Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I was thinking that the rules would turn out to be more a case of "5 models = 1 model" "3 big models = 1 model" as far as rules were concerned.

Lots of small units on the board, LoS from unit leader.

Quite like the new rules but can see a chance to refine them by swinging more in the direction of WP 1.0, with a max unit size of 5 models and everything in all armies following that general template rather than the Unit/Team/Hub setup, which is a bit more complex.

Typically modern (and by extrapolation sci-fi) warfare tends to focus on lots of smaller units all acting independently with their own orders thanks to advanced comms tech and training.

Might be an easy fix, simply remove units and stick with teams and hubs across the board. Doesn't change much other than creating more freedom of movement and activation.

Perhaps teams of 10 for things like plague zombies, teams of 3 for jetbikes, large infantry, but generally 5 per team.

 Krinsath wrote:

 MasterSlowPoke wrote:

Spoiler:

 Krinsath wrote:
Again, a hub with a 3" diameter base would cover nearly all of the same scenarios from a mechanics viewpoint. The extra 4 models are merely there for spectacle at that point; there's no actual game purpose being served by their presence other than to give you something extra to fiddle with and, in limited cases be able to game for an advantage with terrain (which obviously is dictated by type and density of terrain available, a topic so varied out there as to be moot for discussion). Spectacle is fine, but realize it's a good chunk of wasted space and effort if there's no actual purpose to their presence such as line of sight vis a vis wound allocation or unique characteristics in assault (shooting sometimes qualifies when we look to 40k and other systems, but again, such an edge case it's not worth mentioning in comparison).

Yes, the game's quantum elements are based on a team, but multibasing like that will be nothing but a detriment to you. Most people in this thread are saying the non-hub models are inconsequential and that the game can be played with 10 hubs instead of 50 infantry, and that's simply not true. Like this guy:

 edlowe wrote:
They seem to be abstract to the point in which the models don't matter, you could play the game with sigle figures representing the groups and there would be no difference. In fact it would be a faster game with more room to maneuver and fit in the scenery better!

The other models do matter for line of sight, however - if you don't have LoS/have obstructed LoS to half the models in a squad they get a cover bonus. With a 175mm base like you're talking about you're going to have a tough time with LoS. You'd also have to draw LOS from the center of the giant hub base, and that would be very awkward.

I might make some 2-man dumbbell bases for the non-hubs in squads like zombies, but that's about the limit of what I'd want for multibasing.

You seem to be having a great deal of problems separating the concept of physical multi-basing (the actual requirement to have the models on a shared base) and logical multi-basing (the rules dealing with a group of models as a single entity which will always exist in a confined area) and carrying on that argument. I am well aware that there is no technical requirement for them to share a base. The rules do, however, force you to deal with the abstraction of "fire-team" versus "soldier". You're not allowed to say "this group of 15 Enforcers is a unit" and make the determination of which groups of 5 are which team when removing casualties and/or splitting off a team; it really has to be clear who your hubs are at a minimum, and very likely you have denoted who the other 4 troopers are. At this point they are multi-based by the rules, even if they're still on individual bases.

Use a 2" base, put the hub anywhere within it (such as on the side) and say your opponent can draw LOS to any part of the base/half the base obscured is cover, and mechanically very little has changed with the game. Mantic even admits this to be the case in their comments to the effect of "of course you could just do that, but it wouldn't look as cool." I'm not disagreeing with Mantic's remark that it'd not look as nice, and that mass battles are in some degree about appearance. I just disagree with the approach to force mass-battle down to smaller battles, as much as I disagree with GW's taking a skirmish-y ruleset to a mass-battle arena. The abstractions and mechanics of one are not appropriate when changing to the other. It's sort of why those three bands of rules exist in most people's minds.

That Mantic stands to profit from a higher model count game is almost certainly a factor in their decision of where to focus, but given that they don't charge people three and four times for the rules like other companies in the market I can give that a bit more of a pass. It's not to the level of "write the rules to sell these models" just yet.

