Re: GW

RICK L MOWER wrote:
> 
> Check out the new issue of white dwarf in there you will find a space
game
> set in the 40k universe. surpassingly it looks a lot like Full Thrust.
HMMMM
> where do you think they are getting their ideas from?

Haven't seen that one, so no comment, but I got the Battlerage game out
of
curiosity.

It's an overpriced, underproduced small press game. The authors either
don't know what a copy editor is, didn't think they'd need one or
couldn't
afford one. They also need a professional artist and a laser printer. 

It's no serious simulation, but it could be a fun little game. One of
those learn-in-five-minutes, easily suitable for conventions, store
demos
etc. The "use your figures and background" attitude is not shockingly
new
anymore, but always welcome.

But I honestly can't see this as a direct rip-off of FMA. 

Initiative. Errr... absolutely vanilla stuff with warts and all,
nevermind
that it's the natural step from Igo-Ugo.

Even though statistics are presented as different dice types, modifiers
are straight additions/subtractions instead of FMA-style dice shifts or
secondary dice. The "natural one" rule doesn't have a direct counterpart
in FMA either. The game is just so simple that I think it's pointless to
gloat over minute details. 

E.g. pick any two old school board wargames. Odds are, they have
Igo-Ugo initiative, use hexes and movement points to regulate movement,
single number for combat strength and use a 2d6 CRT. Are they all just
carbon copies ready-for-litigation? 

I don't think so. It's the more complex rules that set them apart.

> Just proves that GW is loseing all ability to think and create
themselves.

Nah. GW is in the market for games with *very* simple basic rules (and
afterwards cluttered with simple, but very numerous, special rules).
There
are only so many ways you can use a six-sider. 

Let's see. Basic game mechanics.

Initiative: Roughly speaking, it's either the old Igo-Ugo, pre-ordained
value based (values either set in stone or fluctuating from turn to
turn)
or alternating. Three basic choices.

Action resolution: Either an "action point" system, or everyone has the
same choices what to do. Two basic choices.

Dice resolution: Either you roll a dice type determined by the action,
or
one determined by equipment/statistic. You either roll against a set
number or against another roll by an opponent. Two and two basic
choices. 

Modifiers: Either you get set bonuses to rolls, or "column shifts" (dice
type shifts fall into this category). Two basic choices. Three if you
count using both.

Result resolution: Either chart-based, or based on calculation from dice
rolls (chit/card pull is just another way to roll dice). By necessity,
this calculation is very simple (set number, higher, double etc.). Two
basic choices. 

3 * 2 * 2 * 2 * 3 * 2 = 72 variations. Now, how many games are there? 

Obviously, I've probably omitted a few choices, but hopefully this
serves
as an example how finite the number of ways to combine fundamental basic
mechanics really is. Especially when you're trying to model basically
the
same thing. Or trying to use meaningful combinations only.

-- 
maxxon@swob.dna.fi (Mikko Kurki-Suonio) 	   | A pig who doesn't
fly
+358 50 5596411 GSM +358 9 80926 78/FAX 81/Voice   | is just an ordinary
pig.
Maininkitie 3C14 02320 ESPOO FINLAND | Hate me?    |	      - Porco
Rosso
http://www.swob.dna.fi/~maxxon/      | hateme.html |