest edge) >> Whole number rounded down >> FLEX

Flex limits the amounts of powers a unit gets. Such a crane would probably have FLEX of 1, maybe 2, because its longest solid edge would be almost the length of the newspaper. With spread wings, probably FLEX 2.

Such a newspaper crane would cost a LOT of Base. Your opponent would have plenty of material to field unique, detailed units with amazing and special attack and defense abilities.

I havent read through the topic yet, (am working on it) but you may be interested in checking out Brikwars, which is a table top game based on legos, and weird stuff you can build with legos. Might have some good ideas to look at/adapt for the custom creation bit. Anyway time to start reading, I am expecting awesome.

>>6641484
Sticky Note was a 3 inch unit (60 BASE) with the following stats:


So here we have Sticky Note. It has 38 HP, can move three inches, and attack over a range of 3 inches with a basic dice roll. It costs 6 points.

---
A huge motion speed, big range, and lots of HP made it impossible to take down with smaller units.

The balance needs fixing

>>6641487
For the sake of such an argument, I will now fold "Doom Crane" from a newspaper and check its stats.

>>6641535
>I will now fold "Doom Crane" from a newspaper

Doom Crane needs to be drawn. Only then will this game come to fruition.

>>6641514
Where did it even GET 38 HP? Shouldn't it have a maximum of 15 as a Heavy unit spending 45 points on HP?

Doom Crane is one shitty model.
It's 21 inches of total crap. Base Cost/Power of 420.
Doom Crane's longest unbroken edge is 10 inches. It has a FLEX of 2.


An army taking this on could use 42 half-inch models.

>>6641588
That is using the new, experimental HP model that I am trying

under the old model, all HP was 1 Base per point (10 Base per half inch)

And thus HP bloating led me to try the "size ratio" system.

we will see if it helps.
Or if someone else has a better system.

>>6641611

What if, instead of toning down HP, you ramped up the damage of multiple units attacking in unison?

>>6641667
That's what I was talking about with my bowling-analogue idea: >>6641479

>>6641611

I think I am still not understanding how BASE is determined, it seems to be based on the length of the unit? I assumed it was surface area, which made more sense to me despite how overly elaborately complicated it would be to handle surface area with papercraft models.

Is BASE the length or the width? What happens to asymmetrical or really long/wide models? It'd be nice to have BASE literally relate to the amount of raw paper that goes into the model, which seems to be the intended meaning for the stat, but then you are valuing a square of paper 6x6 as equal to 6 1x1 papers if you go by only a single side-length(as opposed to the 36 by area).

I thought FLEX was more related to the number of folds/tabs, as that was the only rule I scanned over when reading the original thread. As it serves no purpose as of yet(?), I am not really worried though.

Er. The main problem seems to be that dice for damage / HP have a fixed cost, that does not depend on the size of the unit.

That means that there is a size at which usefulness / cost is much higher.

Suggestion: make cost of HP and cost of attacks depend on size of unit.

>>6641709
BASE is determined by the single longest measurement of the model, wide tall or otherwise. In half inches. (times 10, now)

Doom Crane has a 21 inch wingspan so its base is (42 half inches, x10) 420.

FLEX is a still-in-production figure. It is right now, (Width of model / longest unbroken edge of model) +2 or 1 if colored or styled.

Doom Crane gets FLEX of 2, no bonus for having a cool paint job

>>6641721
Hmm... making HP and damage cost, depend on unit size... may make smaller units less useful. Or it may make larger units less useful.

This could work, but very delicately, I think

Team attack damage rules could also go a long ways towards improving the value of small units.

Alright just finished reading, and here is what I get.

All powers and stats will have a BASE cost and a FLEX cost, (though its not mentioned I would assume there would also be a POINT cost), though these costs can be zero (for example hp and movement has 0 FLEX cost).

Now I think you can actualy salvage the ACT system with some modifications.

