Comments for Dice Like Thunder

Comment on The Hiatus is kind of over… maybe? by CM Hephaestus

CM Hephaestus — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 10:43:26 +0000

Huzzah, you’ve come back! I was worried for a moment. There was actually a week or so where I was getting pageload errors and I was concerned the blog ended up going the way of the Dodo.

In any case, it’s good to have you back!

Comment on Tis the season! by Simon

Simon — Wed, 02 Jan 2013 06:37:07 +0000

Apologies for the last comment on the article previous. I just got around to reading this article. Unfortunate occurrence, that. Would it be at all possible to do a similar sort of introductory campaign for Malifaux?

Comment on Let’s Make Something: Outline by Simon

Simon — Wed, 02 Jan 2013 06:33:50 +0000

I will volunteer to write all sorts of things. I apologize for the lengthy time it took me to post; I have been busy writing a weekly column, landing a job, landing another job, driving a few thousand miles, and writing a codex. That said, until I have enough saved up to purchase InDesign proper, I am glad to write whatever needs writing. Let me know which sections I can work on, if they’re still available.

Comment on Tis the season! by Miggidy Mack

Miggidy Mack — Tue, 25 Dec 2012 04:37:39 +0000

This is a great topic. I’ll use it for my next article, which I’ll write some time this week!

To be super fair to Games-Workshop. I know a lot of the guys who work over there, they are fun guys who just like to make games. I’m 99% sure that nothing we would do would draw ire. However, if a company didn’t move on an IP infringement it knew about it could be used against it. I know I have a few readers who are friend who work for the company.

Really, it was more of me buttoning the flaps and just extending a professional courtesy of NOT causing a possible issue, than it was fear of GW doing anything. I just didn’t want to make them have to even think about it!

Comment on Tis the season! by CM Hephaestus

CM Hephaestus — Sun, 23 Dec 2012 23:57:37 +0000

/Sadface about the “Let’s Make Something.” That said, I wouldn’t want to give the Thunder Hammer Storm Shield Terminators in GW’s IP department any reason to teleport down and beat us up…

Here’s an interesting idea to mull about for a topic: how does scale (both model and battle size) relate to one another, and what types of game systems “work” in each. (You could even throw in a bit about at what scale “fancy dice” stop being appropriate.)

Also, have a Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays/Fancy Festivus! =D

Comment on Let’s Make Something: The Pitch! by CM Hephaestus

CM Hephaestus — Tue, 04 Dec 2012 11:05:33 +0000

To keep things tidy, I’m making a fresh post rather than replying. Just a bit of my own personal OCD kicking in…

I agree that up-playing the enmity between the two armies will be the best route we could go with the storyline, and I too was going to propose a large scale siege-esq battle on the enemy HQ for the final mission (I blame years of playing Dawn of War Soulstorm…) I just wasn’t sure what/how what new game concepts/unit types could be added to such a battle.

Also, I had another idea for an early mission: The Attackers (whether they be Dark Angels or Chaos… though Angels will be easier for what I have planned in my head.) attempt to establish a beachhead (With Angels using [a limited number of] Pods to drop in, not sure how to represent with Chaos, but I’m sure we could come up with something…) and the defenders initially have a small force + stuff being held in reserve to show up later (reinforcements/reactionary detachment/what have you) to offset the fact that you’d only get a couple pods in at the first turn. Alternatively (to remove pods from the equation… not too keen on having people buy things they may never actually use again) you could allow the attacking army to deepstrike in (again Dark Angels actually support such a deployment, but the Chaos [either, to be honest] army could use a mission special rule that they get to DS X number of squads in first turn by whatever fluffy means necessary…)

Comment on Let’s Make Something: The Pitch! by Miggidy Mack

Miggidy Mack — Tue, 04 Dec 2012 05:58:49 +0000

I like you’re thinking, especially on the theme. I think it’s really important to focus on the over all enmity, and really focus on two armies who want to go at it. I don’t think I agree on the casualties though. At this point in a players learning process, they have enough rules to learn without adding on anything extra.

Comment on Let’s Make Something: The Pitch! by Simon

Simon — Tue, 04 Dec 2012 02:45:53 +0000

I think that a great way to introduce new players to the game would be to emphasize the long-term enmity between the two factions, and one of the best ways to create that narrative would be to have some smaller, skirmish-like missions that introduce different force org slots, and then have them all come together at the end for a large-scale, frontal assault.

To that end, I think it would also establish narrative to have the same units fight for the whole campaign, having casualties from the previous fights regenerate wounds on a 4+.

I think that we might want to shy away from a choke point or central objective in the first mission, because that will likely mean high casualties around that point for whoever decides to cross it, whereas a combative, race-like linebreaker objective will emphasize the speed of fast attack units and probably result in lighter casualties.

Comment on Let’s Make Something: The Pitch! by Miggidy Mack

Miggidy Mack — Sat, 01 Dec 2012 18:18:40 +0000

I think that’s a strong start. For my next post I’ll put together a simple PDF scenario for us to take a look at. I think you’re on the right track there!

Comment on Let’s Make Something: The Pitch! by CM Hephaestus

CM Hephaestus — Sat, 01 Dec 2012 12:59:37 +0000

Hmm. I’ve always been a fan of asymmetrical (though generally conflicting) objectives for each side. For example, the let’s say the first mission requires the Dark Angels to advance deep into enemy territory and the Chaos Marines need to cripple their ability to do so quickly and efficiently, maybe by destroying/blocking a key point (whether it be a bridge over a wide chasm/lava flow, or a chokepoint created by otherwise impassible walls/mountains or something.) This mission could then emphasize the use of Fast Attack squads for the Dark Angels (maybe landspeeders being used to cross said lava flow or what have you) and Heavy choices/Fortifications for the Chaos player. We could have 3 objectives, one at the choke point that counts for 2 VP for whatever player controls it, and have one in each of the players deployment zone that counts for 1 VP for the home team, but 3 for the enemies. Fast attack would be scoring for the Angels and Heavies could be scoring for Chaos.

Then if we wanted to say the Angels pushed through the Chaos lines in the previous mission (winning), we could then reverse the roles, and have the Dark Angels set up some sort of temporary camp/fortification/strategic point they have to defend to help secure supply lines (Aegis Defense Lines sounds like a good candidate to mark out the “camp”), and the Chaos plan to use a pincer attack to flank the camp, with a single objective in the middle, with Fast Attacks be scoring for Chaos.

So… too crazy, not crazy enough, or a pile of steaming monkey poo? Whaddaya think?