Arcane Wonders Forum
Mage Wars => Alternative Play => Topic started by: DarthDadaD20 on September 08, 2013, 09:01:29 AM
-
*Disclaimer* I am just BSing for fun- Not that I wont try my variants, because I will, and I am not posting for no reason, because I want to hear opinions and get good ideas if people are willing to give them, but I am not trying to do anything serious, just trying to have some fun. Just thought I would say something since some people try really hard to make good variants..and I am just Sort of half assing it.
Ok! So some of us have used miniatures in place of the Mage Wars cards right? Well I was thinking of doing something a little different.
I really wanted to play MW with some minis on a map, and use fleshed out minis rules- I have tried, but it comes out rather clunky (Though I want to SOOO bad). So I was thinking about this:
Play on a minis map but with zones- something like this:
http://s1365.photobucket.com/user/TeamRocket_Grunt/library/S...
And not changing any of the rules for movement, zones, anything. But when a mini moves to a new zone, they can select what square to be placed on so it affects LoS differently. (Same with were you summon a monster- or it could have to be summoned as close to your mage as possible IDK.)
You would still use the "Corner of the zone" rule from mage wars for LoS, but if your mini is behind a wall- that counts as blocking LoS.
Its really just a way to make more use of coverage and tactical placement- and give me a reason to play with my minis and maps!
INB4- thats just dumb Darth...... I made a Disclaimer.
So....Any thoughts???
-
I can't see the picture. I got an error that said it could not be found, and then asked about spelling and capitalization. Can you not just post the picture directly onto this forum? I'm having trouble understanding what you're talking about. Are you saying that you're dividing zones into even smaller "Mini-zones"?
-
Opps! Sorry- here:
(http://i1365.photobucket.com/albums/r744/TeamRocket_Grunt/Share%20folder/mehfu_zpsd4c673a7.jpg) (http://s1365.photobucket.com/user/TeamRocket_Grunt/media/Share%20folder/mehfu_zpsd4c673a7.jpg.html)
Kindof- Like how some people are playing with minis in place of cards on the MW arena board....but you choose which of the one inch squares to place it in.
So...all the normal rules apply- zones still work the same- but if you choose to place a mini in a zone, behind a wall- you could block LoS....
Does that make any sense???
It would just make placement a little more tactical- and I was trying to think of a way to use minis and one inch grid maps. (Without changing the rules much)
-
You could also use coins or markers with a picture of the creature or other object on it, instead of using full miniatures. Then you could place the cards outside of the arena organized by spell type. If you use actual miniatures I think it would get insanely expensive insanely fast. I think having walls already there benefits certain playstyles more than others.
Also, while you're at it, it might be a good idea to have some objects take up more space than others, so that objects actually have size in the arena. I can imagine each and every object having a cardboard square marker for its board position. For the walls, you'd need to have the plastic "stands" you get in other board games for standing up cardboard character pieces.
I also think that each creature should have an energy level to signify how much of its "action" it has left to use in a round, and how much action it can take maximum. 100% would be a full action, and 50% would be a quick action. If each zone had 5 rows of 5 1-inch mini-zones, then moving 1 inch away would take 2% of a creature's energy level.
Hindering would mean that creatures would be continually arranged or positioned a certain way in a zone as to make it take more time or effort for an opposing creature to leave. Since hindering only works against opposing creatures, and is supposed to mean that your creatures are "chasing" an enemy creature(s) across the zone, then it should stand to reason that you should be able to choose whether you want to hinder the enemy's escape or not. Elusive would be like dodging around, jumping over and ducking under things to get through, so creatures with Elusive could move right through an enemy creature's position.
-
Those are the kind of rules I was thinking at first- (And those kind of rules are what would make sense...but I was going for something kinda strange here!)
But with this I am talking about nothing being different but the placement of the minis- creatures would still move one zone (Not counting by inch), you can still make a attack against a creature in your zone, regardless of the square they are in, But the difference would be you would get to pick the square you went into to determine cover from another zone.
IDK...just messing around trying to find a simple way to use minis and maps without messing with the rules too much!
(And I already have boxes of minis to use- I have played a few games were I set the card to the side and use a mini on the board (Which is how D&D/Starwars mini game was played) and had nothing on the board but minis for the creatures and conjurations (zone enchantments would be placed in the zone though,)- just to clear up some room. And I thought it would be cool to have terrain play a role in the game- but 12 zones isn't a whole lot of room for alot of terrain/walls/pits ect.
