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.

What I've found surprising is how everybody considered Horizon Wars' aircraft rules to be way too complex and confusing. My main gripe with the air assets in the original game is how mechanically useless they tended to be in comparison to just fielding out more tanks and artillery, but the movement system was so trivial I'm still unsure if maybe I was playing it wrong if everybody seems to have troubles with it?

Weren’t there five different levels of flight?

It was originally written as a separate game and then "bolted on" to the main rules. When I wrote Horizon Wars I was very scared of making anything into an "automatic win" button and so erred on dialing stuff down.

Part of this arose from me fixating on keeping the points system very, very simple. For this version, I embraced a traditional points system which allowed me to let loose a little more. I did my very, very best to make sure that points costs were carefully balanced, but I'm sure that there's a clever combo in there somewhere that someone will find to break the game eventually.

If the game ever gets so much traction that this is a problem I actually need to address for competitive play, I will. Otherwise, I will assume that players can act like adults.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 privateer4hire wrote:
Weren’t there five different levels of flight?

There were five altitudes. And there still are. But most air elements had to keep moving or, y'know, drop out of the sky like planes do. And movement had three different types, plus two different speeds and, although it wasn't all that complicated (it was a fun dogfighting game in its own right) it was a contrast to the very simple movement afforded to ground elements. And people who wanted to play a really stripped back, rules-lite battle game obviously didn't appreciate having to learn a whole new movement system just to add aircraft so, in practice, hardly anyone did. I'm hopeful that the new rules will encourage more players to explore the third dimension as, other than altitude, aircraft now follow the same rules as everything else.

 privateer4hire wrote:
Weren’t there five different levels of flight?

So what? "Plane flies low" or "plane flies high" are not hard concepts to grasp.

 slyphic wrote:

 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.

Okay. You win, I lose. If you want to talk about it further let's take it to Wargame Design forum.

Does this still use d12s as the primary dice? Did you change up the distance rules at all?

 SgtBANZAI wrote:
So what? "Plane flies low" or "plane flies high" are not hard concepts to grasp.

I specifically got the first HW because I wanted to use my dropzone forces with new rules. We wanted to setup a simple fly in and drop a couple tanks and infantry operation. And the air rules start with this

and then landing is an advanced maneuver based on banking but with restrictions except the dropships we had were all VTOLs which is itself a special exception and it was just flipping back and forth between pages trying to cross reference it and determine what values to plug in during mustering (which we were already struggling to use to produce forces that looked right) to get an aircraft that actually behaves how you expect it to and it was just really frustrating for a game that was supposed to be simple. That the air rules were primarily an air-to-air game made perfect sense when I heard that.

But I do agree with you in that we found attacking with air assets after that mess above to be unsatisfyingly ineffective.

In terms of rules organization HW could be sometimes a bit hard to get through, on that I agree.

Yes, it's still d12s throughout.

And, in the nicest possible way, could we possibly stop deconstructing the rules I published in 2016 and focus on the ones I spent eight years improving?

If you were going to put together a con game to show off the new edition, what would the forces on each side look like? Not a teaching/demo game, but one that takes up a full 3-4 hour slot, opportunity to show off the most interesting interactions.

We mainly use the aircraft rules as an alternative to Aeronautica, as it also had a few altitude levels you can record on the base dials. It definitely felt like a game in it's own right, that just happened to be able to be integrated into the main HW ruleset.

Going forward, I'm most excited about using LI's shared model range with HW.

SamusDrake wrote:
We mainly use the aircraft rules as an alternative to Aeronautica, as it also had a few altitude levels you can record on the base dials. It definitely felt like a game in it's own right, that just happened to be able to be integrated into the main HW ruleset.

Going forward, I'm most excited about using LI's shared model range with HW.

Now I wish I'd got a copy of the original HW so I had a decent alternative to Aeronautica!

