I'm trying to put together a list of conventions that will feature a table playing Outrider. Not all of these are confirmed. Personally, I am trying to make game-specific conferences in Texas, but I can't do one EVERY weekend. My friend and playtester Mike has volunteered to run a table out of state - Actually he volunteered before I had even considered playing at cons. So without futher ado ...
The Unofficial List of Conventions featuring Outrider:
ICON: The Idaho Convention for Boardgamers
When: April 9th & 10th - 2010, open at 9:00am daily
Where: The Idaho Falls Activity Center, 1575 N Skyline, Idaho Falls, ID
How Much: $15 if purchased online before April 1st, $20 at the door
What to expect: When I last spoke to Mike, he mentioned running a Roadblock scenario as an introduction to the game, with Hold th Fort games for those who stuck around. The convention features a Bingo card, you get stamps for playing a variety of games. Outrider could be on the card ... so good luck!
Status: As far as I know, this is confirmed
For more information or to register, visit the Icon 2010 site.
While Mike is introducing gamers to Outirder in Idaho, I will be schilling it to Texans at ...
ChimaeraCon 2010
When: April 9-11th, hours vary each day
Where: San Pedro Village Event Center, 9926 San Pedro Ave, San Antonio, TX 78216
How Much: Weekend passes are $20 preregistered and $25 at the door. The website also offers single day options as well as family bundles
What to expect: I plan to run basic introductory scenarios, like Roadblock but I am currently brainstorming a large scale 'Hold the Fort' sceanrio based around the post-apocalyptic ruins of the Alamo. Where better than San Antonio, right?
Status: Update 3/30. Well, scratch the ChimaeraCon. I never received a response from the organizers and thus, I have formed other holiday plans for the previous weekend, which means I wont have the time off (and, ahem, money) to travel back to back weekends.
Be sure to check out ChimaeraCon 2010 for more details
Texicon 2010: Where the West Begins
When: Friday, May 21st at 2:00pm - Sunday, May 23rd at 5:00p,
Where: Sheraton Hotel, 1701 Commerce Street, Fort Worth, TX
How Much: $35 Online and $40 at the door for a weekend pass
What to expect: Again, numerous (if possible) quick games of Roadblock, used to teach the game. With more than a month between this and the former convention, I'm sure I can come up with a cool Cowtown scenario for the folks in Fort Worth ... although it was a fort at one time, right? hmmmm.
Status: Scratch another one. By the time the organizers had gotten back to me, I effectively had to be put on a waiting list for a table.
Website: Texicon 2010
Protospiel South 2010
When: Friday, May 28th - Sunday May 30th, hours vary each day
Where: The Best Western Atrium North, 7928 Gessner Drive, Austin, TX
How Much: $15 -$30, depending on the number of days and if pre-ordered
What to expect: This is purely a playtesting convention. So in order to play Outrider, I will have to play other things. I think non-designers are welcomed, to help test but this seems a little different from the other cons listed. Reoresentative from nearby Steve Jackson Games will be in attendance to give design, prototyping and marketing advice ... I'm not sure how big they'll be on something superficially simliar to Car Wars, but oh well ... Depending on how much I get to play, I'm sure I'll limit it to starightforward scenarios, so the rules can be judged without any special rules floating on top.
Status: Pretty much confirmed. I have already spoken to the organizer, I just have to get off my butt and register.
Website: Protospiel South 2010
3.24.2010
3.16.2010
Outrider on BGG
I finally took a plunge of sorts and decided to post Outrider on BGG. I struggled with the idea, becuase it fely a bit premature - the game is not quite finished yet. Beyond just finishing out the rules I have alot of polishing up to do, mostly in the form of artwork, layout, design, etc ... visual stuff mainly, as I am sort of a perfectionist about that kind of stuff.
The reason I wanted to go ahead and post it was born out of the response I have gotten to the game from the BGG community. So many ideas, playing pieces and photos have poured out from fellow geeks. I felt it deserved a place where that stuff could gather.
Also I hope to get the game more visible to the type of people who would enjoy it. Along those lines, I am getting more excited about taking it 'on tour' at some conventions throughout the year. The goal? I'm not sure really. At one time I was fixated on web publishing it for sale, but I guess I kind of want to gauge the reaction to it. Maybe I can preprint a few sets to take with to cons, in case there's some immediate interest in having a copy.
Anyway, I hope to get some plays in of my own and put up some session reports and upload some photos of gameplay and a few posed shots of components and vehicles.
-G
The reason I wanted to go ahead and post it was born out of the response I have gotten to the game from the BGG community. So many ideas, playing pieces and photos have poured out from fellow geeks. I felt it deserved a place where that stuff could gather.