It makes sense to use fireteams though as that's how it works in more modern armies of the real world as far as I can tell. Generally speaking you don't have a squad decimated to 1 soldier and expect them to keep pushing on. Heroics are nice and all but aren't very realistic. Fireteam tactics and removal make sense even if it is abstracted.

The whole idea that they chose this way rather than single model for profit is downright dishonest. They make products inspired by products other companies have seen as not profitable. I'm not saying money doesn't play a part at all but Ronnie and well basically everyone mantic put forward to represent them seem genuine in their passion for toy soldiers and to me thats the bigger difference between Mantic and GW.

I don't think those comparisons aren't helpful but understand that with a subject matter being so closely related its inevitable( I did it in the last paragraph )

I can categorically state that profit is not the incentive for making WP3 ~*mass battles*~ only.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Bolognesus wrote:
Well, damn. That's no warpath for me, then.

Guessing once or becomes obvious even to them what a tiny handful of the intended audience will actually want this mess we'll see an in-between option at some point, though. It might not new called warpath, but it'll be there. Mantic might be many things but they will go where the money/customer base is to be found - in the end.

The thing is, will they notice? I'm probably not alone in still being willing to throw many hundreds of monies at Mantic for a truckload of plastic troops and vehicles, even if I never play their game system.

The thing is i primary buy models because they are cool, I enjoy modeling and painting more that gaming, but thats mostly due to a lack of opponents. I do have a non gaming friend who has shown an interest in dz and I managed to drag him down to the openday last year. He's also shown an interest in warpath as he also likes the figures, the problem is I have no interest in playing the game now based of the alpha rules :(

I'm currently torn cos I really do like the concept art for the veermyn tunneler and would like to paint up a force. But to reignite the gaming kick with them I'd have to play a game I just don't think I'll enjoy. I hate to say it but mantic...almost.

Wait, coherency is "no further than 2" but no closer than 1" either"? That seems incredibly fiddly if true. Why would they do that?

Mymearan wrote:
Wait, coherency is "no further than 2" but no closer than 1" either"? That seems incredibly fiddly if true. Why would they do that?

Friendly
Infantry units are also ignored during a
Move and can be moved through, but
the moving unit cannot end its Move
within 1” of any other unit, friend or
foe, unless it is engaging it in Assault.

from the alpha

EDIT: Oops your referring to coherency instead of movement, the positioning section doesn't mention it between teams though.

Yeah that's the rule, but the question is why?

Mymearan wrote:
Wait, coherency is "no further than 2" but no closer than 1" either"? That seems incredibly fiddly if true. Why would they do that?

units are made up of groups which have a hub (leader or special weapon) and between 1 and 5 other figures. The individual figures in a group must stay with 2" of their hub, but hubs must stay within 4" of another hub in the unit. So units are broken down into groups, hubs and individuals, simple

So unless you multibase, you have to make sure each model is between 1-2" away from his team members? Again, it seems incredibly fiddly.

 NTRabbit wrote:
Yeah that's the rule, but the question is why?

I would guess to stop any question of where one unit stops and another stops. My brother ran into that problem all the time with his Trukk Boyz. I don't like the one where you have to stay away from Terrain, though - a unit can't be both in and out of terrain so I don't see the purpose of the no-go halo around a piece of woods or ruin.

Mymearan wrote:
So unless you multibase, you have to make sure each model is between 1-2" away from his team members? Again, it seems incredibly fiddly.

No. A model in enforcer unit A has to be 1" away from a model in enforcer unit B.

 MasterSlowPoke wrote:

 NTRabbit wrote:
Yeah that's the rule, but the question is why?

I would guess to stop any question of where one unit stops and another stops. My brother ran into that problem all the time with his Trukk Boyz. I don't like the one where you have to stay away from Terrain, though - a unit can't be both in and out of terrain so I don't see the purpose of the no-go halo around a piece of woods or ruin.

Mymearan wrote:
So unless you multibase, you have to make sure each model is between 1-2" away from his team members? Again, it seems incredibly fiddly.

No. A model in enforcer unit A has to be 1" away from a model in enforcer unit B.