(Sorry Robey)

Focussing on the new edition though, I am similarly keen to pick it up for use with LI-type models... I'm assuming however that it's mechs don't scale up to full titan sizes?

Piousservant wrote:

SamusDrake wrote:
We mainly use the aircraft rules as an alternative to Aeronautica, as it also had a few altitude levels you can record on the base dials. It definitely felt like a game in it's own right, that just happened to be able to be integrated into the main HW ruleset.

Going forward, I'm most excited about using LI's shared model range with HW.

Now I wish I'd got a copy of the original HW so I had a decent alternative to Aeronautica!

(Sorry Robey)

Focussing on the new edition though, I am similarly keen to pick it up for use with LI-type models... I'm assuming however that it's mechs don't scale up to full titan sizes?

Perhaps I should dig out the old AirFrame rules that were the original dog fighting game and release that on WGV again? Not sure I even still have the files...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, I will be buying some of the LI boxed armies and starting them up for HWMD in due course. But I've got a lot of other minis still to paint, plus a bunch of bills to pay before I can spend anything on new minis.

If you were going to put together a con game to show off the new edition, what would the forces on each side look like? Not a teaching/demo game, but one that takes up a full 3-4 hour slot, opportunity to show off the most interesting interactions.

Now that is a great question.

I would probably run a hybrid mission that mixes holding concentration zones and buildings. I would have 20-25 elements on each side. Both sides would have 3-6 mechs with 3 pilot heroes. One would be heavy on infantry with light infantry, mobile infantry, light artillery and/or recon elements. The other would have just a few infantry elements, with special forces and heavy infantry. Both sides would have 3-4 additional command elements with a range of Command Ratings. And both sides would have at least one gunship with transport capacity.

Exactly what I included would be somewhat dictated by what miniatures I have painted.

It should be said that I am unlikely to make it to many conventions to run demos. I have a demanding full time job, a family and a selection of ND and mental health issues to support, so I try to avoid putting more on myself if I can avoid it. But should HWMD take off to the point that I can take a break between contacts, never say never.

Piousservant wrote:


Now I wish I'd got a copy of the original HW so I had a decent alternative to Aeronautica!

(Sorry Robey)

Focussing on the new edition though, I am similarly keen to pick it up for use with LI-type models... I'm assuming however that it's mechs don't scale up to full titan sizes?

In the Osprey edition, you can have mechs that go over P3( a lot of units have a measure of scale called "presence", and stick to level 1-3 ) but they could either dominate the battlefield, or get easily out-activated. What impressed me is that Robey gives thought to this in the book, and yet still provides the formula to craft mechs P4 and above.

In our experience there is no substitute for Adeptus Titanicus for fielding Titans, but Horizon Wars is a far better game of Knights. In AT they only have structure points to be concerned about, and the only consequence is losing a knight in a banner once depleated. In HW your units' stats lower as they take damage, making them less effective as the game goes on. And like Titanicus there is an opportunity for a unit to recover stat points.

I remember having a ton of fun with the original Horizon Wars, and I kick myself when I remember I sold off my minis when I moving away from home for the first time.

Being 6mm, it was super easy to put together a full force for pretty cheap. This was the Army of the Reach, the military force of Harker's Reach (a corporate-owned series of settlements on the planet of Kressidia that was in the process of rebelling:



It was a mix of Brigade Models and Heavy Gear mechs, which looked great mixed with the 6mm miniatures. It was also x2-x4 times the amount of minis you'd need to play a regular game, so I had plenty of options.

I also had mercenary forces, hired by the United Mercantile Consortium to put down the rebellion. They were a mix of Yntrisinic Defence (supplied the Heavy and Light infantry and special forces), Patton Enforcement Company (mobile infantry, tanks and artillery), Fujikawa-Shaw Investment Retrieval LLC (airborne troops and mechs), and Immediate Force Solutions (mechs).

Hm... maybe I could treat myself and put these forces back together.

A nice collection indeed.