Also I hope to get the game more visible to the type of people who would enjoy it. Along those lines, I am getting more excited about taking it 'on tour' at some conventions throughout the year. The goal? I'm not sure really. At one time I was fixated on web publishing it for sale, but I guess I kind of want to gauge the reaction to it. Maybe I can preprint a few sets to take with to cons, in case there's some immediate interest in having a copy.
Anyway, I hope to get some plays in of my own and put up some session reports and upload some photos of gameplay and a few posed shots of components and vehicles.
-G
3.02.2010
New day, new rules, new components
I am really trying to slow the 'featuritis' that is creeping into this game, I promise! One of the core goals of this project is to keep it as rules-light as possible. That being said, there have been some great ideas that have surfaced on the table and via feedback from play testers.
I am being very goal conscious about what I feel is a necessary change. I don't want the rules to bloat, but there are a few areas that I think need some (semi) major tweaks. Most of these ideas surfaced during some recent expansion testing. I began to realize that I needed to 'future-proof' the base rules a bit, so that the expansion equipment and weaponry didn't rewrite ALL of the established rules.
Addition of Primary and Secondary designation to weapon arcs
First, we're making a small sacrifice in complexity to address a fairly big issue. A lot of people like the simplicity of the rules, but feel the detail (in regard to weaponry) is a bit too abstracted for simplicity's sake. I was purposeful in the level of abstraction I was adding when I first started creating the basic mechanics, focusing on the basic concept of the game: a sort of 'point-and-shoot' game car combat game with no detailed ballistics system and a big weapon die representing a big, rather generic arsenal.
Things changed over time and as the game evolved, the idea of populating slots with specific weapons became more desirable. On the first few plays, people really liked the lack of detail for learning purposes, but have frequently called for a way to add detail later, without altering to core concepts too much. Well since I have been working on expansion equipment/weapons in the form of a deck of cards, I figured I would develop these ideas together.
Starting now, every vehicle base that has more than one weapon arc will have one arc indicated as the Primary. The Primary arc will be the hard point associated with the allocated WEAPON die. The Secondary arcs will become a default small arms attack; think of it as the vehicle having a 'free' AKM-60 mounted at the second (and third) hard point. The secondary arcs will still receive the FIREPOWER bonus associated with the vehicle.
Vehicles with two arcs on the same facing (Interceptor, Gunslinger, etc) will be able to fire-link their forward arcs. If both arcs can draw a bead on the same target, a player may call a fire-linked shot at the time of attacking. The secondary arc lends an additional +1 to the primary weapon's attack roll. Player can still only nominate one attack per successful attack maneuver, but now strategic positioning will yield different effects, depending on the vehicles used.
This functionality is not thoroughly tested yet. I'm not sure how this will all balance out, or if it will balance at all. This takes a bit of a sting out of some of the multi-arc vehicles and perhaps adds too much punch to others. One of the goals has always been to make maneuvering important. Moving a vehicle to just the right position makes all the difference, especially when you can make all the variables lean your way for the roll. It was done to make this a game of moving vehicles, as opposed to a thrilling game of stationary turrets outlasting one another.
All of that said this move is being made so that when the auxiliary equipment comes down the pipeline, it will be a more seamless fit. Some weapon/equipment cards will take the place of the secondary arcs, replacing the backup weapon. The cars will become MORE customizable and new combos can/will be created. I can't wait to see what kind of odd combinations emerge. I seriously need to start brainstorming some more defensive equipment, for I fear that there will be some very nasty builds out there.
While we're talking weapons, I wanted to throw out an experimental rule. Currently we in the alpha-testing set are allowing multiple shot tokens to be used at a standstill. A player can, as a series of actions, place multiple attack tokens next to a stopped vehicle or next to a stop maneuver. Each attack token costs 1 AP and adds 1 to the total difficulty. On a complete success, the player can make ONE attack roll, with a +1 for each extra attack token - this represents the driver shooting on full auto. On a failed roll, the driver has gotten overzealous and emptied the clip! This is similar to a 'loss of control' for shooting. The flipside of the attack token is being remade into a 'click' token. A player must spend an AP (at no added difficulty) to reload. Think of it as shifting gears for your gun. It's working out pretty well so far and it seems to add a little more detail without breaking the game.
Taking the frustration out of repeat failed driver rolls
Ever had a game where it felt like you were driving in slick mud the entire time. I've had quite a few lately. I've also heard of test games were every single driver ended the turn spun-out and stopped.
The handling rules were intended to be a limiter of sorts, so that you had to do a little planning while constructing your next series of moves. The main focus is to make a distinction between 'strike and fade' builds and heavy hitters.
