DDM 2.0
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: DDM 2.0

  1. #1

    Default DDM 2.0

    i don\'t know if anyone on here plays, but an interesting things was just posted by Peter Lee on WotC forums.

    Second, game balance with expensive pieces is a difficult task -- do you make it balanced for sealed play or balanced for constructed play? I\'ll let someone else explain how that\'s an issue and why it\'s so difficult to do both.
    while i think it admirable to try to balance a set of point costs for a minis game for all formats of play i must consider one thing overall.

    all minis should be points costed for the overall game.

    take 40k for example. while not a concrete way of doing things, certain things have points costs relative to each other, so that things become costed within the entire game.

    i think that DDM should likewise point cost things within the whole of the game. when you try to cost things relative to jsut the set, then you have an unbalanced game, likewise if you cost things based on sealed play from within a set you are further skewing the entire game.

    the points costs should work with the entire line of miniatures.

    with magic they stated they have no real was to cost cards, they jsut make it up, and the same was said for DDM 1.0.

    well i feel maybe its time they stop putting so much work into costing minis for specifics aspects of the game, and cost them according to the entire product line.

    this will not only make things make more sense, but keep things easier for R&D, designers, and players alike.

    for example a breath weapon raises the cost of the mini by 5 point.

    spell resistance/immunity: 10/15 point increase.

    this would mean there is a base point value for minis figured by the stats, but this could be easy to figure out with how much trouble they went into figuring out K-value for their magic tournaments.

    does anyone else agree that minis games, DDM, Hero Clix, Mage Knight, etc should have a formula for costing figures, and this would then aid in both creation of the games, speed in producing them, and players trying to play them?

  2. #2


    Here\'s what I meant about the difference between point balancing for constructed format and a limited out-of-the-box format, and why this might be a problem.

    Let\'s say piece A has a strong synergy with piece B. Working together, these two pieces beat piece C 50% of the time. Do you make piece A + B = cost of point C?

    Let\'s also say that A and B are about the same power level, so A = 50 pts, B = 50 pts, and C = 100 pts.

    Now let\'s say in a limited environment, you only have access to A. If you play two copies of A, it\'s the same cost as C -- but since A was costed with the synergy of B in mind, two As will not be as good as C. So the person who draws the C piece wins.

    That\'s the difficulty in costing miniatures for both a limited and a constructed environment.

  3. #3


    then a quiestion would be should synergies be built in with specific minis? doing so within a single set seems most resonible, but that only really works in the limited environment as the minis are meant to be played within the set.

    so limited or constructed if the minis are only viewed with other minis from the set, then it makes no real difference about synergies with minis form the same set.

    the problem would be mixed set limited or constructed.

    a system should be able to be made wherein a point value can be assigned to ceratin aspect of the minis. for example the old commander rating could have had a flat point cost for a mini to be a commander.

    better yet lets move closer to D&D as the minis game strive to.

    say you have a feat/skill/trait/whatever that boost some number crunching aspect and gives a modifier. we will use power attack as an example.

    IIRC power attack is nothing to just have it takes up space. lets say it is similar in DDM to powerful charge.

    so we have both of the abilities to compare.

    now within the RPG power attack gives a bonus to the damage for sacrificing some of the attack power. it gives and takes, well really moves but that is not exactly what i am getting at.

    in DDM powerful charge gives a bonus to damage when charging. this \"skill\" of the mini can have a point value. so powerful charge (5) has one set poitn value and powerful charge (10) has its own.

    these can represent the 1-4 of the power attack from the RPG.

    this way no matter what set the mini comes form if it has powerful charge then you just look up the point value of the damage modifier and there you have the amount of point to adjust the mini.

    other abilities could be \"bad\" for the mini so they take away from the point cost. say slow melee/ranged attack.

    this negative trait of the mini could give it a few less point to its cost.

    this works out in the end even for big hitters that are slow because the attack and damage would be figured in to its point cost as well. a bigger hitting mini would cost more points.

    this would help prevent power creep as the minis as ALWAYS costed the same based on abilities, scores, attack, damage, etc.

    so if you have 2 death knights (funny it seems now their will be and i will add a bit about that at the end), then having different abilities could give quick changes to the points based on those newer abilities to show epic/paragon levels because of those higher abilities would be costed accordingly with each other mini.

    warhammer 40k tries this with its wargear. you can build your own mini and the same base mini cost different than another with a different set of wargear. one grenade costs 3 points, an auspex costs 15 points (guessing).

    while DDM the points cost for the minis are set, having a set amount for certain things would slow down the initial release after the system is created, but would speed up future set creation for designers because they wouldn\'t have to play the guessing game with points like is done with Magic.

    as for points costing for limited vs constructed in general. the random distribution of minis will NEVER allow for a fair pull in getting synergies or a warband that fits with the way the minis were points costed so it is futile to work towards the limited environment. people with bad luck will never pull decent synergies, or average costed minis and anywho could pull higher or lower always.

    no fault of your own, its jsut the way random distributed ie collectible games work. again warhammer 40k you can buy what you want so you get what you wanted to include. thus i think the main focus should probably be on constructed and balancing the minis across the board points-wise.

    while fair tournaments are a noble cause, there will be people playing outside of tournament also and that is where the effort is needed to balance all the minis. then the tournament scene either limited or constructed will fall into place as all the minis will already be balanced.

    granted you can\'t really balance all the older set (or can you?) with this approach, at least not for DDM1.0. but for the future it could prove usefull to both designers and collectors.

    if someone figures out the points cost system for how much individual parts cost who cares! no other company would be able to make money off off D&D minis, and any homaemade minis made by people for fun use would never enter the tournament scene so wouldn\'t break the scale.

    as for the two minis with the same name aka Death Knight et all...

    they shouldn\'t happen.

    same name = same stats.

    want different stats add a new indentifier to the name.

    resculpts are fine so long as they have the same stats as the mini they have the name for. ie Drizzt and Wulfgar from the icons pack.

    Capricious just sounds wierd for a mini, but it helps tell that copper dragon apart from the other because of its unique identifier, likewise for the Delver version of the Umberhulk.

    each mini is assigned a set of stats, and the visual mini is a quick representation of those stats on the game field. so having multiple minis with the same name would be like having sculpts be interchangeable.

    using a Regdar card, then you can use any Regdar mini. it would confuse players. granted only the card really matters and the minis is for asthetics in DDM and you could use anything to identify what token 3d piece goes with what card, but in minis games it helps to know what you are looking at. a reason why i understnad, somewhat, the WYSIWYG concept in warhammer 40k, even though they go a bit too far with the literalls of it.

    for example your own mods (if any) of DDM minis could fall outside the realms of allowed use because they are not the stock mini.

    one mini, one stats, one name.

    new mini, its own stats, its own name.

    same name, same stats, new mini sculpt?

    its just the last one that gets grey for me but you shouldn\'t have two minis with the same name with different stats.

    well thanks for stopping by and listening. hope this helps explain another point of view than what you may have already seen.

    and good luck with that new job. since Guy is no longer their i am sure that you will be hit with more than you expected when you took it!

    (PS: yeah the Hydra looks too smooth.)

  4. #4


    Guy\'s been done as the official rules rep for a while, so it\'s not really a surprise at all.

    As for flat additions of points, it doesn\'t quite work as well as you might think. Let\'s take something as simple as adding hit points:

    A. You have a 30 hp fighter with an AC of 15.
    B. You have a 30 hp fighter with an AC of 25.

    Adding 20 hp to fighter A is not as good as adding 20 hp to fighter B. Those 20 hp will go farther with the higher AC. Therefore, to have a balanced point system those 20 hp given to fighter B should cost more than 20 hp given to fighter A.

    If you really wanted this formula to work, it would all need to be multiplicative.

    (Although, I do see an easy system for leveling up guys. Upgrading a 1st to 2nd level guy might cost 2 points and give +1 to hit, AC, and Def and 5 or 10 hp. Upgrading a 5th to 6th level guy would be more like 4 points for the same bonuses.)

  5. #5


    yeah thats what i mean about point, so long as the two guys of different XP level have different names. ~cough cough~

    and where imeant the system may be complex to start is figuring out that baseline for stats.

    you would need a system to figure in all the numbers stats like AC, STR, DEX< etc to equate what a cost would be for a given set of stats...well Level, SAVE, HP, DEF, AC, SPEED.

    granted any given mini under those stats that differe wouldn\'t be equal.

    say gnoll a and gnoll b.

    both are the same but differ for a few HP and AC...well 5 HP for the tougher one.

    each have the same ATT and DMG as well as all other stats.

    it stants to reaosn that the one with higher AC and HP should be worth more points. how much?

    well consider they have no other abilities but a melee attack (for lack of the new symbols here at CMoN.)

    the base calculations for stats cost would give youy the point value for the higher gnoll (b) as maybe somehting like 5 more points for his additional AC and 5 HP.