(And in this kinda boring map- you can see that the two middle zones have a lot of places you could use to block LoS-)
Like I said- What I am talking about here makes little sense really- full fledged minis rules would be much better, but I was attempting something different and easy.
Thank you for your comments Imaginator- I have enjoyed reading you variants posted on this thread.
-
I like that "energy level" idea----that needs to be put to use somewhere for something in the ether.....
-
So it appears that the mention of this idea just springs up a fleshed out version of the game using minis-
Before this, I was thinking of having zones being a "radius" or area of five squares or inches. So for movement, you could move 5 squares as a quick action. A range of 0-2 zones would be a range of 0-10 squares (or inches) for attacks and for enchantment range.
I know having the cards off to the side would work- as other miniatures games do it.
I also have all the tools to do it- maps,minis, and radius templates for one inch grids.
I think the templates will make for this to be possible. A hex grid would in most cases, most likely work better- But I don't have any, and have TONS of square grid maps- So I will make it work.
-
Hmm. I actually really like this. Although, I must say, your original "You move one zone, and place in any square" is rather intriguing... I have not seen a minis game operate like that before, where movement is purely tactical, and not based on "move stats" or rulers, or anything like that.
But if you were to go with the quick action move five inches thing, that would open up an entire world not know to MW at the moment... Scenarios. Yes, Capture the flag becomes a thing if I have to move more than five squares for it. As well, king of the hill could work. Kill the king obviously, but the whole world is completely open.
clix models to show what actions have and haven't been used?
-
Okay, now I'm seriously addicted to the idea of this. Going to transcribe the codex and a workable LOS/Range rulesset tomorrow for futrue playtesting, if you could actually create a map to print.
-
Sweet!!!!
I look forward to seeing what you come up with!
(I am glad you liked the "original idea" I dont think it would accomplish what people would want or expect it to- but I think it would make for a interesting and clean translation- and thats what I was going for- just something super simple)
I think the movement and having a "Zone Radius" of a "Set number of squads" should be possible without to much effort. (Google D&D zone/spell Radius)
This has been floating around in my head since December- And I just haven't gotten around to fleshing it out.....it was actually one of the first things I thought off after playing a game.
Let me know what you come up with- and let me know if I can be of any assistance.
-
Interesting... Almost like we could make every spell have either a circle radius (AoEs mostly), or a line radius.
Guarding could lead to Opattacks...
It would have to be a smaller board, much smaller, if we were to transfigure 1 zone movement to 5 inches of movement.
How would we handle actions, though? I've always been of the opinion that if using minis, tokens should not be placed on the board. And as I am the CEO of Wizkids, i'm sure I won't be making clix bases...
What about if we incorporated a kind of minor/major action sequence? Much like 4e, in which things like movement and guarding would be minors, but attacking would be a major. And of course, you would have to minor before you majored, or else you would be out a major spell.
And how would we handle conjurations? They are, after all, an important part of Mage Wars. What if, when built, serve as obstacles that block LoS? For example, mana crystal would be a 1x1 or 2x2 that would block loS to a mage of some sort. This would give more power to not only conjurations, but flying creatures as well.
We may just have a game on our hands. But I still want to play with the original concept first, as I think it could be the most direct path to success, without having to change AS much.
-
Interesting... Almost like we could make every spell have either a circle radius (AoEs mostly), or a line radius.
Seems to be the best and easiest solution's to me...or atleast the first that came to mind! (I am thinking of having a "Zone Radius"- It will be used for spell effects, conjuration effects, and creature effects such as RedClaw's bonuses.
Guarding could lead to Opattacks...
When I was first thinking about this in December- I was thinking that if a Guard was Adjacent to you- then it counts as "That zones guard" equating to- protecting a creature.
Example- My mage is being attacked by a Hydra- My zombie that is adjacent to my mage is guarding- the hydras attack is redirected to my zombie guard
It would have to be a smaller board, much smaller, if we were to transfigure 1 zone movement to 5 inches of movement.
I will try it out on the scale of typical D&D battle mats
How would we handle actions, though? I've always been of the opinion that if using minis, tokens should not be placed on the board. And as I am the CEO of Wizkids, i'm sure I won't be making clix bases...
lol- with how people reacted to summoner wars due to the name "wars"- We would never hear the end of it if we put clix on them- people would say its the old "mage knight" since it says mage!
Being serious though- The action markers can stay on the cards that are off to the side- as simple as that in my mind.