In a no-doubt futile attempt to remain relevant, I'm publishing a series of blog articles that look at miniatures from a range of excellent independent manufacturers of 6mm sci-fi and talking about how these can be used in your Horizon Wars: Midnight Dark battle groups. Hopefully, this will introduce readers to some companies they've never heard of and illustrate the power of miniatures agnostic games to expand hobbyist's horizons (pun intended) and to promote some lesser-known businesses (as well as some better-known ones).

First blog post is here:
https://www.precinctomega.co.uk/post/example-elements-1-dragonfly-gunship-from-microworld-games

A new gameplay video would be nice. I'm watching the original one by GMG from 7 years ago...

Congrats on being in the top 5 on WGV for a few days!

 lord_blackfang wrote:
A new gameplay video would be nice. I'm watching the original one by GMG from 7 years ago...

I would love to, but I don't really have the resources to make something as slick as GMG, so I'm largely reliant on the community for the time being. But if I get a break between contracts in the day job, I might have time to put something together.

Also, new blog looking at British Light Infantry on Skimmers from Brigade Models in iHorizon Wars: Midnight Dark: https://www.precinctomega.co.uk/post/example-elements-2-british-light-infantry-on-skimmers-from-brigade-models

 precinctomega wrote:
I would love to, but I don't really have the resources to make something as slick as GMG, so I'm largely reliant on the community for the time being. But if I get a break between contracts in the day job, I might have time to put something together.

It doesn't need to be slick; it just needs to give a feel for the system and game play. I think you can be forgiven a few rough edges...

Finally got around to catching up with my RSS feeds in the new year, and whadya know, there's a HW:MD post in there - https://asciolist.org/2024/01/06/horizon-wars-midnight-dark/

Thanks for that. I have an FAQ/Errata doc in development that will answer some of the questions, but I will just have to take the criticism of my sense of humour on the chin.

Honestly I don't mind the humour and it feels right for a game without an established universe...unless Midnight Dark has introduced one?

SamusDrake wrote:
Honestly I don't mind the humour and it feels right for a game without an established universe...unless Midnight Dark has introduced one?

Horizon Wars has always had its own setting which takes place across 500-1000 years of history, give or take, from the British invasion of France in 2116 through to the Diaspora of the Solar Hegemony when humanity escapes into the greater galaxy thanks to the technology of the SLAP drive. Midnight Dark is set in the earliest part of this history. Zero Dark sits around the middle (the re-colonization of Earth after it is hit by an asteroid). And Infinite Dark is set at the end of the Diaspora after the disappearance of the Synthelects.

There are a number of mysteries in the setting. "Why did Britain invade France?" is the one that dominates Midnight Dark. In the original Horizon Wars it was chalked up to a sort of mass hysteria (I wrote the setting in a bit of a rush, tbh) but in Midnight Dark it is implied that it was a TikTok craze that got out of hand. But because these are conclusions being drawn by historians looking back through the obscurance of not one but two apocalypses, I retain the right to decide that it was something else entirely, next time.

The setting is, however, intended to give players maximum freedom to use whatever minis they like in the canon setting or, of course, to ignore it and invent their own. The fiction is there to inspire and entertain and also to make the document itself easier for readers with dyslexia and ADHD for whom it breaks up the flow of text for easier consumption in short bursts.

Always enjoyed the fluff for the British invasion of France because it was obviously daft!

Best reason for a bipedal mech is to enable psychotic pilots to kick things and people to death

The things are foolish for basically every other reason, but they do look noice

 Easy E wrote:
Always enjoyed the fluff for the British invasion of France because it was obviously daft!

"Tesburys Supermarkets" was brilliant.

I need to bring Lord Tesbury back.

*frantic scribbling*

Yes! The cad is the mastermind behind the whole war!

FAQ & Errata v1.0 is out now!

https://www.wargamevault.com/product/469684/Horizon-Wars-Midnight-Dark-FAQ-10