    5 may not be good, but for this example i will just sum it up with 2 points for a hgiher AC, and 3 points for the higher HP.

    now say the ame two gnolls varied slightly.

    this time gnoll B stil gets his +5 HP over gnoll A.

    but gnoll A has one higher AC than gnoll B.

    under the points cost system i just used than would mean that gnoll A is at +2 and gnoll B is only at +3.

    they both \"paid\" for their extra modifiers from the base gnoll stat card template and point cost of the bonuses granted.

    so if the base gnoll was say 3 points as with the two that currently exist.

    our new gnoll A would be 5 points for having one better AC.

    our new gnoll B would be worth 6 points for having a bonus 5 HP over the exsting gnoll at 3 points.

    does the one point cost make that much difference in playtesting and playability?

    sure it does, but there is a system in place that can be mathematically sound and would reduce the chance of people complaining about playtesting once the system is figured out.

    of course the initial gnoll A above was the 3 point gnoll and the initial gnoll B with +1 AC and +5 HP would have been 3+5 or 8 points.

    my points costs are jsut random selections for demonstrative purposes, but i think you see where i am coming from.

    if any of this is possible or makes sense fel free to use it as your own idea and/or add it to the discussions over on the official forum.

    just for sanity sake please do use additional words to seperate new minis from older like the Death Knight thing.

    even though it should be clear with the expansion symbol on the base and card to tell them apart, and even though i do not like the sound of \"Capricious\" Copper Dragon, it is good for quick reference to know which one you are talking about for those that may not know the sets, and this goes for both standard and vintage play. as it may come a time where an accident has two of the same named mini both in standard at the same time...like when/while the All-stars are legal for standard play.

    and it will just prevent any flak you may take by adding that additonal word to the name since abilities already have in place things to take care of that.

    IE: Guenhyvar. [any mini whose name contains Drizzt]

    it doesn\'t mean it has to be the Archfiends Drizzt that she gains her ability with, but can be any that contains Drizzt including the new sculpt and stated one that many presume may be forthcoming in a new set. ;)

    unless, god forbid, some mini comes out called \"Drizzt\'s henchman\" or something that also contains the proper keyword to apply to Guenhyvar\'s ability....

    again nice that you had time to come by here and actually look at this thread in your busy schedule with DDXP coming up next week and the rush that must be done to get those DoD2 cards and the new starters and such ready for it.

    and for goodness sake don\'t stop painting because you are flodded with requests to design new minis stats! i never could have won one of your repaints for tournaments but sure liked looking at them. lol

  6. #6

    Default commoners minis.

    a flaw many see in the minis game is the game for the minis itself. some people enjoy the game v1 or v2, but many people use the minis for RPG purposes. from WotC accoutns more people use them for RPg than the minis game itself.

    with this being the case it seems a way needs to make these things for RPG purposes more easily than having them focused on the minis game.

    in the example of the prisoner there is a slight problem. sexism. there is only a male prisoner. while i don\'t say there needs to be many models of male human prisoners in multiple poses at least having females and prisoners of other races may be needed. this is just a small example of how to give minis to RPGers.

    also there are many other things to take into account for RPG purposes. suppose a session runs and a fight breaks out in the middle of town. now say you wanted some merchants and customers. the Tavern Brawler is a good example of a commoner type mini (not my Santa version here maybe but in general...)

    Tavern Brawler as a commoner:
    he has no weapon weileded so doesn\'t look like an adventurer. he does have a sword hanging in its scabbard which poses the only possible problem, but for the most part he looks just like an average man. you could almost see this figure wandering around the town drunk in and out of taverns. so he might just wander out into our street/bazaar when a PC involved fight breaks out.

    now looking at his stats even as a level 2 he violate the concept of a commoner. even before 3.x commoners were pretty much 0-level. they didnt aspire to go adventuring and didnt need a class level in order to live daily lives.. also his sword is @+4 and is masterwork. this as well as his other \"gear\" is not really thing that would be carried by a common person found in a village. only someone expecting to be in some kind of combat. antitoxin? maybe its his hangover cure, but not the way it is written on the RPG side of the cards. also he is loaded out with skills and feats. this is something that commoners don\'t need, but NPCs do.

    so all in all the Tavern Brawler fits right into an NPC due to his single weapon displayed on the mini, and his stats on the RPG side. so therefore fails as being a commoner, but comes close. the lack of the sword on the mini would make the mini at least usefull as a commoner ignoring his stats.

    now lets look closely at the prisoner from the point of being a commoner.

    no weapons, in chains, doesn\'t look like an NPC, but can be one or not. his clothing is one of the main things that makes the mini look like a commoner. there is no armor. while the mini could easily be a captured NPC he could also be some poor slob that didnt pay the over charged taxes to his local government. the mini itself does not say NPC so it could work for both.