Really? I'm sure I read someone saying earlier in the the thread that you can't clump units together like in 40k. If the 1" minimum is between units and not inside them, that's fine.

Yes, I am sure. There aren't any area of effect weapons in Warpath, so there's no real need to fiddle with the positions of models inside the border of a unit.

 MasterSlowPoke wrote:

 NTRabbit wrote:
Yeah that's the rule, but the question is why?

I would guess to stop any question of where one unit stops and another stops. My brother ran into that problem all the time with his Trukk Boyz. I don't like the one where you have to stay away from Terrain, though - a unit can't be both in and out of terrain so I don't see the purpose of the no-go halo around a piece of woods or ruin.

Mymearan wrote:
So unless you multibase, you have to make sure each model is between 1-2" away from his team members? Again, it seems incredibly fiddly.

No. A model in enforcer unit A has to be 1" away from a model in enforcer unit B.

The terrain ring might be because of the charge and entering is done at under an inch right?

 scarletsquig wrote:
I was thinking that the rules would turn out to be more a case of "5 models = 1 model" "3 big models = 1 model" as far as rules were concerned.

Lots of small units on the board, LoS from unit leader.

Quite like the new rules but can see a chance to refine them by swinging more in the direction of WP 1.0, with a max unit size of 5 models and everything in all armies following that general template rather than the Unit/Team/Hub setup, which is a bit more complex.

Typically modern (and by extrapolation sci-fi) warfare tends to focus on lots of smaller units all acting independently with their own orders thanks to advanced comms tech and training.

Might be an easy fix, simply remove units and stick with teams and hubs across the board. Doesn't change much other than creating more freedom of movement and activation.

Perhaps teams of 10 for things like plague zombies, teams of 3 for jetbikes, large infantry, but generally 5 per team.

Squig are you on the wp rc? Those actually sound like pretty solid suggestions. If you could add back in individual casualty removal and shooting linked to the models not some abstract figure you could solve a lot of my issues with the rule set.

That would work well enough.
(Actually I could even do without individual casualty removal, just units staying on or going off in their entirety)

privateer4hire wrote:
Thing is, sounds like Mantic want to break away from the conventional this time. If you are buying their miniatures, chances are the store you're getting them from will have special dice, too.

Add to that the revenue they could bring in-house for selling their own proprietary dice and this could really go places.

That seems like a strange assumption to make. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to assume people are buying Mantic minis through deep discounters? The only time I'd buy directly from Mantic these days would be in a pledge manager. Either way, the dice are a waste of money that could go towards something better, especially if the customer isn't sure about the game and/or has the option to buy popular, tested rule sets for pennies on the dollar.

I'm sure some people would buy the dice, but there are people who will be buying all of the random crap Mantic puts out. For mainstream gamers, direct-only novelty dice are more of an obstacle than a selling point.

 edlowe wrote:


Squig are you on the wp rc? Those actually sound like pretty solid suggestions. If you could add back in individual casualty removal and shooting linked to the models not some abstract figure you could solve a lot of my issues with the rule set.

I'm not on the Warpath RC, and in general, I quite like the idea of a mass battles system with 5 models counting as 1 for game purposes.. just feel like the current implementation is a bit too complex, with hubs within teams within units and multiple break points. It kinda does push in the direction of multibasing without explicitly requiring it since you have to have some method of keeping teams separate within their parent unit (green team, red team, blue team etc.). Whereas if there were simply lots of small 5 man units that wouldn't be required, and by extension, no need for multibasing other than making it easier to move lots of units.

It is the most complex part of the rules to learn, which is a shame since the rest of the rules are fantastic.. pretty much simplified deadzone with movement and firepower as the main tactical consideration with orders thrown in for more options. I will be playing it regardless since it is far more polished than deadzone is currently, and I feel like its one of those games that is better off with a demo to learn rather than a rulebook read-through (there should really be some demo videos from Mantic at this point to explain stuff).

Custom d8s for command dice I don't mind at all, although regular d8s and a chart work just as well. From the looks of things only 6-8 of them will be required, at maximum.