What about if we incorporated a kind of minor/major action sequence? Much like 4e, in which things like movement and guarding would be minors, but attacking would be a major. And of course, you would have to minor before you majored, or else you would be out a major spell.
Keep actions the same- have action markers off to the side on the corresponding creature card- movement would be in a set number of squares- say 5.
And how would we handle conjurations? They are, after all, an important part of Mage Wars. What if, when built, serve as obstacles that block LoS? For example, mana crystal would be a 1x1 or 2x2 that would block loS to a mage of some sort. This would give more power to not only conjurations, but flying creatures as well.
We could have conjurations being the only large or even huge scale miniatures in the game- use the "Zone radius I talked about for effect (These would be placed underneath the mini) and with them being large or huge- Blocking LoS would be an easy feat (as well as easy to remember)
We may just have a game on our hands. But I still want to play with the original concept first, as I think it could be the most direct path to success, without having to change AS much.
I am glad you liked the original concept- It really just came out of me wanting to use minis without changing anything. My first idea was a fleshed out minis game- but I never got around to it....and had even talked about it on the forums before, but since it was around the time the game was released- it got lost in the shuffle. Then I had the idea of just having tactical placement be the only difference and thought it actual sounded like a good idea and posted it.
I am going to take some "mock" pictures of the "Fleshed out version" so we can get a idea of what it would look like.
Thank you for your feedback- It is very welcome, appreciated and overall nice to have.
-
And I am thinking- Ether when you summon a creature- to have it summoned into the "next" adjacent square- or to use a zone template. The zone template could be 5x5 squars or something like that...maybe larger- but I would want it to be recognizable or easily accounted for without the use of a actual template if need be. (Maybe the size of a D&D huge mini...)
-
Hmm. I quite like that idea of an "Area" summoning, in which the mage makes up the "center" of the square, and it goes out to a 5x5.
Any creature with lvl 4 or higher would be a big base?
-
Something like that- I did make some mock photos and will post them latter- Adramelech as a Medium creature just went against everything I believe in!
I am almost wanting to split this thread- and make one just for my "original" idea.....I just don't know what to call it yet.
I have gained a bit of confidence in it since your opinion of it was well received.
I have been thinking of some more applications then just cover,LoS, and walls like:
Terrain effects- Say you move a creature into a Zone that has water in it (I have lots of maps with lakes or rivers in them) If you moved a fire creature into that "Part" (Specific square) of the zone with water in it- it gets a penalty....lets say takes 2 damage on the upkeep. And if you move a creature with the Aquatic subtype-or a water creature into that "Part" of the zone that has water, it gets a bonus....lets say It gains Fast. (To show its now in its natural environment or can swim)
And it could be the other way around with fire- the map I posted up above has PLENTY of fire "parts".
I think it could add a whole new element to mage wars- it could be played right now and take minimal effort, and could be the first real "Game Changing variant" this game has had. (I could see people loving it)
Thoughts??
-
Alright- SO here are those mock photos, they are of poor quality so sorry bout that! I also went for simplicity. But it it will give you a general idea.
So this is an overview of the variant with the Warlock Vs. Warlord. The cards should of been placed at the other sides of the map.....but I didn't think about it at the time!!
(http://i1365.photobucket.com/albums/r744/TeamRocket_Grunt/Share%20folder/20130910_222524_zps9a846607.jpg) (http://s1365.photobucket.com/user/TeamRocket_Grunt/media/Share%20folder/20130910_222524_zps9a846607.jpg.html)
This is the Warlocks view- I tried to place the minis in order with the cards:
(http://i1365.photobucket.com/albums/r744/TeamRocket_Grunt/Share%20folder/20130910_222556_zps47042984.jpg) (http://s1365.photobucket.com/user/TeamRocket_Grunt/media/Share%20folder/20130910_222556_zps47042984.jpg.html)
This is Adramelch with the warlocks spawnpoint behind him, fighting an Iron Golem next to the Trebuchet.
(http://i1365.photobucket.com/albums/r744/TeamRocket_Grunt/Share%20folder/20130910_222633_zpscbe1eb21.jpg) (http://s1365.photobucket.com/user/TeamRocket_Grunt/media/Share%20folder/20130910_222633_zpscbe1eb21.jpg.html)
This is a mock up of the "Original Idea". After the idea of terrain affecting the creatures- such as water,forest,lava,walls, ect- I am thinking I really want to test this version out! (Ignore the trebuchet and iron golem placement- they are on the boarder of the zone and should not be)
(http://i1365.photobucket.com/albums/r744/TeamRocket_Grunt/Share%20folder/org_zpsf91f0d94.jpg) (http://s1365.photobucket.com/user/TeamRocket_Grunt/media/Share%20folder/org_zpsf91f0d94.jpg.html)
And this is my miniature storage.....ya know....just for fun!