1. require every model in the army to have the same ACT value and continue as in orignal rules. I do not like this as it prevents a single army from including models that are differing speed.
2. Each model can have its own ACT value (whole number). Then have a dial (or any other sytem to keep track of a number), when the dial is at 10 everything with ACT 10 can take a turn and decreas the dials value by one, at 9 everything with speed 9 or 10 can go. And so on and so on at each value everything with a SPEED of that value or higher gets at turn. Desighn point, the cost of ACT (in BASE or POINTS or whatever it costs) should not be linear, I sugest cost=ACT^2 so ACT 1 cost 1, but ACT 2 cost 4 (2*2) and ACT 3 cost 9 (3^2).


Well surely there have been some 20 posts sense I started thinking/typing this so I will read those and continue my thought suggestions.

>>6641869
I like that idea. Maybe some sort of bonus for similar units attacking in concert?

>>6641874
We have a suggested Modified ACT system, and a suggested INDEX CARD/Squad system.

Let's pare it down at some point, but for right now, all ideas are one more we didn't have

>>6641883
I'm not sure the units need to be similar.

And I am not sure the unit would have to be attacked back-to-back. A good way would be a unit that gets attacked multiple times between turns takes extra damage.

But we have to keep in mind that Godzilla units should not be nap-time easy to take down, or fighting them won't be any fun :)

Perhaps we can use some sort of marker?
Or maybe sequential is best. Who knows.

Advice is welcome

I just got drawn to an idea of my own, revolving around the "Squad" concept - a squad taking an action, making a move.

Perhaps a single squad would get a bonus if they attacked together. This doesn't promote multiple-squad attacks on one foe, however.

I think this idea better go back in the junk box for now. We need a different system so that archers could support melee, or fast units can flank the enemy while infantry holds them up front etc.

How about some sort of flanking concept? Large numbers of units would have an easier time achieving such a set up.

That reminds me of a new general rule that needs to be added at some point.

Units have a "front half" and a "back half"

Well met, people from /po/!

We will gladly assist thee in thy noble quest.

For starter, take a look at the origami/papercraft models from advance wars. Advance Wars was the cosest thing to video game 40K there was for a while. Great game.

Your rules look similar to a Lego Wars ruleset that was out. Sadly, it was pulled for legal reasons, but I'm sure you can find a copy.

Best of luck to you!

>>6641916
Keep in mind that by the index cards system, a Godzilla unit would move much more frequently than an attacking unit, since it would probably be on a team with much fewer fielded units than the opponent.

Different kinds/qualities of attacks would go a long way towards balancing out large model fights, HP issues, etc.

My own ideas on HP are more related to having the units having a baseline amount of health that is determined by what sort of armor type they are given. Giving cheap units BASE/2, normal units BASE, and armored units BASE*1.5 or so would be a starting place, there would be other options of course, special abilities and tradeoff opportunities. Losing 1 in 5 from the HP to gain speed, or losing speed and adding a shield or even more armor for more HP or some other defense bonus. (Shields? Giving up Armor to free up weight for a Shield?)

I think it would be nice and simple to say that by common standard units taking Normal should have some coloration or details, and Heavy units should perhaps be painted? Simply for telling them apart easily, and it's sort of elegant fluff-wise in some ways.

I think FLEX should be both easy to calculate but also favor MEANINGFUL detail, as it stands the rule stands for abuse with people making spheres or some shit.

>>6641986
Those are cool but at this time we are leaving it up to the army builder to come up with unit designs.

We even have a Doom Crane.

/tg/'s mission is to come up with a nice, well balanced set of cost rules / general rules to play with.

