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.

 edlowe wrote:
Basic cloud movement is faster, however moving your groups within a unit then checking each groups individual models are in coherency with the correct hub will take longer. You cant just move all the hubs then place any old figures from the units around them due to the team structure.

Why not? It worked pretty well in my test game.

One of my units was organized like this:

Plague 3A (Hub)
Plague 3A
Plague 3A
Plague 3A
Plague 3A

Plague 3A (Hub)
Plague 3A
Plague 3A
Plague 3A
Plague 3A

Plague 3A w/ HMG (Hub)
Plague 3A
Plague 3A
Plague 3A
Plague 3A

Why would it matter if I accidentally transposed two Plague 3A into each other's team?

I had a second squad, organized like:

Plague 3A (Hub)
Plague 3A
Plague 3A
Plague 3A
Plague 3A

Plague Swarm (Hub)
Plague 3D
Plague 3D
Plague 3A
Plague 3A

I have to put the 3D's with the Swarm, but it's not exactly difficult or fiddly. Nothing that would require using a multibase.

E: To Judgdoug

Do you understand that these things are subjective? Some players do want more depth to their games and don't like everything abstracted. I do want individual casualties. I do want (personally) to check the range from each model (I know some people aren't fussed about that, but hey I'm willing to compromise if it's absolutely necessary).

Those aspects aren't what slow down 40k mind - it's the core rules based on 30 year old napoleonic skirmish games, with gluts of special rules bung on top that slow it down.

Your assertion that abstraction is automatically better is trying to compute the definition of fun. Fun is subjective.

I personally do not like abstraction at the level of game that I want to play (30-50 infantry + a few vehicles). You may disagree, but you cannot state categorically that I'm in the wrong.

 MasterSlowPoke wrote:

 edlowe wrote:
Basic cloud movement is faster, however moving your groups within a unit then checking each groups individual models are in coherency with the correct hub will take longer. You cant just move all the hubs then place any old figures from the units around them due to the team structure.

Why not? It worked pretty well in my test game.

One of my units was organized like this:

Plague 3A (Hub)
Plague 3A
Plague 3A
Plague 3A
Plague 3A

Plague 3A (Hub)
Plague 3A
Plague 3A
Plague 3A
Plague 3A

Plague 3A w/ HMG (Hub)
Plague 3A
Plague 3A
Plague 3A
Plague 3A

Why would it matter if I accidentally transposed two Plague 3A into each other's team?

I had a second squad, organized like:

Plague 3A (Hub)
Plague 3A
Plague 3A
Plague 3A
Plague 3A

Plague Swarm (Hub)
Plague 3D
Plague 3D
Plague 3A
Plague 3A

I have to put the 3D's with the Swarm, but it's not exactly difficult or fiddly. Nothing that would require using a multibase.

Well for one thing thats the rules and an arse of an opponent would pick you up on it.

But what happens when your mixed teams have different weapon load outs? you could end up having to remove 4 hmg figures which would break up your units coherency due to the way you've lumped your figures together, Maybe nudge some figures across to fill the gaps? Once you start having fudge the rules to make it work your having to fix poor design.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedleh wrote:
E: To Judgdoug

Do you understand that these things are subjective? Some players do want more depth to their games and don't like everything abstracted. I do want individual casualties. I do want (personally) to check the range from each model (I know some people aren't fussed about that, but hey I'm willing to compromise if it's absolutely necessary).

Those aspects aren't what slow down 40k mind - it's the core rules based on 30 year old napoleonic skirmish games, with gluts of special rules bung on top that slow it down.

Your assertion that abstraction is automatically better is trying to compute the definition of fun. Fun is subjective.

I personally do not like abstraction at the level of game that I want to play (30-50 infantry + a few vehicles). You may disagree, but you cannot state categorically that I'm in the wrong.

This is exactly my feelings on the direction wp should have gone. Not a mess of units within units with abstract power values with no link to the individual models shown.

 edlowe wrote:
But what happens when your mixed teams have different weapon load outs? you could end up having to remove 4 hmg figures which would break up your units coherency due to the way you've lumped your figures together, Maybe nudge some figures across to fill the gaps? Once you start having fudge the rules to make it work your having to fix poor design.