(http://i1365.photobucket.com/albums/r744/TeamRocket_Grunt/Share%20folder/20130910_224022_zpsf357e40a.jpg) (http://s1365.photobucket.com/user/TeamRocket_Grunt/media/Share%20folder/20130910_224022_zpsf357e40a.jpg.html)
-
So- I think I will be testing the "original idea first" I think I can start it up right away- and it will even give me a good idea of how other minis variants will pan out.
So lets set up some rules-(Basic rule- choose a square of a zone when you move into a zone)
here is what I was thinking for the terrain. (All D&D maps have terrain symbols so that would be helpful)
Treelines/forest- "Wall" that blocks LoS if standing in a forest square or if LoS passes though one. Could give nature types a bonus, as well as the elf subtype. Give them fast or a defence??? Could also let climbing creatures reach flyers???
Lava/fire-Gives fast to fire creatures (Or a +2 melee???) non-fire creatures take 2 damage on upkeep.
Water-Gives fast to water creatures (Water creatures gain a trait..). Fire creatures take 2 damage on upkeep. Creatures in the square gains fire immunity?
All of these could have a natural "Zone that hinders" sort of thing as well.
Even simple bonuses would have a large impact on game play- and play a huge role in the placement aspect.
Let me know what you think!
-
I like everything about this concept so far except for a couple things:
The idea that when a creature enters a zone, it automatically warps to a square of your choice within that zone. That's no where near as intuitive as regular Mage Wars is, and it doesn't make sense, flavorwise. I want to be able to use part of my creature's action to move less than five squares, staying within the same zone. Or better yet, remove the zones and squares altogether and just use inches. I also suggested earlier using an "Energy Gauge" instead of an action marker, where using 100% Energy would be the equivalent of a full action. Perhaps one could use two D10's to keep track? And then every time another creature is activated, you move the two D10's to that creature with both 10 faces face-up.
Also, I strongly, STRONGLY suggest you make the miniatures from an inexpensive material, like plastic. One of the things that sets Mage Wars apart from other games in the customizable strategy genre is that it is affordable, and I think that's a big part of the attraction of Mage Wars for many players. If you were to use metal, for instance, I'm rather certain that would effectively bar me from playing.
I'm really excited about this! This is seriously awesome!
-
Nice thoughts!
I am not producing anything- So if people wanted to play this- they would have to use what they had.
(Unless you want to Mr.Pope *Wink*)
D&D started to produce "Tokens" for the miniatures (Pictured above in the bottom right corner) that I personally love- extremely inexpensive and works just as well for me as the minis do. I often use minis- and then combine the tokens (That I dont have minis for) with them to create encounters.
If they had (And I am being theoretical here) to be minis- I would produce the kind that games like "Decent", "Zombicide" or "Hero Quest" have done- Very cheap plastic minis that most people love to paint anyhow.
I can agree that warping to a square is rather odd- but its a move action. If you think of it as the creature is moving from one zone to the next by squares- its not warping at all.
Like, during the move action, you are still moving in squares- you are just not counting them since it doesn't matter- they are moving within the creatures movement action- which is one zone.
Or....you could even have to count squares but it doesn't matter how many...as long as it is one zone away (Or in the next zone) for a quick move action.
That make sense to me-you basically move by square-but only count moving into new zones. (Moving by square might be a good idea anyhow- that way terrain can effect the creature along the way- But I would still want the creatures to have a movement of "Zone")
(Did that last part make sense to anyone???)
And I am glad you like it imaginator- again, I have enjoyed reading you variants, so your excitement means alot to me.
-
BUt if I was going (Or if it ended up being better I should say- thats the only thing I want) I would MUCH rather use that sort of "Energy" system then a static movement of "Only 5 squares"
And I REALLY like the thought of the energy being %100- and say.....every square takes %10 energy, and a quick action is comprised of %50. Something to that effect is brilliant- I can say that. And both are definitely worth trying. Thanks for that.
-
Another thing I thought of is if you're forgoing zones altogether, rather than having a rectangular arena the battlefield could be within an elliptical stadium. Also, I think the battlefield should normally start out blank and featureless, with features being added at the start by using "terrain points", and changed/affected by spells. I agree that the different types of terrain fitting different types of creatures and schools of magic makes more sense, rather than releasing a geomancer.