 NobodyXY wrote:
It makes sense to use fireteams though as that's how it works in more modern armies of the real world as far as I can tell. Generally speaking you don't have a squad decimated to 1 soldier and expect them to keep pushing on. Heroics are nice and all but aren't very realistic. Fireteam tactics and removal make sense even if it is abstracted.

Except where it doesn't. There's a reason three bands of rules exist in most people's minds and that's primarily because there are three levels of tactical command. A squad, a platoon and then a company. Most engagements that involve battalions or regiments are viewed more as strategic affairs, thus wargames tend to deal with them in entirely abstract manners. However, as you go up the unit sizes, the level of abstraction that you'd find in the real-life commanders of those formations goes up as well. For a company-sized affair, the alpha rules are great. For a squad-sized affair, they're absolutely horrid. For a platoon? They're likely going to work out to be sub-optimal; they work, but they could be a great deal better. Again, this is almost exactly the same criticism you can level at 40k (platoon-level) when it tries to go to Apocalypse (company-level).

 NobodyXY wrote:
The whole idea that they chose this way rather than single model for profit is downright dishonest. They make products inspired by products other companies have seen as not profitable. I'm not saying money doesn't play a part at all but Ronnie and well basically everyone mantic put forward to represent them seem genuine in their passion for toy soldiers and to me thats the bigger difference between Mantic and GW.

I don't think those comparisons aren't helpful but understand that with a subject matter being so closely related its inevitable( I did it in the last paragraph )

You seem to be reading in an accusation there, and there isn't. It's a statement of fact that a higher intended model count will result in higher model sales and, if those are Mantic models, more sales for Mantic. More sales for Mantic is the ultimate goal of most of the stuff Mantic does, and it's the same of any other company on the face of this earth so it's not singling them out as being greedy; that's capitalism at work. Mantic doesn't make much money on the rules, if indeed they make a dime on them and that's to their credit compared to the chief competition. They make their money on the models, and they need that money to do things like pay employees so that they can in turn eat and have shelter, which is an unfortunate addiction that most of us suffer from so we can all relate.

That they want to put the intended game level at a point where they can sell you *lots* of models rather than the limited count of their other offerings isn't an indictment or indeed attributing to it their primary motivation. However, it is a likely factor that crossed their mind when they were planning out how big/little to go. It's just as valid to point out that a higher model count makes HIPS a viable option so they don't have to use restic, which is a general positive in the community. It also allows them to differentiate their game which for so long has looked like "knock-off 40k" into a legitimate game of it's own. There's a whole multitude of reasons that they would decide to go the way they have, but the sales-oriented "unintended" side effect of a high model count remains.

 judgedoug wrote:

 adamsouza wrote:
I know the rules are in Alpha but this is what is sounds like to me

Warpath V1 = mutlibase like KOW.

Warpath v2 = we heard you don't like multibase so we got rid of it

Warpath Alpha = back to multibase rules, but not going to call them that.

So, in your mind, ANY ruleset that does not use individual model measurement for every aspect of a model's interactions is a "multibase game"?

Do you have a better name for it ?

And really, what does it have to do with my point ?

 MasterSlowPoke wrote:

 Krinsath wrote:
Again, a hub with a 3" diameter base would cover nearly all of the same scenarios from a mechanics viewpoint. The extra 4 models are merely there for spectacle at that point; there's no actual game purpose being served by their presence other than to give you something extra to fiddle with and, in limited cases be able to game for an advantage with terrain (which obviously is dictated by type and density of terrain available, a topic so varied out there as to be moot for discussion). Spectacle is fine, but realize it's a good chunk of wasted space and effort if there's no actual purpose to their presence such as line of sight vis a vis wound allocation or unique characteristics in assault (shooting sometimes qualifies when we look to 40k and other systems, but again, such an edge case it's not worth mentioning in comparison).

Yes, the game's quantum elements are based on a team, but multibasing like that will be nothing but a detriment to you. Most people in this thread are saying the non-hub models are inconsequential and that the game can be played with 10 hubs instead of 50 infantry, and that's simply not true. Like this guy:

 edlowe wrote:
They seem to be abstract to the point in which the models don't matter, you could play the game with sigle figures representing the groups and there would be no difference. In fact it would be a faster game with more room to maneuver and fit in the scenery better!

