Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Gosh, it's been a while since I was here last. Good to see nothing has changed!

But I've been busy working on Horizon Wars: Midnight Dark. For those of you not in that loop, I've been a Dakkaite for a long, long time and back in 2016 I was lucky enough to have my first game published by Osprey Games, which was a 6mm scifi wargame called Horizon Wars.

I then decied to go it alone and used the same core rules to develop two more games: Horizon Wars: Zero Dark (28mm scifi skirmish) and Horizon Wars: Infinite Dark (spaceship combat).

Finally, I have come full circle, taken everything I learned from the last eight years of game design and development, all of the feedback from my players and patrons and all of the mistakes I've made to bring you the original Horizon Wars, but better. With a more nuanced points system I was able to add many more upgade options. I heard the complaints that the aircraft minigame was too complicated and boiled it back to its essentials. I re-visited the rules for orders to make command and fatigue absolutely at the heart of the game. And I added heroes, too: unique additions to elements that add a narrative flair to the game as well as opening significant possibilities for campaign rules.

Oh, and there are solo rules baked right into the main rules as well.

If you'd like to know more, please just ask and I'll do my best to pop in and answer questions whenever I have time.

Best Regards,

Robey

Wheee. Sounds exciting, and me with a birthday coming up soon as well

Horizon Wars was a great game to play with my son and nephews. Looking forward to seeing the new options, especially for air combat.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Horizon Wars was a great game to play with my son and nephews. Looking forward to seeing the new options, especially for air combat.

The main complaint about the air combat element of Horizon Wars was that it was too complicated. Given that those rules were originally developed as their own game (AirFrame) and then incorporated into the rest of the rules, that's only reasonable. To address this, I basically removed fast jets entirely (moving them into the more abstract concept of "Strategic Assets") and instead made all aircraft "tactical air support"; i.e. Apaches and their scifi equivalents. So they all get to hover in place and can land more easily. They also get transport capacity to deploy elements directly to the battlefield.

I am up for this.

Are you incorporating any of the Over the Horizon=type material in here as well?

 Easy E wrote:
I am up for this.

Are you incorporating any of the Over the Horizon=type material in here as well?

Some of it. Solo rules and strategic assets are in. And I took some of the learning from the alternative missions to update the command and leadership mechanics. But Metaformers and BioWar are out. I don't plan to return to Metaformers as the number of miniatures available to support those rules are very limited. I will return to BioWar, allowing monsters, bugs and suchlike, later, but the plan is to add these only to the solo/coop game.

You've released a new edition of Horizon Wars, with updated aircraft and solo rules?

Welcome back and congrats on the new game! What style of minis game would you describe this new version? Slow and ponderous vehicles ala CBT with very crunchy rules? Anime style fast paced but abstracted? How much of a focus would you say is on the mechs compared with the rest of the combined arms?

*edited due to my reading comprehension fail!*

 warboss wrote:
Welcome back and congrats on the new game! What style of minis game would you describe this new version? Slow and ponderous vehicles ala CBT with very crunchy rules? Anime style fast paced but abstracted? How much of a focus would you say is on the mechs compared with the rest of the combined arms?

*edited due to my reading comprehension fail!*

It's hard(ish) military science fiction, but the original rules were really very abstracted. These new ones are certainly less so. The rules are definitely not super crunchy, but as with most of my games you can include or exclude large chunks to make the game easier. You can easily leave out aircraft, strategic assets, heroes and upgrades and just play with the most basic armies, then add in those things once you're comfortable with the basics.

Mechs get more of a focus now than in the original game. They get access to their own special upgrades and heroes in mechs are pilots who get their own special options. But mechs are absolutely not game winners on their own. Order efficiency is a big part of the game.

Nice. We played the original version a few times before everyone settled on Alpha Strike as our go to mech game. The range/shooting idea was cool especially. We had some challenges with the activation tracking for some reason. I look forward to watching some gameplay videos to see how the new version works.

Got any battle reports from playtesting? Any of the playtesters have a blog or something where they'll post about the game?

Got any battle reports from playtesting?

Those would be hilarious... No, I don't. Playtesting doesn't really look like regular games and frequently involves me making changes to the rules in the middle of a turn.

90% of playtesting doesn't even involve another person as it's just about putting down minis in various positions and rolling dice or just plugging numbers into tables to assess probabilities and outcomes. It's much less interesting than it sounds.

Any of the playtesters have a blog or something where they'll post about the game?