I literally don't understand what you're talking about.

Say you have a unit with the three teams:

Team 1: 5 Bolter dudes
Team 2: 5 Bolter dudes
Team 3: 4 HMG dudes with commander

When you move, you pick up the three hubs and put them anywhere in their movement range, so long as they're in coherency (4"). You then pick up the rest of your dudes - 4 bolter guys with each of their hubs, and the HMG guys with their hub. What gaps are you talking about?

 MasterSlowPoke wrote:

 edlowe wrote:
But what happens when your mixed teams have different weapon load outs? you could end up having to remove 4 hmg figures which would break up your units coherency due to the way you've lumped your figures together, Maybe nudge some figures across to fill the gaps? Once you start having fudge the rules to make it work your having to fix poor design.

I literally don't understand what you're talking about.

Say you have a unit with the three teams:

Team 1: 5 Bolter dudes
Team 2: 5 Bolter dudes
Team 3: 4 HMG dudes with commander

When you move, you pick up the three hubs and put them anywhere in their movement range, so long as they're in coherency (4"). You then pick up the rest of your dudes - 4 bolter guys with each of their hubs, and the HMG guys with their hub. What gaps are you talking about?

ok, if you take the corporation entry from the alpha as an example, in it each team has different weaponry. According to the rules these groups must stay next to their hubs. If you just move the unit as 1 mass not caring about keeping the teams together these groups will get spread out throught the unit.

Unless each hub is a unique figure or marked in a specific way I do not know what weapons he is representing, I dont know what weapons could now be in range and which not be cause it is not clear by the way you have positioned your groups. This is a flaw with the group rules.

Now if I shoot at the unit and destroy say 2 out of 5 groups, you now have to remove the specific figures that corespond to those groups, you can't just pick any 5 figures. This is where the problem comes in, if you have spread out the figures that represent those groups throughout the unit you may have to remove specifc individual figures which corespond to those groups and may break unit coherency. Ie having to remove figures from the middle of a unit leaving a big gap between your groups.

Just seems like they want you to multi base your figures to get round this kind of issue. Especially when such micromanagement of sub unit coherency is a specific rule. The rules actively encourage you to multi base due to the way they are written.

The members of a team are within 2" of their hub. They don't get spread out amongst the unit.

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

Big battles means big purchases required (whether in the past using, say, 40k minis or Mantic or a mixture of mfrs). It may not be the prime incentive but it's a good percentage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

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.

I was joking actually.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CptJake wrote:

 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.

Does anyone think the goodness or badness of the rules will make a bit of difference when it comes to the KS?

I submit, the lesson Mantic will learn from the KS is that they can continue to use KS as a vital part of their business plan and folks will throw boat loads of money at them, and then add a couple more boat loads during the pledge manager. Mantic will end up sending pounds and pounds of plastic figures out.

And how fun or good the rules are will not make much difference at all.

And winner. Mantic have latched onto KS and will continue to make boatloads of money regardless of their rules.

 MasterSlowPoke wrote:
The members of a team are within 2" of their hub. They don't get spread out amongst the unit.

The whole point of my response was based on assuming you wevre just moving the unit as a whole ignoring that restricting. Thats what I believed you ment in your inital reply. theres no problem if you follow the rules.


However, I did think a better system rather than the unit, group, hub mechanic would simply be the following.

You buy a unit of 5 men from the list. This unit has a profile that contains weaponry based on the figures included in the unit. I.e. squad leader and 4 guys armed with lasrifles, which means the units firing is 5x the lasrifle profile on their stats (say 5x power 1). The squad leader counts as the hub for the unit.

next you could add to the unit in groups of five figures from a selection of different support. I.e you could add to the squad a heavy weapon support group. This could consist of 5 heavy weapons and would add five x the heavy weapon profile to the squad. The hub would still be the original squad leader.

when the squad take damage as per the usual rules, instead of removing a set group you can remove 5 models of your choice from the combined unit. This could be riflemen or heavy weapons. When the unit next fires its weapons you simply add up the remaining models of each type to work out how many shots/power they have left.

the squad would have a 5inch coherency from the inital squad leader and he would be the last figure removed.

so the aboves a combination of 2.0 and 3.0, individuals now have an effect on the unit, theres more tactics in casualty removal and you keep the breakpoint system from the new rules.plus theres no micro unit management with sub groups.