Where it has broken down is in the fact that my projected math isn't panning out in reality. I figured that half of failed driver rolls would result in loss of control. That's largely true, but I'm learning that half is a lot(!) I have tweaked it in a few ways
Easy turns are now 1 point difficulty moves, just to air out the maneuvering a bit
Contact me and let me know what version you're currently fielding
Version .57 is on the drawing board currently and contains the changes mentioned above. If you want to upgrade, let me know.
I am being very goal conscious about what I feel is a necessary change. I don't want the rules to bloat, but there are a few areas that I think need some (semi) major tweaks. Most of these ideas surfaced during some recent expansion testing. I began to realize that I needed to 'future-proof' the base rules a bit, so that the expansion equipment and weaponry didn't rewrite ALL of the established rules.
Addition of Primary and Secondary designation to weapon arcs
First, we're making a small sacrifice in complexity to address a fairly big issue. A lot of people like the simplicity of the rules, but feel the detail (in regard to weaponry) is a bit too abstracted for simplicity's sake. I was purposeful in the level of abstraction I was adding when I first started creating the basic mechanics, focusing on the basic concept of the game: a sort of 'point-and-shoot' game car combat game with no detailed ballistics system and a big weapon die representing a big, rather generic arsenal.
Things changed over time and as the game evolved, the idea of populating slots with specific weapons became more desirable. On the first few plays, people really liked the lack of detail for learning purposes, but have frequently called for a way to add detail later, without altering to core concepts too much. Well since I have been working on expansion equipment/weapons in the form of a deck of cards, I figured I would develop these ideas together.
Starting now, every vehicle base that has more than one weapon arc will have one arc indicated as the Primary. The Primary arc will be the hard point associated with the allocated WEAPON die. The Secondary arcs will become a default small arms attack; think of it as the vehicle having a 'free' AKM-60 mounted at the second (and third) hard point. The secondary arcs will still receive the FIREPOWER bonus associated with the vehicle.
Vehicles with two arcs on the same facing (Interceptor, Gunslinger, etc) will be able to fire-link their forward arcs. If both arcs can draw a bead on the same target, a player may call a fire-linked shot at the time of attacking. The secondary arc lends an additional +1 to the primary weapon's attack roll. Player can still only nominate one attack per successful attack maneuver, but now strategic positioning will yield different effects, depending on the vehicles used.
This functionality is not thoroughly tested yet. I'm not sure how this will all balance out, or if it will balance at all. This takes a bit of a sting out of some of the multi-arc vehicles and perhaps adds too much punch to others. One of the goals has always been to make maneuvering important. Moving a vehicle to just the right position makes all the difference, especially when you can make all the variables lean your way for the roll. It was done to make this a game of moving vehicles, as opposed to a thrilling game of stationary turrets outlasting one another.
All of that said this move is being made so that when the auxiliary equipment comes down the pipeline, it will be a more seamless fit. Some weapon/equipment cards will take the place of the secondary arcs, replacing the backup weapon. The cars will become MORE customizable and new combos can/will be created. I can't wait to see what kind of odd combinations emerge. I seriously need to start brainstorming some more defensive equipment, for I fear that there will be some very nasty builds out there.
While we're talking weapons, I wanted to throw out an experimental rule. Currently we in the alpha-testing set are allowing multiple shot tokens to be used at a standstill. A player can, as a series of actions, place multiple attack tokens next to a stopped vehicle or next to a stop maneuver. Each attack token costs 1 AP and adds 1 to the total difficulty. On a complete success, the player can make ONE attack roll, with a +1 for each extra attack token - this represents the driver shooting on full auto. On a failed roll, the driver has gotten overzealous and emptied the clip! This is similar to a 'loss of control' for shooting. The flipside of the attack token is being remade into a 'click' token. A player must spend an AP (at no added difficulty) to reload. Think of it as shifting gears for your gun. It's working out pretty well so far and it seems to add a little more detail without breaking the game.
Taking the frustration out of repeat failed driver rolls
Ever had a game where it felt like you were driving in slick mud the entire time. I've had quite a few lately. I've also heard of test games were every single driver ended the turn spun-out and stopped.
The handling rules were intended to be a limiter of sorts, so that you had to do a little planning while constructing your next series of moves. The main focus is to make a distinction between 'strike and fade' builds and heavy hitters.
Where it has broken down is in the fact that my projected math isn't panning out in reality. I figured that half of failed driver rolls would result in loss of control. That's largely true, but I'm learning that half is a lot(!) I have tweaked it in a few ways
Easy turns are now 1 point difficulty moves, just to air out the maneuvering a bit
- Loss of control tables have changed to infuse more SLOWED results - a player will not get to achieve everything planned, but will not be stopped and sideways as frequently
- Some activities (like shifting gears) will simply cost an AP, but add no difficulty
Contact me and let me know what version you're currently fielding
Version .57 is on the drawing board currently and contains the changes mentioned above. If you want to upgrade, let me know.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)