-
Yeah- There is alot of ways to go with this- I am not sure which is best! (All are most likely good based on their own merits)
I thought starting with a blank slate would be a cool way to go as well- But starting with a whole area is cool too!
When D&D minis first came out- you had a large blank map, and each player got to add 4 (I think) tiles to make up a dungeon- even that would be cool.
I think I may need to separate this thread at some point- I feel like I want to tackle the "original" zone idea first- and then move to a fleshed out minis game (working on both is what I would like to do-But I could get much more done and quicker with the Original post). And in the fleshed out minis game- there could be different ways to play such as your "Starting with a blank map" idea.
I wish I could make Sub-threads within threads..... alot of good stuff here- and there has been a lot of good stuff coming out of talking about both at the same time.
-
Hmm, I will have a larger reply once the Old lady hits it, but I just wanted to throw in there that I love the squares idea. Zones maybe could get gone, but I'm partial to squares as inches for a few reasons:
1. It's what I know.
2. It leads to a lot less arguments. See every tournament of 40k for examples.
3. It's just easier. I've always loved minis games where you could just throw down a mat or some tiles and play- no ruler required.
-
Well what do you think of moving in squares- but the mode of movement is "Zone"?
Like you can move one zone as a quick action, and anywhere in that zone- but you have to move by squares along the way.
Or do you think it is better to only be able to move in squares?
That said- should everything else use zone rules??? For simplicity- I would be fine with that- I want to change as little as possible with the "original" idea- if movement was the only "real" change- I would be fine with that.
And yeah- Thats a huge reason I hated playing the Original Mage Knight.....measuring tape+people=Bad time.
-
Of course using a ruler would lead to arguments. I think most people do not have a steady enough hand to use a ruler to measure a distance longer than half a foot accurately (and sometimes not even then). A tape measurer is what's needed. You use the models to hold it steady. If people don't think that's exact enough, then bring in the electron microscopes. :D
I think that there should be a rule that when measuring distance, it should always be rounded to the nearest hash mark, with one exception: if something depends on whether there are bases touching or not, then they are either touching of not.
-
I'm a proud nerd, so no offense but when I walk into a gaming store and see two guys with a measuring tape out and they arguing over Warhammer, I think....nerds. Meaning where a jock would think I'm a nerd, I'm a nerd and think those guys are "my" nerds, but without the desire to give swirlies >:)
Or as Butthead would say, huh huh he said ruler...
-
I love the idea of zone movement. A lot, actually. To me, it makes sense thematically, as if it's 3 feet per square and a quick action is 6 seconds, moving 10 squares or thirty feet shouldn't be a problem..
And I'm a MKBG kind of guy anyways. You know, minis without the minis.
-
I have yet to play MKBG- But I want to!
Ok- Well what I am thinking is doing it as using all the mage wars rules as the are now-
Have minis and a map-
Movement will have you "move along squares" but the movement will still be in zones-
The only things I can think of before I start testing is: How should we have terrain effect the board and the creatures. (I listed some above- and like my ideas, but would like some more opinions.
AND
Should it be minis where the size of the creature matters- (Which by level is what I was thinking as well Dude- but that would mean that mages and some human creatures would be in the large category...and I am just not ok with that! What about just a small set list of things that should be large- Hydra, Aldramelce, ect-
OR
Just use assigned markers such as tokens-chits-ect for everything regardless of "Size" and call that a day.
Thoughts?
-
But then how would it be much different from regular Mage Wars (aside from how it looks?)
What makes this idea so exciting (at least for me) isn't just using the figurines. It's the greater control over movement, the increased feeling of "this is how it would work if it were real." Also, bringing size into the game adds a whole other dimension of strategy. Targeting and movement would become more interesting with area of effect, and using stamina gauges instead of action markers. Large objects could block line of sight, as they actually would if they were real. You would not be able to move most creatures through solid objects like you can and have to in the regular game, and getting rid of zones and squares is what would make it so you don't have to. (Creatures with flying could just be moved over them, of course. And elusive creatures could duck under the arms or legs of another larger object to get through, or jump over smaller ones. And then there's blue gremlin.)
So what if some idiots argue unnecessarily about distance measurements? It's extremely annoying and rude of them, but it wouldn't be the game's fault, it would be the player(s)' fault. Besides, that's what we have judges for in organized play. And if someone starts being ridiculous in casual, don't play with them.