The other models do matter for line of sight, however - if you don't have LoS/have obstructed LoS to half the models in a squad they get a cover bonus. With a 175mm base like you're talking about you're going to have a tough time with LoS. You'd also have to draw LOS from the center of the giant hub base, and that would be very awkward.

I might make some 2-man dumbbell bases for the non-hubs in squads like zombies, but that's about the limit of what I'd want for multibasing.

You and I have the same thought, problem is, the optimal multi base isn't a dumbbell, it's another shape entirely.... My post on mantic forum:

Ok, some feedback on the model/team/unit mechanics, specifically about the movement and positioning of them. From reading the design goals and this thread, I thinking your intention in the move actions is for a movement trayed or multi based team to move its speed. Simple and quick. However that is not the optimal/advantageous/correct way to move based on these rules. That's because the non hub models in the team (I'll call them grunts) are only liabilities. They provide no advantage to the owner, they give your opponent more options for LoS and more targets for an assault. So the owner of the grunts should play to minimise those liabilities. As such, the optimal/advantageous/correct way to move a team is to move the hub, then look for a position to hide the grunts behind LoS blockers, or if that is not available they should be placed directly behind the hub as much as possible in a follow the leader pattern (hub, 1 grunt, 1 grunt then 2 grunts, all in base 2 base, thus 2" rule is observed). This minimises the LoS spread of the team, minimising the liability to the owner.

This is a problem, because either way the movement tray or multi base isn't any good, the 1/1/1/2 formation looks awful on the tabletop (it quite literally looks like a penis), but most importantly it's a model by model micromanagement requirement that's against the design goal of the game.

Next up, there's a unit interpenetration/cover issue. You can put a 1 team unit within a 2 team unit without breaking either the 1" rule or the 4" hub rule. You then poke the hub of the 1 team unit out the front, and it can fire freely, but is then in cover when being attacked because the 4 grunts are blocked from LoS due to the area of the 2 team unit on either side. Despite standing in the open.

Number 3, I think the charge move should change to getting a hub in B2B. Currently its get any model in B2B, this means the actual threat range of a unit isn't double speed from nearest hub, rather its double speed from nearest hub + 2" + base width of a grunt. This is messy and against the design goals.

Finally, I agree with a previous poster regarding WYSIWYG and power values of teams. Both from the playability perspective that is already well covered, but also from the mechanic perspective when it comes to modifiers. As the power values are abstract, the modifiers are better served by adding or reducing dice numbers rolled rather than +1, -1 etc. so shooting a unit in cover could just mean you throw 1 less dice per team firing. IMO adding and removing dice from a pool is better than playing with modifiers for abstract numbers.

That sounds like a complete mess, MaxT.

 MasterSlowPoke wrote:
Yes, I am sure. There aren't any area of effect weapons in Warpath, so there's no real need to fiddle with the positions of models inside the border of a unit.

There's one AoE weapon (flyer strafing) and one AoE effect (exploding destroyed vehicle), but since you attack a "unit" as a whole positioning within it doesn't matter anyway, the only thing you need to worry about is the relative positioning of entire units.

That's only going to be an issue if they don't specify a shape for the multi base be it circle, square, rectangle or triangle

hopefully they'll do so before this hits the final version in the same way that traditional single model games tend to specify base shape & size

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
That's only going to be an issue if they don't specify a shape for the multi base be it circle, square, rectangle or triangle

hopefully they'll do so before this hits the final version in the same way that traditional single model games tend to specify base shape & size

so there will be an offical way to multibase, which will lead to calls that individually based figures gain an advantage.

It seems like this ruleset was developed expressly to force you to multibase but mantic don't want to come out and say it. It advertises in the alpha mantics multibases for your teams.

I feel sorry for Matt on the mantic forums having to defend everything, it seems like theres no offical mantic response to the feedback yet bar a few questions been answered in the start of the thread.