>>6641883
Well as we are usin a HP system I dont see that as entirely nesisary. 5 guys attacking with 1d6 each will still deal the same 5d6 damage of hp as one big guy who does 5d6 damage. The big guy will be less atritionable (as you have to get rid all his hp to get rid of his attack power) were as little guys when one dies, his attack dies with him. HOWEVER haveing lots of little attacks means you can divide your fire, and having low hp means any excess damage is lost (you might deal 23 damage with your 5d6, but if it only has 7 hp you just wasted 16 of that damage). This tends to make swarms of little guys win against big guys (as the big guy is wasting attack potential that he paid for but the little guys are not), but big guys rock the medium guys, and medium guys beat the little guys. This of course assumes big guys have only a few attacks (which due to FLEX limitations seams a safe assumtion)

>>6642009
1. Paint + Paper = Dead Paper
2. If you can make a fucking sphere out of PAPER, you deserve to make your opponent shit brix

>>6642016
According to playtests at this time, the swarms of little guys are getting their asses beat by the big guy. So it's time to adjust the balance, and that's what we are doing

What about the card system, but with squad rules?
=<1inch: 6 to a squad
1-2inch: 4
2-3inch: 2
>3inch: 1

that there is unbalanced, but an example of what I mean

>>6642042
Possible fixes:

Make little units harder to hit. They're dodgey and all.

Let little units team up against bigger ones. Flanking big units should be pretty easy for small units.

>>6642048
So you are suggesting a fixed system?

Technically we are never going to see many units with a Base over 1000 (1440 is six fucking feet tall... how big do you need your paper dick to be?!)

But that's still a BIG jump. Maybe we should have an analog way of comparing sizes or something, something more flexible

Melee attack options ROUGH

Simple: 1d6, plus an additional 1d6 for every 10 points of BASE spent here. Costs 2 points to get the first 1d6.

Standard: As Simple, but gains straight additional damage at 1:30 BASE, no cost. This option costs the same as Simple, plus an additional 2 points per bonus damage, you can choose to not take all the avaliable bonus damage.

Stopping with full rules, starting idealist.

Attack type involving flurries of blows.
Attack type involving swinging through an area, allowing a dodge but possibly hitting many units in that area.
Attacks that focus on hitting larger or smaller opponents.

>>6642065
Yeah, I'm hearing a lot of outcry for flanking, but think of it this way.

You see an ant colony. You get the garden hose. Are those fucking ants going to flank your ass? FUCK NO.

We can't depend on flanking to balance things. I am thinking, team attacks are what we are going for.

Hmm.

You see a hornet's nest.
You get the garden hose.
Are those hornets going to flank your ass?

MAYBE.

Team attacks are definitely a part of the answer. Flanking also.

>>6642092

I'm not seeing how 6d6, 5d6, 4d6, 3d6, 2d6, 1d6 (attacks of the 6 little guys attacking sticky note, assuming one loss a turn) loses out to whatever it is sticky note gets to do.

He would do what? Maybe 3d6+2 by the rules I just posted? That's when he uses 26 of his 60 base on his melee attack alone.

We seriously need to look at counter-unit types and shit though, they help a lot with balance.

>>6642144
I don't want to artificially force the balance with Rock/Paper/Scissors bullshit.
No way.

Keep in mind that Sticky Note also has a range of THREE INCHES. It can beat on smaller, half-inch units before they ever make it into range.

That's motion and ATTACK.

Sticky note can KITE those smaller units into submission, almost regardless how many there are.

I feel the need to bring up my very first post's ideas again.

I like the ideas of FLEX and BASE, and BASE is extremely useful no matter what we do, but I think it'd be a reasonably powerful limiter to at least expect units to have some features that at least look like they allow the unit to do what it does. If something has no legs, no wings, no snake-like appearance, and no jetpack, why should it be able to move? Likewise for pretty much everything.

>>6642073

I was thinking more as a MAXIMUM, and you could create units with dodging abilities, or create units that work well in small teams, or... well, I don't know exactly how it would work, but it would mean you could move multiple units at a time, but without having a squad of seven million tiny men wiping everything out in one turn

>>6642171
We have to allow people to play with scribbles on flat pieces of paper.
That's the nature of the game.

I'll put it another way.

A couple of paperwar vets decide to hold an epic battle: Chthulu vs. Zalgo.

Chthulu is fielded as a HUGE ass squid model, over 4 feet.