If any real concerns come up about who's right or wrong in distance measurements, I think the rule I thought of with rounding to the nearest hash mark would fix that.
I think this version of mage wars should be different enough to be special and set itself apart from regular mage wars while still being similar enough to able to use all the same cards, spells and mages. Otherwise you might as well just play the regular game only but use a terrain variant.
-
Hold on there guy! I agree with you, for the most part. I just don't care for, and I know many people who also don't care for, stick or distance measuring. Everything else I absolutely love, it's only the non-square movement I don't care for. The game can still turn into an extremely tactical skirmish game, I just don't like non-grid movement, as do a lot of board gaming mates I know.
-
Perhaps, but I'm rather worried that with zones or squares, we'll be dealing with one of two even worse problems:
1. A bad discontinuity between flavor and gameplay. How does it not matter how much a creature actually moves?/How can a creature warp to any square in the zone they move to? It really doesn't make sense at all that sometimes a creature could move 10 squares (2 zones) and other times they could move 15 squares (2 zones), and it would still use up the same "full" movement action, even though they could have moved even farther into the zone they ended up in.
OR
2. Have you ever played the game "Rush Hour"? Have you ever played the game rush hour where you only control some of the cars, and can't move all the ones you control? Yeah, that's what I think it would look like using square movement. You cast too many objects into your zone and it becomes a bit of a jigsaw puzzle. Or if an opposing beastmaster or priestess swarms you, and then the swarm can be used as extremely powerful position control. Even if you take size out of the picture, if you can't move through the space that other objects occupy, it will become hard to move things once there's enough things on the field.
As much as people don't like math that much, and even though a lot of people have had negative experiences fighting over protractor and ruler measurements, I think the alternative is ultimately worse. And like I said, I'm pretty sure most measurement fights can be solved by rounding to the nearest hashmark and using measuring tape and NOT rulers.
If you make sure the measuring tape is flat on the table and held steady by something to weigh it down (such as a small weight, a chess piece, or some dice), as well as making sure to round distance measurements to the nearest hashmark on the measuring tape, then there shouldn't be as many problems.
-
I would say you have control over movement and placement just fine moving by zone- I dont see how its really much different if you are still moving by squares, and the placement is there.
If anything- I plan to move forward with how I have stated- and more in depth movement rules are always welcome or optional. (I really want to mess with the core game as little as possible, and then move forward)
-
There doesn't have to be zones, there can just be a grid on the table. I have played many grid skirmish games, and I haven't ever really had to deal with a "Rush hour" type of situation, and if I have, it was either solved via rules set (friendly can move through friendly as long as the action is not ended on the same square), or my opponent was trying to block me, in which it becomes a tactical part of the game that you don't really get with MW with zones, you only get hindering. Which can also be solved very simply (if adjacent to a creature, instead of moving the full value of 5 as a quick action, they can only move one [see Dungeon Command]).
But, as arbitrary arguments go, I just don't care for stick movement. You do get a tad more freedom, but you also create a whole lot of quirky rules situations that otherwise wouldn't come up. Grid movement is simple to transcribe and easy to understand.
@Dada, I quite like the idea of tokens. We could even have a health point system that has damage tracked under the token itself. See Hopolomacus for examples. But, if we did that, chances are everything would be pog sized tokens, which isn't a big deal, except I quite liked the idea of differing bases based on size. What if we had the medium/big based creatures based on starting health? Except the Mage, of course, who would, for the most part, be single square based. (we could even let the warlord be large base sized, to give him the BONUS he so desparately needs).
If we didn't include zones, how would we handle zone exclusive?
As well, pest would be excellently transcribed as "Can move through enemy creatures, does not hinder".
They are pouring out. Pouring.
-
There doesn't have to be zones, there can just be a grid on the table. I have played many grid skirmish games, and I haven't ever really had to deal with a "Rush hour" type of situation, and if I have, it was either solved via rules set (friendly can move through friendly as long as the action is not ended on the same square), or my opponent was trying to block me, in which it becomes a tactical part of the game that you don't really get with MW with zones, you only get hindering. Which can also be solved very simply (if adjacent to a creature, instead of moving the full value of 5 as a quick action, they can only move one [see Dungeon Command]).
But, as arbitrary arguments go, I just don't care for stick movement. You do get a tad more freedom, but you also create a whole lot of quirky rules situations that otherwise wouldn't come up. Grid movement is simple to transcribe and easy to understand.