No. Most of my playtesters are ambushed by me inviting them over for "a game" and then springing my half-baked ideas on them when they least expect it. You'd be surprised how few people are interested in play-testing when what they really want to do is play the actual finished game that they bought and spent hours painting minis for.

My patrons had lots of previews of the rules, but they are all very nice about not leaking my work (as if anyone would care!!).

Also, some folks are asking for demo videos. These will come. But I have a day job and, frankly, it was a herculean task just to get the rules written, formatted, illustrated and laid out for publication. I am a one-man show and whilst video editing is in my skillset, it isn't high on the list of things I have to do.

If it doesn't involve another person nor a full game, it's not a proper playtest. Playtesting is when you give two people that aren't yourself the rules and let them play a full game and take notes quietly without intervening.

Did this game ever get a proper playtest before publishing? That's what I want to hear details about.

When was the last time you played a full game of HW:MD and what did it look like?

 slyphic wrote:
If it doesn't involve another person nor a full game, it's not a proper playtest. Playtesting is when you give two people that aren't yourself the rules and let them play a full game and take notes quietly without intervening.

Did this game ever get a proper playtest before publishing? That's what I want to hear details about.

When was the last time you played a full game of HW:MD and what did it look like?

That seems like a really harsh dig at an author that seems to know how to write and playtest games.

Personally, I'd have rulebook explanations tested by noobs to the game, but real playtesting done by people that know the rules inside out and are doing their best to break them.

Anyway, I didn't get chance to pick up the original rules. What sort of size of game are we talking here? A dozen mechs and some tanks and infantry, or a table full like 40k?

No, playtesting is rarely full games.

I've picked up my copy. While I was a proofreader & playtester (in fact I may have been the first playtester after Robey?) of the first Horizon Wars, I haven't really kept up with the development of Midnight Dark, but the book is absolutely gorgeous. Reminds me of the GURPS 4e books in style, and it is much easier to reference rules this time round and things are grouped together in a far more logical way

I'm going to miss Metaformers (and the other weird HW apocrypha, although I'm sure they'll probably be updated at some point) but this is a much more tightly written set of rules than the first time round, and porting over Heroes from Infinite Dark was a much needed addition.

I never got hold of a copy of HardWar, so I have no idea which design elements or lessons from that got carried over, but if the other Horizon Wars games are anything to go by, I'm reasonably sure there will quickly be a lot of community additions to expand the book options (or at least I hope so, I love me some huge tables of upgrades)

And hey, my name's in the book, can't really hate that

When was the last time you played a full game of HW:MD and what did it look like?

Sometime last month. I played oneuv of the missions against a friend who was new to the game. I had some outrageous luck in close combat (my light infantry beat his special forces twice with Lucky 12s). I won, but that was hardly surprising.

What sort of size of game are we talking here? A dozen mechs and some tanks and infantry, or a table full like 40k?

More the former than the latter. A dozen mechs would be a LOT of mechs. Think of mechs as being your champions. 500 points is maybe a dozen elements total.

 Gimgamgoo wrote:
That seems like a really harsh dig at an author that seems to know how to write and playtest games.

The number one thing I buy wargame rules for is the iterative playtesting they've undergone. It sounds like the game didn't have that, so it's a pass for me.

Setting up models, play the game in bits and pieces, running numbers; that's just game design. But until you actually test a game by giving it to people and stepping back, you can't really tell if what you wrote works, either in the way you explained or intent vs effect. Real rules wonks can take a game apart from the first match, but you also need to hand it to noobs (to the game, not wargaming) and see what assumptions you didn't realize you were making, what rules are in your head but not on the page.

Tell me about your playtest games is the first question I ask every designer when the chance arises.

I've done playtests from both sides, I don't think it's too much to ask at all.

I’ve only read and played the first Horizon Wars edition, but it didn’t feel like your kind of game at all. It was easy to play and fun.

I might be off base, but to me if felt very much like a “beer and pretzels” game than any kind of serious match for masters. We modified the rules a bit as we played to make more things go boom, and that felt right.

 slyphic wrote:

The number one thing I buy wargame rules for is the iterative playtesting they've undergone.

Out of genuine interest as a fellow rules connoisseur, which games meet your standards?

 slyphic wrote:

 Gimgamgoo wrote:
That seems like a really harsh dig at an author that seems to know how to write and playtest games.

The number one thing I buy wargame rules for is the iterative playtesting they've undergone. It sounds like the game didn't have that, so it's a pass for me.

Have you bought many wargames then? Lol.

 Soundtheory wrote:
Have you bought many wargames then? Lol.