Any thoughts?

people argue about what made 40k unfun..

for me. it was the arguing that made 40k unfun..

guess where this is headed..

 MLaw wrote:
people argue about what made 40k unfun..

for me. it was the arguing that made 40k unfun..

guess where this is headed..

Agreed.

I have hundreds of sci fi soldiers, IG and SM from GW and various other plastic and metal models from other companies. I've broken my collection up into caches in multiple closets around the house so my wife doesn't realize the depths of my plastic crack addiction. I would be happy to have a game where I could put most or all of my models on the table in an Apocalypse scale game but not have to spend most of a day to resolve the battle. If Mantic can produce a ruleset that is clear and fast I would look into getting it. I have more than enough plastic dudesmen what I don't have is enough time to bother with rules bloat and rules lawyering or big enough hobby budget to spend hundreds of dollars on multiple rulebooks. If the final version of Warpath can scratch that itch, I'll pick up a copy of the rules.

 Daedleh wrote:
E: To Judgdoug Do you understand that these things are subjective? Some players do want more depth to their games and don't like everything abstracted. I do want individual casualties. I do want (personally) to check the range from each model (I know some people aren't fussed about that, but hey I'm willing to compromise if it's absolutely necessary).

Oh, of course - your list of games you play is remarkably similar to mine (and I still believe SST is the finest ruleset ever crafted by mankind). And I play and enjoy Bolt Action on a weekly basis which of course uses individual measurements.

 Daedleh wrote:
Those aspects aren't what slow down 40k mind - it's the core rules based on 30 year old napoleonic skirmish games, with gluts of special rules bung on top that slow it down.

Individual stat lines, special rules, and measurement all go hand in hand, as both the smallest and largest level of abstraction in 40k-style games is with the individual model. It's impossible to scale it in any direction as the core rules are tied to doing everything with individual models.

 Daedleh wrote:
Your assertion that abstraction is automatically better is trying to compute the definition of fun. Fun is subjective. I personally do not like abstraction at the level of game that I want to play (30-50 infantry + a few vehicles). You may disagree, but you cannot state categorically that I'm in the wrong.

No, sorry, I apologize if I stated that abstraction makes a game more fun, that's not what I mean. Abstraction makes games quicker.

It's obvious the design goal is specifically for normal 40k-sized engagements in a much shorter timeframe (allowing larger games in the same or less timeframe as a smaller game in 40k - as is 100% the case with Kings of War), then, just as with Kings of War and other systems that use abstraction, the very first thing to do is sacrifice individual measurements for cloud/point based gameplay. As I had mentioned, the primary reason a game like Bolt Action can afford an equal model count as 40k but in less time, is due to the simplification of a unit's stats. And, of course, the reason I love Kings of War is because of it's abstract movement and combat system that reaches the same conclusion of a battle that Warhammer would reach, but does it in the tiniest fraction of time.

Ok, so can we boil it down to this:

You want abstracted, fast gameplay which scales up to larger battles but you are not willing to have more detailed rules to suit smaller games. I want less abstracted, more detailed gameplay which is suited to platoon level action (Bolt Action levels), and I am not averse to having a set of amendments/abstractions to these rules which promote larger games.

I do not think that the number of minis recommended for WP3 are suitable for 28mm models, since there's too many models on the board for meaningful manoeuvring or tactical gameplay - something that has only been confirmed by the various photos people have posted defending the obscene recommended sizes.

While abstracted games can be scaled up, they cannot be scaled down as well (to take an extreme example - you wouldn't use WP3 rules to play deadzone). The degree to which games should be abstracted and at what levels is down to personal preference, however there is a huge gulf between DZ and WP that is currently not catered for.

At the moment, WP3 is too abstracted for the games that I want to play, for the replayability and depth that would keep me interested. Deadzone is too complex for the size of game that I want to play - 40k would be less hassle than trying to play DZ at platoon level. If my desired size of game is not catered to by Mantic (especially given that they previously promised to, and that the previous edition did, albeit with plenty of flaws) then I will take my business elsewhere. Given the seemingly 50/50 split of the community, I am not alone in this.

Both sides are at fault for some of the arguments that have ensued. The platoon level guys have referred to multibasing from the start, when actually they mean the cloud based/element based abstractions (I'm definitely guilty of this) rather than multibasing per-se. Equally the mass battles folks have been wilfully obtuse by continuing to trot out the not-multibasing/just-play-deadzone/you've-never-played-anything-but-40k claims.

Core Rules, Feedback (got them from a friend), in order of appereance in the document:

team/unit/hub:

-declare a unit commander/hub model or team (there is an optional upgrade to give the unit command special rules, but there should be always one and if the special one gets killed, another team should take its place, without the special rule of course)

-every team hub of a unit has to be within X“ of the unit commander

-let teams attack different targets (command check/dice needed and or unit command must be alive)



-add additional classes for unit size. Not only normal/large/massiv infantry, but also weak/standard/elite infantry, like:

weak: normal/large/massive infantry = 9/6/3

standard: normal/large/massive infantry: 6/4/2

elite: normal/large/massive infantry: 3/2/1



measering:

- make clear from where should be measured (base, body head, or fixed/marked point, center of the model, hull of a tank, weapon of a tank)

we would prefer something like „center/head of the model“ because it is always the same no matter of infantry or tank



High

Maybe we missunderstood it, but the size of a unit should always be in the units profile and not marked on a fix table (or just model/terrain size in inch = hight)

also flying units should have a „high“ by adding 12 to its size



actions:

-remove the „double move“ long action, it is not needed

-because Assault is an seperate action (and not an „ I accidently moved to close to your units“ move action) remove the „charge“ part from the move action.

-change close combat range from a fixed value to the hight/size of the models in inch (or ½ its height)

For most units it will stay the same but bigger models will have an an additional advantage of a bigger melee range (over its disadvantage to get less cover and be easily seen by everyone)



-remove „reactions“ completly (there is already an alternating activation, reactions would be only needed if there is a strict „I activate all my units befor you activate yours“)

also remove the „enemy hit you back“. Because the other player always can activate the enganged unit next and attack in melee, move away or shoot (or let it die without doing anything).

There are also no „reactions“ after shooting which gives this action a big advantage and staying somewhere in cover and shoot will be always the better desicion



Or give every attacked (range and melee) unit/team the possibility of an reaction (shoot/attack back or move)



In my opinion, an Action/Reaction System will work very good if done right.

But than remove the alternate activation of units and let only teams take reactions (units act, teams react), like „everytime a unit finish an action, every enemy team in 10“ can make a reaction which is shoot, move or assault (not every unit has every reaction available).



Mixing those things just get the game more complicated than needed.



vehicles

why are they always units on their own.

Just make them teams on their own but give them the possibility to form units



Remove the „additional damge on 6“ and or add it to all damage roles.

Because those „good placed head shots“ are not for vehicles only



There is no need to give vehicles special damage rules (just because 40k makes this mistake, you don't have to repeat it)



If you want to make vehicles die faster from special Anti Tank weapons, give them other special rules which also affect other models.

Because there is no reason why a standard infantry team would take less damage from an Armour Piercing Shell than a tank.



Maybe something like:

Instant Death: every successful damage role inflicts 2 wounds,

or Multihit: every hit adds an additional damge dice

I remember playing 40k back in ...okay let's just say it was a long while back. pre-apocalypse. 1,000 point games were not uncommon, even 500-750 point games were encouraged by the rulebooks. I could go to the store and play 2-4 games in a few hours (basically, just after lunch to just past when I should've eaten dinner). The rules lawyering was pretty much limited to things like dangerous terrain.. oh..yeah.. my jump pack guys really do have to roll for landing in difficult terrain.. or whatever.. People weren't trying to snipe under rhinos or between gaps that barely exist. If your opponent DID.. then everyone would label them "that guy" and the only people who would play him would be new guys who didn't know better or people who really really really wanted a game and just didn't have anyone else to play. Big games required a detachment and even then it was so rare that people had to break out the BRB and read that section. We did mega battles but it was a 1x a year (give or take) type of thing over beer and football... you start in the AM and plan on being there until ..the AM.

(I'm getting to a point..gimme a minute)

Apocalypse gets released and people start buying tons of models. There are huuuge sales for these bundles and stores start running massive events. People start looking down their noses at anything lower than 1500 points. Add in the rapidly growing meta-gaming scene... it got ludicrous. I attended a few of these. It was a multiple day event. People were blatantly cheating or meta gaming when both side had collectively thousands of models to move. Arguments were breaking out to the point that fist fights had to be pre-empted by people physically grabbing the opposing players and moving them to separate rooms. Tournaments started becoming about this thing I loathe called WAAC. Guys like Yakface started writing power-gaming lists, articles on how to manipulate the wording of the rules to your favor etc. Leagues that liked to brag about their power-gamer status were formed and pretty much told everyone else to eff off because they had tournaments to win.
Meanwhile, the company behind all of this is lowering point costs, increasing prices, power-shifting codices with intentional codex creep, and moving away from the previous emphasis on community and hobby.

(I promise there is a point)

Along comes Mantic. They release their products and are very vocal about their intent as the greener grass. Their prices started off low.. like.. insanely low. They waved the banner and directly attacked GW's practices. They've openly mocked them over social media and claimed to never become another GW.

Then Kickstarters started blowing up with their name on it. Prices are going up on their products, the necessary force size is ballooning, their focus on community, customer service, and gamesmanship is falling off, and there's not really been a huge focus on the hobby side that I've ever seen.

Some see these rules as innocuous and that they're just growing and progressing. I am not letting myself get emotionally invested in this company, so I don't see it that way. They're steering towards mass-combat and that's not something I'm interested in. Unfortunately, I'm also not a fan of the way Deadzone plays. I was extremely hopeful that Warpath 2.0 would be a breath of fresh 28mm gaming air.. but it really doesn't look that way.

I read what MLaw has written and i can say (as an old one ;-), i recognise everything he wrote.

I have Mantic stuff and above all i am watching and waiting just to see where this is going.
I will wait and see, just as i do with most new games and especially with kickstarters.
I am not getting emotioanally invested in this early a stage either (anymore).

Played a platoon level game (20 enforcers + 6 peacekeepers against 40 plague 3a's, 6 2a's and 1 1a)

It played surprisingly close to last ed. in my opinion.(we played at what I assume will be roughly the same point cost we played last ed. at) The big standouts were suppression, charge reactions and of course team removal. Suppression being checked twice had caused one unit to suffer 'suppression' cascade which was something I had seen mentioned elsewhere. I think that was the biggest mechanic based gripe I had was. Its was really brutal and fast. Teaching it to my opponent, setting up and finishing play was accomplished in 60 minutes. I imagine we could bump that up to the full alpha list and do it in the same now that we know the rules a bit better. I think It doesn't lose any of the fun it would have at higher levels and didn't seem to fail at this scale with the only issue being that units died quicker than maybe is ideal. I realize that I'm not the most unbiased in my opinion but thought I'd try WP out at this scale anyway. The biggest pregame concern was having a unit wiped before it had a chance to react which I mitigated with lots of scatter terrain. Movement trays work well in my opinion and only once did I feel the need to re position after movement. I think trays for most units is how we will do it. units with 30 model units especially. but heavy infantry don't need it and we didn't use any. I saw mantic address the possibility of dual rulesets as NTRabbit had mentioned over on the forum. Mantic in my opinion were hoping that movement trays and team removal would be better received and that they could focus their energy on just the one ruleset.
Relevant Q&A


Stand out moment:
A unit of 2 teams of enforcers has just suffered a frontal attack and lost a team at the end of turn 2. The beginning of three saw them used as bait against the best positioned plague unit, which took the bait and found itself set upon by a unit of peacekeepers shortly after. The plague units position had stopped me from advancing. A frontal assault by peacekeepers was to risky as it would leave them really exposed. the enforcers would have faired no better. My opponent had become over confident in the plagues melee superiority and became over exposed. Their units were unable to come to each others aid.

 Daedleh wrote:
You want abstracted, fast gameplay which scales up to larger battles but you are not willing to have more detailed rules to suit smaller games. I want less abstracted, more detailed gameplay which is suited to platoon level action (Bolt Action levels), and I am not averse to having a set of amendments/abstractions to these rules which promote larger games.

Abstracted and fast, when designed well, can produce the same results as "more detailed" rules - this is the success of Kings of War. Same with Bolt Action - that is one of the most elegant, simple systems but produces results that more "detailed" rulesets would produce with much less complexity. This is the scales of game design, where bogging a ruleset down with rules and exceptions then reduces your tactical ability as you are worried more about remembering those rules; elegant rules design will be transparent and will produce the same results, allowing the player to spend more time focused on maneuvering.

re: Amendments - they tend to never be good, especially if the system isn't flexible enough to support something you want to do (ex, 40k Apocalypse. ex, Starship Troopers system used for WW2 - worst idea ever, Mongoose)

 Daedleh wrote:
While abstracted games can be scaled up, they cannot be scaled down as well (to take an extreme example - you wouldn't use WP3 rules to play deadzone). The degree to which games should be abstracted and at what levels is down to personal preference, however there is a huge gulf between DZ and WP that is currently not catered for.

Yes, they can, that is the point of abstraction. The more abstract a ruleset the easier it is to scale in either direction. When you lock a system in at the ground level with stats and say "this Model has a power pinkie and has a 180 degree arc and can leap over logs up to 1/4 inch wide and if he gets near a toaster he can pick up the toaster and throw it 7.25 inches", there's no way it can scale easily.

For example: If I tell you an particular element has a speed of X inches, rolls Y dice and hits you on a Z... what am I talking about when I say "element"? Am I talking about a model? Or a squad? Maybe a whole infantry division, because I'm pointing at a copy of The World At War? I could be talking about all of them. That's what abstraction in game design allows you to do - it's scalable between any size of a unit without any "amendments" bolted on.

I wonder how WP3 would play as a skirmish game? Does it scale? Has anyone played it so that "Teams" are just one model (so "Units" are just a few models)? It seems like it would easily scale down (where a Team slides to a 1-man and Unit to 2-x models), as well as scale up (where a Team can be a 10-man squad an a Unit is a 30-man platoon)?

(this post is pre-morning coffee, hope I got my point across)

 judgedoug wrote:

 Daedleh wrote:
You want abstracted, fast gameplay which scales up to larger battles but you are not willing to have more detailed rules to suit smaller games. I want less abstracted, more detailed gameplay which is suited to platoon level action (Bolt Action levels), and I am not averse to having a set of amendments/abstractions to these rules which promote larger games.

Abstracted and fast, when designed well, can produce the same results as "more detailed" rules - this is the success of Kings of War. Same with Bolt Action - that is one of the most elegant, simple systems but produces results that more "detailed" rulesets would produce with much less complexity. This is the scales of game design, where bogging a ruleset down with rules and exceptions then reduces your tactical ability as you are worried more about remembering those rules; elegant rules design will be transparent and will produce the same results, allowing the player to spend more time focused on maneuvering.

re: Amendments - they tend to never be good, especially if the system isn't flexible enough to support something you want to do (ex, 40k Apocalypse. ex, Starship Troopers system used for WW2 - worst idea ever, Mongoose)

 Daedleh wrote:
While abstracted games can be scaled up, they cannot be scaled down as well (to take an extreme example - you wouldn't use WP3 rules to play deadzone). The degree to which games should be abstracted and at what levels is down to personal preference, however there is a huge gulf between DZ and WP that is currently not catered for.

Yes, they can, that is the point of abstraction. The more abstract a ruleset the easier it is to scale in either direction. When you lock a system in at the ground level with stats and say "this Model has a power pinkie and has a 180 degree arc and can leap over logs up to 1/4 inch wide and if he gets near a toaster he can pick up the toaster and throw it 7.25 inches", there's no way it can scale easily.

For example: If I tell you an particular element has a speed of X inches, rolls Y dice and hits you on a Z... what am I talking about when I say "element"? Am I talking about a model? Or a squad? Maybe a whole infantry division, because I'm pointing at a copy of The World At War? I could be talking about all of them. That's what abstraction in game design allows you to do - it's scalable between any size of a unit without any "amendments" bolted on.