@Dada, I quite like the idea of tokens. We could even have a health point system that has damage tracked under the token itself. See Hopolomacus for examples. But, if we did that, chances are everything would be pog sized tokens, which isn't a big deal, except I quite liked the idea of differing bases based on size. What if we had the medium/big based creatures based on starting health? Except the Mage, of course, who would, for the most part, be single square based. (we could even let the warlord be large base sized, to give him the BONUS he so desparately needs).
If we didn't include zones, how would we handle zone exclusive?
As well, pest would be excellently transcribed as "Can move through enemy creatures, does not hinder".
They are pouring out. Pouring.
Zone exclusive: cannot be placed less than five inches from another zone exclusive.
You're also confusing pest and elusive. A pest doesn't hinder, but it can still BE hindered. So...
Pest: can be moved through by enemy creatures.
Also, I REALLY don't think size should be based on just level. It should be a separate characteristic for each object, like mana cost or level, and should be determined by a number of factors, including: mana cost,
level, range of its attacks/abilties, what it's abilities are, lore, and card artwork.
Otherwise sizes could get nonsensical very fast. Should fellela pixie familiar be bigger than timber wolf? Should Cervere the forest shadow be as big as a darkfenne hydra? I think not.
I still would very much prefer this version of mage wars be gridless. Perhaps we could try both with and without the grid?
-
"I still would very much prefer this version of mage wars be gridless. Perhaps we could try both with and without the grid?"
I dont see why not- Ok- Its getting hard for me to figure out which direction we are going-
I think I get what Imaginator is saying but,
Dude- Do you think the "Move by zone but place in square" is worth pursuing? I do, as it really comes down to the only change in the game being: LoS and New terrain effects. (I also think this could work for other projects Dude.)
If so- I will make a new thread just for Zone based miniature magewars- and we can keep this one for a "Fleshed out mini mage wars- where we can include (Even if only optional) Energy levels, token damage stacking, non-grid based maps, "summoning" or placing terrain, ect.
Just let me know and we can do it.
I plan on playtesting the "Original idea" this friday (Since I dont have anything else to do for that 12 hours now!) to see if its fun. (Fun is the most important part to me, and if it feels forced or less fun the normal MW, its not worth it)
And we can continue to work on our fleshed out version regardless- I like all these ideas!
Also- @Imaginator- this topic is on BGG, but not getting any response - just to let you know.
-
I love the original Idea, and I want to pursue that.
-
Dropping new thread called "Zone based miniature mage wars". Will contain a link to this thread.
Not much is to be done but terrain effects and testing- But I just feel like it will stay true to MW, while offering a different experience.
-
OK- Someone locked it- I hope to get a privet message soon.....
-
I was thinking...without grid-based movement, the arbitrary rule of "move before other quick actions" might not be necessary. I think being able to cast a quick spell or use a ranged attack before moving would be pretty useful.
Also, using energy levels, traits like fast, slow, and lumbering would have to be tweaked a bit.
Fast: energy required for this creature's movement actions is multiplied by .5
Slow: Energy required for this creature's movement actions is multiplied by 2
Lumbering: This creature is slow. The direction of this creature's move actions stays the same for the entire round, unless they touch another object.
Also, rather than having creatures use their entire activations one at a time, it might be better if players could activate a creature as many times as they want during a round, as long as that creature has enough energy. Also, I'm thinking it should be called Stamina, rather than energy.
Also, I'm thinking that the entire game should be in the action phase. Let me explain:
Whenever a mage could reveal an enchantment, that mage could prepare spells as a free creature activation (costs no stamina or mana), but only when they have enough stamina to cast them as if they had already prepared them. A mage with 50% Stamina would only be able to have a single quick cast spell prepared. If their stamina became lower than the amount required for a prepared spell, that spell is returned to the spellbook at the end of the activation that lowers their stamina to that point. I think all creatures would recover stamina at a rate of 25% per creature activation. This represents a creature "catching its breath". Oh yeah, and max stamina is 150% for mages, and 100% for other creatures. However, when a mage has 50% or less stamina, movement costs x3 stamina. This represents that mages normally wouldn't tire out very quickly, but all that spell casting they do makes their bodies weaker when they're low on stamina.
Channeling would be whatever a creature's channeling stat is, but they would only gain that mana at the start if their own activations, and after channeling they won't channel until another five of their own activations have passed if they're a mage, three for any other creature with channeling.
What do you think?
-
Good work man! Thats brilliant!