MaxT wrote:
Finally, I agree with a previous poster regarding WYSIWYG and power values of teams. Both from the playability perspective that is already well covered, but also from the mechanic perspective when it comes to modifiers. As the power values are abstract, the modifiers are better served by adding or reducing dice numbers rolled rather than +1, -1 etc. so shooting a unit in cover could just mean you throw 1 less dice per team firing. IMO adding and removing dice from a pool is better than playing with modifiers for abstract numbers.

The problem is, the number of attack dice a team can throw has a hard bottom limit of 4. Get below that, and standard models become immune to bullets.

Uk - it's a bank holiday. There's some stuff planned next week based on what's bee read and said though.

The way I see it things should be kept simple. All models in a unit should be within 1" of another model, and within 5" of the unit hub. Whenever a team is killed simply remove any 5 models, including heavy weapons from that team. For example say you have a unit of guardsmen with 3 teams, of which one is a heavy flamer team. If the heavy flamer team is killed you simply remove 4 regular models and 1 heavy flamer model.

Then when it comes to attacks all basic teams should always roll 5 dice, and heavy weapons give additional dice, special rules, etc. For example say you have a unit of guardsmen with 3 teams, of which one is a heavy flamer team. When shooting you roll 5 dice for each team of regular guardsmen, and 5+3 dice for the heavy flamer team.

Overall I think these two basic changes would make the movement of units much simpler, faster and more intuitive. Same goes for the firepower, by keeping it consistent with 5 models roll 5 dice plus heavy weapons bonus things should be simpler, faster and more intuitive.

 edlowe wrote:
I feel sorry for Matt on the mantic forums having to defend everything...

Why? Are Mantic holding his family hostage? Is he handcuffed to a desk in some sweatshop somewhere? Or is he just choosing to make excuses for decisions that don't deserve it?

Having read the iterations of WP3, from one of the earliest alphas to the current alpha, I am not enthusiastic for WP3.

Currently, the focus with Teams seems to be a disjointed attempt to find a middle ground between the whole-unit KoW style that Ronnie stated he liked, and the individual-style preferred by apparently the vast majority of everyone else given the feedback that cropped up when Mantic first asked around about multibasing and game-scale.

However, I'm not as hung-up about that as I am about the actual game mechanics. Right now, Terrain is ungodly powerful, and a high-defense unit sitting pretty inside them is an absurdly hard nut to crack, especially for melee. Mantic has since replied to my feedback to this effect that this was intentional, but I fear that this will just lead to terrain being the game-deciding factor in every game. If Mantic wants to see these rules as currently written played in current tournaments, those same tournaments will be played almost entirely on Planet Bowling Ball, and Fortified Terrain will be especially absent.

Plus, Suppression right now actually means that a large unit that is Suppressed will Go to Ground if a team is killed (Which results in further casualties and killed teams when they attempt to Recover from Going to Ground), while the smallest-sized units will not Go to Ground if they are Suppressed and lose a team. In other words, smaller units are actually more durable than larger ones.

Not to mention that Command, as currently written, is not a vital nor integral part of the game system as written, in no way resembles Command from Deadzone (And so there's no potential player-knowledge crossover to aid in learning WP3), and has been used as justification to move Reserves into a Command-only activated Order that brings in the Reserved units only proximate to the Commanding model, rather than letting them be allowed to encircle the enemy position strategically like they could before.

I have a laundry list of issues with the system as it currently stands (At least the primary die used is d6s, rather than the d8s it was for so long), and I can post that if anyone is interested in reading a 22K-word feedback

Great that you are posting here darkPrince010, I know you've had a tremendous amount of involvement with Mantic games.

I can't believe there isn't one yet, but perhaps we could make a thread in the Mantic section of the forum to discuss the rules?

The impression I am getting from all of this is that hopefully it truly is an 'Alpha' rules and that Mantic will be open to feedback from the hobby community about what things to change. I assume this is something that is likely to happen once the RC and playtesters start submitting their results of how the game plays (assuming it isn't happening already?)