Zalgo is about 2 dozen little one inch squares with black, crazy madness scribbled all over them.

Both armies field various amorphous blobs, crumples, damaged reality fields, and 'shapes' in the battle.

None of these appear like they should move or be able to attack, but both are undeniably powerful.


Hence, in this kind of game, saying "You don't have a ranged attack because you don't have a gun" is just not feasible.

>>6641832
I'd like to second his advice. To steal an example from 40k, putting Extended Carapace on a Tyranid Gaunt(cannon fodder) costs 1 point. Putting the same upgrade on, say, a Hive Tyrant(General type, basically) costs 25 points.

>>6642158

He somehow spent points on an HP value that is impossible by the systems you posted, had enough left over to buy an attack that is 10 points MINIMUM under a melee range system that badly needs a nonlinear progression(not to mention 1d6 would take two hits average to kill any of the little guys), and still has enough points left over(He has at most 22 points now) to MOVE?

Between the part where large units should have to spend more per half-inch of move distance, his magical melee-bullets, and his impossible HP system, I am just going to ignore the sticky note exercise and assume it is fixed by the rules I've posted and will post.

>>6642279
I originally stated that it should NOT cost a larger unit more to move.

Or you get Turbo-Ant syndrome.

I don't think it should cost a larger unit more to -Anything- but we have obviously run aground of a problem, and it seems lots of people are tinkering away with possible solutions.

Haven't read the whole thread (~1/2 of it) but you could use a point-buy for pieces of units rather than different attributes, which eliminates the complications with dealing with attributes on cards.

A flat piece of paper or ball shape has 1 in each of it's statistics (1 in. move, 1 attack, 1 strength etc.) and costs 10 points

A Craft gets 1/2 in. movement per leg it stands on, and each leg is 4 points.

A horse Craft costs 10+4+4+4+4 = 26 points, and has 1 attack, 1 defence etc. but a 1 + 0.5 + 0.5 + 0.5 + 0.5 = 3 in. move

But if there is alreadyy a system in place ignore this.

>>6642042
Easy way is to make the ACT cost multiplied by BASE (before the times 10) so a small unit could buy ACT cheaply and get multiple turns compared to a large model that would need to spend ALLOT of points to to act nearly as frequently.

Another way is to modify to hit rolls (do you have to hit roll or do all attacks automaticly hit?) based on comparitive size, thus big things have a harder time hitting little things.

Alternitivly again you can increase the damage things do in general. The higher damage is compared to health the more likely the "wasted damage" phenominom mention in the few big beats several med, several med beats many small, many small beats few big scenario.

Alternativly again you can include special powers that can be used against big units or only by small units (for example Giant-Slayer, deals extra damage vs anything larger than Y" or twice your size, whichever is greater, or Nimble, whenever you take from a mellee attack damage roll a die and divide the damage by the amount rolled, the maximum value of the dice is equal to half as many inches the attacker is larger than you)

Another way is to inrease the importantace of flex (the above special rules could cost purely flex for example). As larger things do not necisarily have more flex (and may even have less) than smaller things. Sort of like the juggleing of criticle slots and tonnage in battletech mech desighns.

>>6642279
As to the "Magical Melee bullet system"

if you took one glance at the physical example, it's obvious. The sticky note is 3 inches long. Expecting it to be only able to attack 1/2 inch is ridiculous. It is for this reason, that it is easier to have a melee attack with significant range, for a BIG unit, than it is for a small one.

>>6642315
By-shape assignment doesn't work, moving on

>>6642324
interesting ideas all around.

Movement rules need posted I suppose.

Barring special move types that will undoubtedly appear later....

Standard moving around is done in half-inches per turn, and a unit buys Speed as follows.

The first speed point costs 1 per 10 points of BASE the unit possesses. The next costs 1 per 10 points of BASE*2, the third 2 per 10 BASE*3, the fourth 3 per 10 BASE*4.
On a 10 point model: either 1/2 or 1 inch move, 1 or 3 points.
On a 60 point model:6, 18, 54, for 0.5, 1, 1.5.