What do you think about the mages just having a "quick cast" as normal, and not requiring any energy?
Not that I don't like how you presented it- its just a little cleaner.
I like the slow/fast- very cool.
Stamina is great.
I don't know how I feel about the "if players could activate a creature as many times as they want during a round, as long as that creature has enough energy."
Let me think about it.
-
I'm also thinking that when calculating stamina use, movement measurements should subtract the radius of the base after taking movement traits like fast or slow into account. That way size could also influence how much ground is covered. Spells and ranged attacks I think should not do this. Rather, I think that the closer a target is to the outer reaches of the spell's or attack's range, the more stamina it should consume, and the closer the target is to the minimal range of the spell or attack, the less stamina it consumes. So a quickcast that targets something farther away will use closer to 50% stamina, and if you're casting on yourself or something right next to you it costs quite a bit less stamina. I'm thinking it should be a multiplier that could be anywhere from x.5 to x1, so the least stamina a quickcast spell could take is 25%, and the highest is 50%. I'm not entirely sure if this would break equipment or not. Maybe the lower limit of the multiplier should be higher than .5
The reasons I make this distinction between movement ranges and other action ranges is partly because it's more realistic. I'm not too worried about it being unbalanced this way since this way larger creatures would also be bigger targets. Having a larger base means that spells don't have to go as far to reach that base, which means they'll use less stamina.
When activating his ability, I think Blue Gremlin's move actions would teleport him up to five inches away per move action, using the same amount of stamina per teleport through this effect (50%).
-
Another important question is what should be the dimensions of the battlefield?
I'm thinking it should be a 25 inch by 15 inch ellipse. Here's how I determined it:
A regular arena is rectangular with 3 x 4 zones. If you consider each of those zones to be squares with a length of five inches, then the arena is a size of 300 square inches. I used an ellipse calculator and found the area of a 25 inch x 15 inch ellipse to be about 290 square inches, so it was pretty close. There were a number of other dimensions I calculated. 30 in x 10 in ellipse would be too narrow. 20 x 15 I'm thinking would be too small (and too close to a perfect circle. 30 x 15 might be okay, but I think it's too big. Maybe it doesn't matter though, since both 30 in x 15 in ellipses and 25 in x 15 ellipses are pretty much equal to 2 square feet in area.
Also, having a 25 in by 15 in battlefield would probably work for both 1 on 1 games and 2 on 2 games.
Of course, if you really want flexibility in the number of players playing, such as for four player free-for-alls and the like, it might be better to go with a circular board that can increase or decrease in size by unfolding outward from the center or something. I think it would need layers to do that though. Like an onion shaped board. And depending on how big you want the battlefield to be, you peel a layer and lay it flat on the table.
Or, it might be better to have a single flat circular board around the size of about 150 square inches (radius is about 7 inches). This is the apprentice mode board. Then you could encircle the board with a "ring" that has an inner radius of about 7 inches and an outer radius of about 10 inches. The apprentice mode board has now transformed into a regular (300 square inch) 1 v 1 board. Add another ring with an inner radius of 10 inches and an outer radius of 12 inches and you get a 3 player free for all! Add another ring of inner radius 12 inches and outer radius of 15 inches. Now you have a 4 player game of 600 square inches!
I did my calculations using the google calculator/unit converter and these other two calculators, this one for the area of ellipses: http://www.csgnetwork.com/areaellipse.html
And this one for the radii of the circular board and each subsequently larger ring:
http://www.ookingdom.com/metric/diameter
I used significant figures for my calculations, so there were multiple times I had to round due to uncertainty in measurements. I suspect, however, that each ring has an outer radius of exactly 1.5 inches greater than the next size down (not entirely, since I excluded 3 player apprentice mode, and 4-player apprentice mode would use the same sized board as 2 player regular; for those who are curious, I had the radius for 3 player apprentice mode board as 8.45 inches).
And about my last post that I deleted...I apologize for that. I got confused and used the wrong conversion factor for turning square inches into square feet. I should have multiplied by 1/144, rather than by 12. It was awfully stupid of me, and it went completely against common sense. Sorry if it scared anyone when I said that we would need over 100 square feet for a board if a range of 5 inches was the equivalent of 1 zone length. That is obviously NOT true. I can't believe I said that.
I swear I'm not crazy!
-
;D
Well I think the boards/maps/board dimensions can vary as you see fit- I don't see why not.
A baseline wouldn't be bad at all to set up though- but small/large/featureless/packed with features....all will create a new dynamic in gameplay.