    his skirmish stats do a good job of emphasizing this by giving him no attack. showing his stature is not that of one how would be helpful in combat AS-IS. on the RPG side he can attack with his chain. while this makes sense it give the idea more that he is possibly an adventurer and has a class level. again along with having skill and/or feats this stat set bumps him up to NPC. which means even with all the effort put into the mini someone thinks he should be able to be used as an NPC so his stats fail to be a commoner.

    this is not a bad thing. as commoners don\'t have to have stats, and the ones provided could be for when such a mini is used as an NPC rather than a commoner. so this as you [Peter Lee] sugest is a very good example of a mini that will work as a commoner. but his concept as a combatant mini fails in the minis game.

    so far we have the Tavern Brawler which fails as a commoner as a mini because it looks like and NPC, but works for the minis game itself for a warband. and the prisoner that fails for warband use, but the mini itself looks like a good little commoner mini.

    there is another similar to the Tavern Brawler that comes close. the Farmer. if not for his \"spear\" then he would be a commoner. you could see him standing on our street trying to sell his pig and if the weapon were a knife maybe even ready to carve it up for the customer. he is even listed as a commoner level 1. how a commoner needs a class level i will never understand, again because commoners need no level as they are not adventurers. they are more scenery than anything else. i wont go into other stats as the follow suit with the other minis in why they fail as commoners.

    but with these 3 minis we can see a pattern and know a few things.

    simply put the mini must be viable as a piece for a warband. otherwise sealed/limited event will have useles minis that will not allow people to field compelte warbands. otherwise just making packs of commoners that are not intended for use with the minis game but for RPG purposes is the obvious fix tot his.

    we all know that isn\'t going to happen so what to do to make commoner minis while still allowing them use in the skirmish game?

    that is the simplest fix of all, and it doesn\'t even require being limited to one commoner minis per new set.

    make the skirmish stats for the mini viable for the minis game. make the RPG stats for the mini viable to allow the mini to be used as an NPC.

    make some minis that just don\'t look like adventures. commoners will not always be weilding weapons and have lots or even little armor on. look at the clothing for some of the zombies and dress regular people in normal old or even tattered clothing.

    this allows some minis to just be used as commoners without needing any of their pre-written stats to show our city street where the battle breaks out to be fileld with everyday people that the PCs must actively choose to involve in the fight or somehow protect from the fight, or at least prevent from hurting themselves.

    it could be said then that any old mini made could just be used for commoners. while this may be true for some minis or people (i haven\'t looked at all existing @1000 minis) as i have said above not everyone wants weapons hanging off their commoners, or wants them fully armorer.

    a blacksmith may have an apron on or be carrying his hammer, likewise any other member of a proffession may have his tools of the trade like if the farmer have a buthcers knife, pitchfork, shovel, etc. but every mini having an actual weapon like a spear or osmething that is seen to be adventurer gear removes the ability to see the mini as just a commoner. the easiest commoners to make are those in the style of wizards. cloaked figures from a higher class than the common man. gratned 4E adds these staffs and such for wizards as default implements, but the lower nobles may wear similar clothing to a wizard but not have those things that make the mini not be a commoner.

    again things to jsut not include on the minis themselves to make commoner mini is adventurer gear: weapons, armor, backpacks, etc.

    the hardest commoner to justify having in the minis game may be children. they are something found in D&D games as they often run through the streets and could be good plot devices, but fitting them into the skirmish game may make some people feel uneasy. but i have some ideas for that as well.

    -all factions
    -1 pt.
    -5 HP
    -AC 0
    -Speed 0
    -Unique (only one Child allowed in a warband), Unique VA (no two Child figures may occupy the same victory area)
    -does not count towards you # of figures in a warband.
    -sets up in a random victory area.
    -if any figure is adjacent to this mini at the end of a turn and the victory area is uncontested. +5 VP to the player whose figure is adjacent.

    Special Abilities:
    -Cry of help. immediate. any figure adjacent may become a bodygaurd for this Child and take any and all damage dealt to it. if the adjacent figure dies when acting as a bodyguard the figures owner gets +5 VP. if the figure survives until end of turn the figure counts the VA as uncontested, unless stunned, helpless, etc (that doesn\'t allow a figure to collect victory area points.)
    -Cry of the parents. any figure that eliminates this figure loses -15 VP.
    don\'t ask me how to fit all that on a card, but that is a way to make children vialbe as commoner within the skirmish game. cause with them crazy kids you never know when one will wodner off into a cave or forest to do some of their own adventuring and get caught in the middle of a battle. ;)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Privacy Policy  |   Terms and Conditions  |   Contact Us  |   The Legion

Copyright © 2001-2018 CMON Inc.