Tuesday, 11 February 2020

Renegade Scout - Idle thoughts

With spring approaching, the mind of young men and old geezers alike turn to the same thing:

"Can this game be improved in any way?"


So for fans of Renegade Scout, I have a few questions that will also go out by email to those of you who receive email through the Wargame Vault.
A lot of these revolve around how much value you put on maintaining the form of the original Rogue Trader mechanics vs having the spirit of them.

Why am I wondering? Because originally, I will admit I had no idea who the target audience would be. Renegade Scout is very much a product I made because I wanted it to exist and it didn't.
In my mind, I figured the primary player would be the Oldhammer crowd, hence things like compatibility was a key factor in the design.

But based on the emails I get and the conversations I have, I am not sure if that's really the case. I think a lot of people were in the market for either a more involved skirmish game and / or something with a bit of old school "feel" without being specifically retro.

I also found that people tend to adopt the Unified Space setting more readily than I expected (or mix it with their own setting ideas, which is awesome)

However I could also be wrong about that because the people who opt to write me are a self-selecting bunch!

So here are the questions. If you would like to answer these and give your input into the future of Renegade Scout, think about them then email me at nordicweaselgames@icloud.com

* Something that I struggled with several times during development was whether to combine the Toughness / Armor roll into a single roll (so combat would be roll to hit -> roll to kill, instead of roll to hit -> roll to wound -> roll for armor).

In the end, I opted against it, because as discussed above I felt fidelity to and compatibility with the original was important. But now I am wondering if this was a mis-step.

Would you prefer the wound/armor rolls to be merged into one?
Do you prefer them to be separate as they are now?
Do you have no strong preference?

* The character profile currently is the full profile from Rogue Trader. It's no secret that it's a bit long and occasionally you have to kind of hunt around for something each stat can actually do.

However, shortening it could be a concern for compatibility issues.

Would you prefer the profile to be shortened?
Do you prefer it as it is now?

* Reaction fire was decided against, due to my feeling that in a fairly alternating turn sequence it is less important.
But maybe this was a mis-step and the ability to have a couple grunts cover the advance of the rest "feels" very tacti-cool.

Would you prefer having a reaction fire system?
Do you think the game works better without one?

* The overall turn sequence is likewise an attempt at modernizing the old 40K turn sequence. It does provide a nice flow to the game, but can feel somewhat abstract at times.

Would you prefer a more modern, integrated sequence (say alternating units and figures take 2 actions, that sort of thing)?
Do you prefer the current turn sequence (Phases and players alternate within them)
Would you prefer the original IGOUGO altogether?

* How important is 40K compatibility to you?
Was it a selling point? More importantly, have you actually used it at all? Would lacking it deter you from using the rules?

* How important is "pick up and play" versus scenario driven play?
Would you prefer if the game had more army building options for pick-up games? Would you rather have more material for scenario play?


Looking forward to your comments and thoughts!

No comments:

Post a Comment