Custom board size? - Page 2
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 30 of 30

Thread: Custom board size?

  1. #21


    First off, as being the creator of this thread, I want to thank Ted very much for taking the time on his way back to the front lines, to stop by and give us the exact information I was asking about. Im thrilled that I can get to work on my boards and you can look forward to some pictures! Glad to see your back from the med tent Ted, now go pick up your rocket launcher and get back out there!

    As for the rules. I support them being exactly the way they are. I can understand the lore behind the trenches, I for one will be makeing mine a bit deeper for cosmetic purposes, but I have no desire to add special rules to them because a person on the outside MAY or MAY NOT see them in there. Same goes with the movement of units.If these little guys can make funtional monowheels, and walking ostrich tanks, im sure they have devised some way to not restrict movement in these (very shallow) trenches. I for one love the image of a tank barreling down the trench towards my army about to crush them inder its enormous legs.

    I understand what Ted is trying to do with this game, and when you start adding things and takeing things away, you lose something. For me, its the charm that drew me into this game in the first place, if I wanted more rules, I have other games (or even just there rules) that I can play with. And remember, if you want that stuff, you can always house rule those things in. If people are really complaining that they arent going to use trench boards because of some cosmetic differences, then im not sure they quite understand the point of a quick fun game absolutely anyone can play. Which is also the reason my wife is super excited for this too.

    You cant make everyone happy, and if people didnt like how the game was, they wouldnt of backed it.

    Congrats Ted on a great kickstarter, I cant wait to see the future of this game.

  2. #22


    I think that it would be kind of nice to have a few scenery pieces like hills that block passage and line of sight. No special rules needed! Can you draw line of sight? No, ok you can't shoot it. It would increase movement and promote planes a bit more, as you pound them via an arial assault. the terrain need only be a couple of 4x4 boxes (4 small squares long x 2 small squares wide. You could even implement them in your house rules as Jayce suggests. Better still. you could experiment with placeing the gaming tiles in different formations to represent patrolling down a winding valley. Have one team dug in at one end in a defensive position and allocate Xpts of assaulting troops to take the objective. I.e. 50pts for the defender who is dug in (+1 for the assault troops to hit them or they can fire +1 square) and 100pts for the attacker (+1 movement). As long as you don't overburden the game with LOTS of these extra rules, it should be easy to maintain an easy relaxing game.

    These were just quick thoughts and examples, I am sure they would need a bit more thought. But the LOS blockers are very simple and does not favour one over the other (like Stratego).

  3. #23


    Quote Originally Posted by Fallen Angel 31 View Post
    Personally I don't want a miniatures wargame from RW, I have loads of them and no time to play a 4+ hour game of any of them. I bought into RW BECAUSE it doesn't have pages and pages of special rules that break the pages and pages of normal rules. When my rather excessive amounts of mini's arrive, I can happily play a 6x3 tile game in about an hour and that is just awesome.

    Not sure why people are trying to completely change this game from what it is. If you want Dust Tactics, go play Dust Tactics. Or play Dust Tactics with Rivet Wars minis, if that's your thing. Or make your own ruleset that incorporates what you like from different games and launch your own Kickstarter. Just quit campaigning to change Rivet Wars.

    Ted, please don't listen to these people. Rivet Wars is its own game that has found its unique place on the vast shelves of games in existence. You've done a great job so far and the hoardes of people who can't wait for this game are a testament to that.

  4. #24


    I fail to see how adding a little more detail will increase a games time or change it significantly. Extra detailed rules could easily be added officially as advanced or optional rules and then everybody would be happy and can play RW how they liked.

  5. #25


    No, extra detailed rules = a different game. Rivet Wars is still in development. Their time and resources need to be dedicated to finishing and polishing Rivet Wars, not "Rivet Wars Advanced for a handful of people that would rather be playing Dust Tactics and would probably not be satisfied with said Advanced rules even if they were included".

  6. #26


    100% agreed. People that want advanced stuff obviously already have ideas what they want. Im loving rivet wars for what it IS. Not what it ISENT. Ted has already stated that he loves to see what people are gonna do with the game, hence, if you want advanced rules, homebrew them.

  7. #27


    It's certainly not a handfull of people, there are just as many who want more detailed rules as not on this forum, and sure I could easily house rule extra's but I prefere to play 100% official rules, maybe there could be a pdf supplement at a later stage after all there are table-top rules coming out also, could use those I suppose but keep the grid.

  8. #28


    @Angry guys,
    Calm down, as you say it's a game. So treat it like such? I was just commenting on something someone was mentioning with regards to trench depth etc. Yes, having a bit of terrain the blocks line of sight would change the game mechanics slightly but, there is no need to throw a tantrum. If there is, I think you should go and pledge on a teddy bear tbh.

    If you noticed that I suggested that it would not add extra rules, as what little there is it is common sense.

    However, everyone that pledged on the game did so in order to invest in its development. So if they have a voice and want to share it, then they should be allowed to do so. Irrespective of whether you feel it is a good idea. If someone wants to make a 3D scenery board, who better to ask advice from, than the actual game developer that has game tested the nuts of it (pardon the pun) :P hehe


  9. #29


    Thanks Mick, that is the reason I created this thread. I admit its gotten a little out of hand. Im continuing production on my boards, and I will be makeing the trenches a bit deeper then what was initally imagined. To each their own.

  10. #30


    Putting my oar in, I really think everybody needs to wait until the final rules/game gets released and play a bit before thinking about how to expand/complicate/adapt the game. We may find that the only thing we need to do is to increase/decrease the number of board pieces & spawn points. I also think that as interesting as it is to read all of the enthusiastic comments, I'm sure that Ted's prime concern is to get the game developed in time for September (which is only 6 months away ; )

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.