Badly needs options for a unit to be a 'Fast-Mover' wherein move is cheaper but it's harder to get HP or Attack, etc.

Also that sequence I posted is really terribad.

>>6642400
So here's a possible motion scale... looks good... needs testing


The official test model, is:

Make six half inchers,
three one-inchers,
and one three-incher. These three units should be similar in total power.

I think a key issue we are running into is that we are trying to fix a system that barely exists, so we have very little to work with.

And so I begin an inquisition of the OP.

What sort of unit types do you want to see possible in this game?

What sort of attack and movement options do you want to see?

How simple do you want resolution? Are we keeping to d6's alone?

What is the measure of an army? I have been assuming that Base is the equalizer here.

What do you feel are unreasonable expectations, ideas, and what do you absolutely want to avoid/keep out of the game?

>>6642440

I think the pattern was pretty horrible for that movement table. Partly because we have no basis for alternate options for unit-building, and I don't want to cut around you and start setting up frameworks you don't want.

The previous post mentioning ACT again makes me think that making squads get to buy their own ACT scores might help a lot with move speeds, particularly by making BASE a factor. More turns is even better than more move speed.

>>6642464
If a unique or interesting military unit has been fielded in history or fantasy, I want to include rules, eventually, to make it possible to build these.

There are few rules right now, because I want the basics straight before adding flex rules.

Attack and movement for basic sense, should be limited to something similar to what we have now. BASE is paid to create basics.

As for FLEX systems, it should include a wide range of possibility, from flight to momentum systems, and even teleporting. I can see radial attacks, splash type attacks, attacks with special properties etc.

Resolution should be no more than 2 rolls of dice: One set for the attacker and one for the defender. The Defender should only roll if using a FLEX ability.

...

MAKE BATTLE CRANE AND PAPER CUBE BOMBS

The measure of an army is the total of the BASE and all the Rules Cards.

Remember, each special ability has a fee in BASE to add. This buys the rule card, then any unit can refer to that rulecard in its design.

In this way, via a super-adjustable power creation system (the Flex system) you can design special attacks, defenses, etc.

/tg/ will be helping to keep the math behind this power creation system properly righted.

But before that, we need the basics.

I think instant win ideas are out of the question. In addition, instant kill abilities need to be limited by-BASE. i.e. non-working if the enemy is too big or too powerful. A Power-Canceling power may be plausible... for enough FLEX.

I can see healing, repair and resurrection, possibly unit SUMMONING on a VERY limited (one time) scale. Undead systems (raising the enemy) may be possible. Self-destruct attacks are within reason.


The list goes on. The short answer is, I would know if something is not fair, by looking at it.

>>6642711
Sounds good bro
Prepare to get taken out by some real hardware tho... cranes and square water bombs aren't very detailed, so you'll have low FLEX

http://www.infectatious.co.nz/go.aspx?a=1193&p=103

>>6642324
I'm going to start namefaging

But I think "special powers" with costs primarily in the FLEX department is a big step toward balancing different BASE sizes.

Another thing could powers like auras, everything within a certain range gets some bonus, so a leader could give everything within some amount of inches +1 damage, with a swarm of little guys that adds up quick, but with big guys, its hardly noticable.

Another thing could be exotic style criticle hits, such as stuns or penalties to attacks, or things like that, the big guy gets stunned and thats alot of BASE out of comision for a while, but a little guy gets stunned/crippled/whatever its not to big a deal (also he probly died from it anyhow)


Also question, do you have to spend ALL of a models BASE value and if you dont does that count against your army size restriction. For example a tank and an armored car can be about the same size, but the armored car would just spend its BASE on hp and speed, but sense it would have no attack would have some BASE left over that the tank would use on its gun. What I am saying is is it possible to have models of the same size be of different strength and how would you want balance that.

>>6642795
In THEORY you could simply reduce the total spent BASE to reduce the cost of deploying a unit.

