[Co-Design!] Tactical, Structured-Freeform Minis
My early forays into geekery included playing Warhammer and other miniatures war-games. I was really excited by it for a number of reasons:
- I liked the visual and spatial tactics,
- I liked coming up with cool army themes (my Mad Max-styled Orks, my converted-to-Slaanesh Sisters of Battle),
- I liked the lonely fun of designing new army lists,
- I liked the implied worlds that these games were set in.

An image of a WarMachine game in progress.
As I’ve grown up (ever so slightly), my tastes and expectations have changed. Most tabletop minis games don’t work for me anymore, for the following reasons:
- They require an incredible financial investment before you can start playing,
- They require an incredible knowledge investment before you can start playing well,
- They reward rules mastery and punish rules oversight,
- They don’t allow you to easily/inexpensively change up your army roster between games,
- Sometimes hard to make compelling situations emerge from such a fixed & closed mechanical loop,
- They’re all about combat and slaughter.
So I had this idea. In short: to design a tactical miniatures game that didn’t have numbers or dice or “hard mechanics”, but that still managed to deliver on the stuff I loved (visual and spatial tactics, developing cool army themes, the lonely fun of tweaking army lists). Bonus points if it managed to reward players tinkering with their army lists and scenarios between game days. Additional bonus points if it wasn’t about combat and slaughter.
I’ve been pondering over the past month what a structured-freeform tactical minis game could look like. I’ve come up with some compelling ideas that together form an incomplete picture. Here’s my current thinking, positing a bog-standard skirmish warfare thing for the moment:
There are different troop types. Each troop type has a description including a mention of: their strengths, their unique skills, and their weaknesses. You build squads of troops, and outfit them with special stuff like leadership and weapons. All of these troops & options have a write-up in a book (or on a website), but the writeup contains only descriptions and narrative tags. So the Hammerhead Bikers might have a write-up for their bikes: “Fast bikes with exceptional acceleration but shaky handling in rough terrain. Gas-fuelled. Handlebar-mounted sub-machine gun (unstable).”
Fictional positioning (as well as physical positioning) would govern how things went down. You’d slide your Hammerhead Bikers into position and say, “The Hammerheads are pulling around this rocky corner, laying down some scattered fire to make sure that no one feels safe taking a shot at them.” And then I’d respond by saying, “Well, I think that a couple of my Indigo Braves are going to suicide charge you, rushing out from behind their ledge with some live explosives.” And you’d pause in surprise, and say, “Shit. My bikes have shaky handling right now. What does it say about your explosives?” And then you’d read it out, right, and we’d judge how it went down. The play-style would demand that people play to find out what happens and carefully cultivate verisimilitude, even while acknowledging a desire to win. I think it’s possible to design in that space, but also acknowledge that it’s largely untapped and unexplored. Maybe a third player serves as impartial referee? I dunno.
So, there are a million unanswered questions, wrt this idea. I posted about it to Twitter, and got lots of feedback. This led me to an idea: to allow this to evolve via open design, giving anyone interested a chance to participate in the game’s development. I really liked following projects like Craft the Creature, so will borrow some of those ideas. This game is going to build itself up (theme, structure, presentation, material components, etc) right here, designed by committee. It’ll either be an awesome process or a disastrous failure. Each post will include a poll, a discussion topic, a number of responsibilities to delegate out, or something in a similar vein. Participate as much as you’d like to.
To start, a poll!
I think it’d be cool to have a minis game that wasn’t about combat and slaughter, but that was still sincerely a tactical minis game. But I’m worried that trying to juggle too many radical ideas at once can lead to an incoherent design that doesn’t have an audience. That’s my fear; I don’t know if it’s founded.
We’re going to design a structured-freeform minis game.
If we design a non-combat game, what should it be about? I’m really wanting something that involves constructing “army lists” and relies upon spatial tactics. The options that I can think of are:






