Potential future D&D influences on SWM

New Look and feel to the forums.  New designer.  Looks like we have our hands full with all these changes.  But sometimes change can be a good thing.  DnD Minis is a solid fantasy miniatures game with a tonne of elements that could make interesting additions to star wars minis.  I am particularly interested in some of the melee aspects that might be ported over, such as flanking.


To paraphrase the rule governing flanking; a creature benefits from flanking when it has an ally that is directly directly opposite the target.


Complete rules ref'd below:


www.wizards.com/dnd/files/DDM_MinBatlRul...


Any thoughts on other rules that we might see introduced that were first seen in D&D minis.


 


 

So long as the rule additions/changes are strictly to the rulebook and gameplay, I wouldn't mind.  What I don't want to see is the newly designed figs causing everything from the last four sets to be entirely obsolete. HeroClix did that, IMO.

Author of the Merkabah Rider series, compiler of Prof. Abraham Van Helsing's journals, Mythos writer, and occasional Star Wars contributor. http://www.emerdelac.wordpress.com 

Have you play-tested flanking?  That might be a good thing to do to see if flanking rules unbalance the point costs of existing figures.  My gut tells me it might be ok, because the figs that stand to gain the most are the cheap ones!  I'm interested to hear what other players think of this suggestion.  Good thread.

My house rules contained a variation of the DDM Flanking rules and they worked fine back in the day. Melee still tends to be underpowered, and cheap melee even more so so I don't think things have changed enough to make this any less viable as the melee equivalent to combined fire.


But the DDM rule was a bit overcomplicated in execution. I simplified in line with SWM's general streamlining of DDM rules. Pretty sure it was like:


Flanking: When an attacker with Melee Attack has an allied character with Melee Attack adjacent to the target, but not adjacent to the attacker, the target is flanked. The attacker gets a +4 bonus to Attack.

Another rule that could be changed is the melee reach rule. I have always disliked the "on your turn" part of melee reach. It should always be on, you should have a wider radius for attacks of opportunity and if a self destruct occurs and it is two squares away it should affect you (damn those Kel Dor BH's).


However, I agree with the sentiments raised by others. Rules changes might affect the cost of figures/fundamentally change game play. Rules are not sacrosanct but due consideration must be given to any (emphasis added), changes.

If any rule needs to change it is: Diagonals Count as 2... that is such and incredibly lame rule.


Diagonals should count as 1, it would make the game so much better.


 

Advantage/Disadvantage is a TERRIBLE mechanic. DnD Next is DOOMED TO FAIL. Hasbro/WotC should do the DnD community a favor and sell the Intellectual Property to someone that won't keep screwing up...

I for one would welcome the flanking bonus to melee attacks. If shooters can combine fire for a bonus, why not allow a similar bonus to melee attackers by flanking an opponent.


 


 

I would like to see something like flanking to boost the cheaper melee pieces.  The top price guys don't really need it, but I don't think it would upset the pricing too much.  It would depend on whether the attack bonus always counts for adjacent allies or if you have to count them as activated like combining fire.  If it is "combine fire for melee", then the costs are fine.  We already have a pseudo ability with Swarm, this could just open it up to all melee.  Maybe even just as a CE in the OR and Sith to help those guys out which have lots of melee pieces already.

I want Space Orcs, or as they shall be known from now on: Sporcs!


Seriously though, flanking sounds good. What about making it a +2 like it is in real D&D? +4 just seems a little high. I know that's what Combine Fire gives, but its also much easier to avoid range attacks (Evade, Deflect, etc seems much more prominent than Parry.)


I also like the idea of Melee Reach being on at all times for the purpose of Attacks of Opportunity.

ooo... I want a Beholder!  Tongue out


 


Actually I do play DDM (1st ed. rules) from time to time and do enjoy it.  Of the DDM rules I certainly think Flanking would work, and maybe the DDM diagonal movement rules.


My house rules contained a variation of the DDM Flanking rules and they worked fine back in the day. Melee still tends to be underpowered, and cheap melee even more so so I don't think things have changed enough to make this any less viable as the melee equivalent to combined fire.


But the DDM rule was a bit overcomplicated in execution. I simplified in line with SWM's general streamlining of DDM rules. Pretty sure it was like:


Flanking: When an attacker with Melee Attack has an allied character with Melee Attack adjacent to the target, but not adjacent to the attacker, the target is flanked. The attacker gets a +4 bonus to Attack.




So it's like a universal Swarm?  Interesting...

AMS-51 "Dendrite" Connection lost...searching...

I like the "Idea" of flanking- but


only if it's a Special Ability/Commander effect-


adding a new element to game play Rules at this point I think would be a bad idea and a Very tough sell to veteran players, in addition to the afore mentioned abuse oppurtunities of low cost characters


 


I still to this day see no issue with the digonal movement rule;


I've played Clix and DDM ... both of which have extreemly limiting abilities where "open" movement is the viable 'in-game' counter 


and in a SWM game, where range is often unlimited,  the rule is solid and not a hinderance to play


 


 

Trades: http://www.bloomilk.com/collection/viewtrades.aspx?id=221 I am Red/White
I am Red/White
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I'm both chaotic and orderly. I value my own principles, and am willing to go to extreme lengths to enforce them, often trampling on the very same principles in the process. At best, I'm heroic and principled; at worst, I'm hypocritical and disorderly.

as far as melee reach... I agree; it's liek that in the RPG-


however


MR is often one of the more 'clunky' rules as it is... adding the bonus to other oppurtunities like AoO


may only add to frustration...


and like so many have often put it: "If you want a more 'realistic', involved game...play the RPG...!" Tongue out

Trades: http://www.bloomilk.com/collection/viewtrades.aspx?id=221 I am Red/White
I am Red/White
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I'm both chaotic and orderly. I value my own principles, and am willing to go to extreme lengths to enforce them, often trampling on the very same principles in the process. At best, I'm heroic and principled; at worst, I'm hypocritical and disorderly.

A lot of D&D rules are very good and would work well in star wars. The only downside for me is I want to feel like I am playing a different game. An example of this if you played standard risk and then play star wars risk, do you feel you have played different games? I don't. I think if one or two rules from D&D were added it would be OK. I just think that it wont stop there and it would be 1 or 2 very set. To me then there would be little difference in the two games. As they are both miniature games there are already a lot of similarities without adding all the same rules.

Sign In to post comments