I wonder how WP3 would play as a skirmish game? Does it scale? Has anyone played it so that "Teams" are just one model (so "Units" are just a few models)? It seems like it would easily scale down (where a Team slides to a 1-man and Unit to 2-x models), as well as scale up (where a Team can be a 10-man squad an a Unit is a 30-man platoon)?

(this post is pre-morning coffee, hope I got my point across)

I've just had a little chat with Stewart, and he pointd out that the game was written, originally, with this as an option for play to scale the game down if needed. He'd like you to know that Mantic would revisit it based on the feedback. Fun .

 judgedoug wrote:

For example: If I tell you an particular element has a speed of X inches, rolls Y dice and hits you on a Z... what am I talking about when I say "element"? Am I talking about a model? Or a squad? Maybe a whole infantry division, because I'm pointing at a copy of The World At War? I could be talking about all of them. That's what abstraction in game design allows you to do - it's scalable between any size of a unit without any "amendments" bolted on.

I wonder how WP3 would play as a skirmish game? Does it scale? Has anyone played it so that "Teams" are just one model (so "Units" are just a few models)? It seems like it would easily scale down (where a Team slides to a 1-man and Unit to 2-x models), as well as scale up (where a Team can be a 10-man squad an a Unit is a 30-man platoon)?

(this post is pre-morning coffee, hope I got my point across)

That first part is an interesting point and I never thought of it that way. It is a good way of scaling the game up and down visually without actually changing the rules. You could play anything from infinity to epic 40k with the same rules/stat line.

 MLaw wrote:
I remember playing 40k back in ...okay let's just say it was a long while back. pre-apocalypse. 1,000 point games were not uncommon, even 500-750 point games were encouraged by the rulebooks. I could go to the store and play 2-4 games in a few hours (basically, just after lunch to just past when I should've eaten dinner). The rules lawyering was pretty much limited to things like dangerous terrain.. oh..yeah.. my jump pack guys really do have to roll for landing in difficult terrain.. or whatever.. People weren't trying to snipe under rhinos or between gaps that barely exist. If your opponent DID.. then everyone would label them "that guy" and the only people who would play him would be new guys who didn't know better or people who really really really wanted a game and just didn't have anyone else to play. Big games required a detachment and even then it was so rare that people had to break out the BRB and read that section. We did mega battles but it was a 1x a year (give or take) type of thing over beer and football... you start in the AM and plan on being there until ..the AM.

(I'm getting to a point..gimme a minute)

Apocalypse gets released and people start buying tons of models. There are huuuge sales for these bundles and stores start running massive events. People start looking down their noses at anything lower than 1500 points. Add in the rapidly growing meta-gaming scene... it got ludicrous. I attended a few of these. It was a multiple day event. People were blatantly cheating or meta gaming when both side had collectively thousands of models to move. Arguments were breaking out to the point that fist fights had to be pre-empted by people physically grabbing the opposing players and moving them to separate rooms. Tournaments started becoming about this thing I loathe called WAAC. Guys like Yakface started writing power-gaming lists, articles on how to manipulate the wording of the rules to your favor etc. Leagues that liked to brag about their power-gamer status were formed and pretty much told everyone else to eff off because they had tournaments to win.
Meanwhile, the company behind all of this is lowering point costs, increasing prices, power-shifting codices with intentional codex creep, and moving away from the previous emphasis on community and hobby.
.

I -really- love games in the 1000 pt range. I've always loved 'Escalation' leagues that start tiny and move up... but as as soon as the points hit the 1500-1750 range, I start to lose interest. I have more than enough stuff to play Apoc-sized games - and though I've watched some, I've never played one because playing Epic in 28mm scale just doesn't appeal to me at all. Models start to feel more and more like 'hit points', and a table THAT crowded does nothing for me aesthetically, while I know some people LOVE seeing the the table bow in the middle from all the figs on the board, and lots of people love laying down pie-plates to hammer down gobs of figs at one time.