For reasons 2 through like 16, ranging from novel concept, to cool art, to one single innovative mechanic, to found it in the discount bin and took a gamble, to won it for free at a con or something.
I'm swimming in rulebooks, shelves and shelves. I've even got a hardback of the original Horizon Wars.

I want to buy rules I don't immediately feel the need to houserule, and the most straightforward way to find out is to ask if they've been thoroughly playtested because that's the best indicator of quality I've found. Not a guarantee, but a strong indicator.

I've played plenty of games where the lack of playtesting was painfully apparent and badly needed (Cruel Seas was a recent and memorable dumpsterfire). I've also got a group of friends ready and willing to houserule anything and everything and we regularly play each others wild new designs for games.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Out of genuine interest as a fellow rules connoisseur, which games meet your standards?

Mostly historicals, SF&F wargame authors seem to be much more cagey and less transparent about their rules for some reason. Everything Sam Mustafa has written (Lasalle, Blucher, Maurice, Rommel, Nimitz), Et Sans Resultat, Fistful of Tows. 2nd and further editions interest me, as again they indicate a game has probably had some thorough playtesting.

In SF, Dirtside, Dropzone Commander (not the current edition, the original beta), Victory Decision: Future Combat, and Full Spectrum Dominance are all good games with documented playtesting behind them.

Cheers, of those I'm familiar only with Full Spectrum Dominance (and in the current Kickstarter). The design feels very informed by slick modern board games.

I started playing Horizon Wars with my Dropzone Commander minis specifically because Dropzone Commander was such a bear of a rule set to learn and play. For us casuals, Horizon Wars was more what we were looking for.

LOL, I had a much harder time reading and learning the HW rules than DZC. The aircraft rules in particular were frustrating (I was excited to hear they got revamped) especially in comparison to dropzone, but I also had a lot of head scratching looking at the force composition stuff (did that change?).

I never looked at force composition. We had tanks and stuff we wanted to use. HW gave us rules we could use to get playing now and having fun now, without having to flip through the book to learn what focus or devastator 2 meant, or deal with armor values or weapon ranges and energy levels.

From what I recall of the introduction, HW was designed to be less crunchy than a game like DZC. It succeeded.

 slyphic wrote:
I also had a lot of head scratching looking at the force composition stuff (did that change?).

Yes. With feedback from players I decided that I tried to be too clever with the force composition rules. I thought they were simpler and, objectively, they might have been but they were too different for most players to grow, plus they left too little room to explore options for upgrades and customisation.

Now there is a more traditional points system, which allows for a lot more customisation including unit quality, which will let players more easily adapt the roles to their setting and aesthetic of choice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
From what I recall of the introduction, HW was designed to be less crunchy than a game like DZC. It succeeded.

There's no denying that the new rules are a tad crunchier than the old ones. Command rules, in particular, are more complex. However, a lot of the rules can be easily ignored when first learning the game. Leave heroes, upgrades, advanced terrain and strategic assets out of your early games to get to grips with the main rules. Then add them in to taste, as you become comfortable with the key mechanics.

Perhaps Indie rule sets aren't for you slyphic.

They are typically 1 guy, his gamer pals, and a lot of love and enthusiasm. Playtesting is not nearly as rigorous because they do not have the infrastructure to do it and everyone is a volunteer or acquaintance at best.

I really enjoyed Horizon Wars core game play, but some of the stuff around the edges (like Momentum Points) needed to be baked longer. However, the core of what it does it does well. I am happy to see it get updated and am eager to give it a go!

 Easy E wrote:
Perhaps Indie rule sets aren't for you slyphic.

They are typically 1 guy, his gamer pals, and a lot of love and enthusiasm. Playtesting is not nearly as rigorous because they do not have the infrastructure to do it and everyone is a volunteer or acquaintance at best.

Literally every ruleset I listed as examples are one-guy self-published games by people with dayjobs (except for Dirtside) or at least started that way. FFT3 & ESR, I know the volunteer playtesters directly, and they are just local dudes to the author. None of those games had 'infrastructure' for playtesting, it's just a process of watching the game played and taking notes to refine it. I regularly playtest board, card, and wargames for local people designing them because it's fun.

 Easy E wrote:
some of the stuff around the edges (like Momentum Points) needed to be baked longer.

Eight years long enough?

Yes, Momentum Points have gone. They found new life in bonus actions in Horizon Wars: Zero Dark and are back in the form of bonus orders in Horizon Wars: Midnight Dark and kind of got rolled into orders generally. If you end up with more orders that you can allocate to your elements, it is allocated across the battle group as fatigue. Managing fatigue is serious business in Midnight Dark.