"Marshmallow man" would be a 3-foot model with a base of 720. If that unit only spend 12 BASE, then it would have a BASE of 12.
But it would also be slow, weak and ridiculously easy to blow to bits

Fair enough. I am afraid I need to be getting to sleep soon here, and will by preoccupied much of tomorrow with classes, but in about 20 hours or so I should be back and ready to make some major suggestions. I'll drop a post in /po/ as well if I end up being the OP for tomorrow's thread.

I think I see what we absolutely need in BASE, and I am going to be making some judgment calls on where the line between BASE options and FLEX specials begin for tomorrow's update.

I suppose we want some regulations on model sizes. A strip of paper 1/16th inch wide and 12 inches long has 240 BASE by the current rules. By any of the current rules that allows it to be a horrifically effective wall.

Checked Brikwars? http://www.brikwars.com/

It's about making an army from Lego pieces, so it might be easy to adapt.

>>6642855
Anything that bizarrely shaped may very well be very powerful and dangerous.

>>6642855
Oh, a wall. Well, there aren't any rules about motion restriction, so it may not be such a good wall afterall. And that 'wall' only has FLEX of 1.

>>6642795

360 is pretty insistent that the BASE system should be balanced in and of itself, giving us a level field from which to design the FLEX abilities. I agree with him, but I think we are going to end up having to make a variety of options for attacks, moves, and HP within BASE in order to do that.

>>6642911
/me folds the strip diagonally every inch.

It is now a 240 BASE 12 FLEX model with a length of around 8 inches and a width of maybe .25 inches.

>>6642947
If it has a length of 8 inches then it's a BASE of 160

>>6642969

I thought BASE was determined from the original longest dimension.

In short, I have considered "accordion" models for some time, models that intentionally build up flex by introducing useless folds...

their size always becomes a liability, makes the unit hard to move away from attackers

In addition, there is the question of crinkle balls, tightly wadded spheres of paper that use crushed edges to try and get a high FLEX

But these units must always be unique... so no squad advantages, high power cost

>>6642989
ACTUAL longest dimension

However the unit is finally formed, is the resulting BASE

The size of the paper used is irrelevant

The "snake" format has several advantages over the "tower" format, I'm aware.

I am thinking I may somehow rebalance that by providing an advantage to tall units, of some type.

>>6643021

I'll take all we've discussed into consideration as I muse over this tomorrow. For now, I rest.

>>6640323
There's already a game for this. check 1d4chan.

>>6643051
Not finding papercraft war game.
Sorry

>>6642820
okay so BASE is the deciding cost, with FLEX being special shit.

The problem with big guys demolishing little guys that you are running into is a simple math issue.

If you have a situation were your team takes one damage a turn and you have guy with 1 hp and 1 damage. he will deal out one damage and die. If you have 2 guys in the situation the first turn they will deal 2 damage, and the next 1 (for a total of three). If you have one guy that does 2 damage and has 2 health he will do 2 damage on each of 2 turns for 4 damage.

So as you can see concentrated power ends with n^2 and diverse power ends with n*(n+1)/2

So a 4/4 would do 16 damage, and two 2/2 would deal 12 (or 14 if the damage wasnt focused against them) and 4 1/1 would do 10


This of course makes the assumption of no wasted damage, and no special abilities, and the attacks always focus on a guy till he dies.

Of course real battles are much more liquid than this, but its likely, on a very basic level what you are seeing.

So as you can see if you make all costs equal for everyone then big will always win the stand up fight.

Now the flex system can help with this. As can scalling costs, so that hp values between 1 and 10 cost one thing, and between 11-20 another, and from 21-30 another still, same with damage values. Another is making ACT costs scale with the size of the model. Disparity of actions can be HUGE. If you are taking two turns to his one you effectivly double your damage, and move rates, AND can get in range one turn and get out the next before he gets to attack.

I had another thought but it just went out my head as my dog jumped into bed with me. I will probly think it again later

>>6643201
Useful, very useful.