WP offers an alternative, one that I will check out, certainly, though I do firmly believe that there comes a point where TOO much abstract is not 'good' abstract.

 warboss wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:

For example: If I tell you an particular element has a speed of X inches, rolls Y dice and hits you on a Z... what am I talking about when I say "element"? Am I talking about a model? Or a squad? Maybe a whole infantry division, because I'm pointing at a copy of The World At War? I could be talking about all of them. That's what abstraction in game design allows you to do - it's scalable between any size of a unit without any "amendments" bolted on.

I wonder how WP3 would play as a skirmish game? Does it scale? Has anyone played it so that "Teams" are just one model (so "Units" are just a few models)? It seems like it would easily scale down (where a Team slides to a 1-man and Unit to 2-x models), as well as scale up (where a Team can be a 10-man squad an a Unit is a 30-man platoon)?

That first part is an interesting point and I never thought of it that way. It is a good way of scaling the game up and down visually without actually changing the rules. You could play anything from infinity to epic 40k with the same rules/stat line.

Yeah man! It gets me excited about game design. The ultimate game would have Scalability (as previously mentioned), Elegance (any mechanic that adds tactical options without complicated the flow or slowing the pace of the game), and is Unified (a single mechanic that governs most if not all interactions with variability in the rules). You can usually achieve more of each/all by abstraction. The holy grail is finding the point where abstraction does not ruin the game's immersion (as Daedleh pointed out earlier, let's just roll a dice and on a 4+ I win otherwise you win).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sukura636 wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:
For example: If I tell you an particular element has a speed of X inches, rolls Y dice and hits you on a Z... what am I talking about when I say "element"? Am I talking about a model? Or a squad? Maybe a whole infantry division, because I'm pointing at a copy of The World At War? I could be talking about all of them. That's what abstraction in game design allows you to do - it's scalable between any size of a unit without any "amendments" bolted on.

I wonder how WP3 would play as a skirmish game? Does it scale? Has anyone played it so that "Teams" are just one model (so "Units" are just a few models)? It seems like it would easily scale down (where a Team slides to a 1-man and Unit to 2-x models), as well as scale up (where a Team can be a 10-man squad an a Unit is a 30-man platoon)?

I've just had a little chat with Stewart, and he pointd out that the game was written, originally, with this as an option for play to scale the game down if needed. He'd like you to know that Mantic would revisit it based on the feedback. Fun .

Whaaaaaaaattt! I would very much be interested in this, and it seems like others would as well. Give it to me and let me edit it!!

In non Warpath News here's the DBX Iron Ancestor - it looks like it's a modification the current model so should fit right into DZ and WP.

That is a bit lovely.

I like that paint scheme too. Might do mine up the same.

Does that look to be the same size as a regular Iron Ancestor? If it is I think mine might be showing up in Deadzone.

Not in this case, but I keep noticing DBX KS minis being promoted on DBO boards

I know it's cross-compatible, but it seems like it's just one more little insight into how Mantic perceives that product line.

At least here they're promoting DBX a little more. I look forward to being able to play my Hobgoblins, Rebs, Sphyr and Brokkrs in the game I bought them for...

 highlord tamburlaine wrote:
I like that paint scheme too. Might do mine up the same.

Does that look to be the same size as a regular Iron Ancestor? If it is I think mine might be showing up in Deadzone.

Yep looks the same size to me in fact I think it's the same base model with a new head and arms the leg stance is the same as the normal one

Seminar 2 video Warpath discussion from 42 minutes and the 3D print of the Interceptor is shown around 46 minutes

That Iron Ancestor looks like an absolute beaut.

I would love to get some tractor treads from Ramshackle Games or the like, to replace the legs though - think that might possibly look a bit better.

Looks like the warpath 3.0 alpha is over and beta begins on friday.

On Friday, we will be releasing the new Warpath rules for public beta. This will be an expanded set of rules over what was released via Beasts of War a few weeks ago, so plenty of extra stuff to have a look if you’ve already tried them.

From the Mantic blog.

So I guess there moving pretty quickly with this one, although I don't know how three weeks of playtesting the rules could really have influenced them enough to progress to beta?

It will be interesting to see if there are any changes and when they will reveal the second rules set based around individuals not teams that has been promised.

I think the outrage was more important than any playtesting.