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.

Tournaments possibly adding artificial restirctions to a game isn't a concern of a design team. There is no way to control what special rules TO's will come up with.

There is ALWAYS stuff that you could do then and now you can't in an edition change.

You either play the new edition, or give up an entire game, because they made changes you don't like, and move on to another game, until they ineviatabley make changes you don't like. I've been gaming for nearly 30 years and this cycle just repeats itself.

How about the things that were removed from your list now requiring a unit of troops from another list? How about wanting to include two of the removed things not being possible since they come from "Good" and "Evil" lists, so you'd need two units of troops from different races, except you can't ally with both good and evil?

Please give me an example of this that isn't KoM war machines. It's already been mentioned ad nauseum that the KoM war machines were intended to be consolidated into the 2 current stat lines.

I wish the playtest forum were broken up by armylist. Such a mess to read anything currently.

 adamsouza wrote:
Tournaments possibly adding artificial restirctions to a game isn't a concern of a design team. There is no way to control what special rules TO's will come up with.
There is ALWAYS stuff that you could do then and now you can't in an edition change.

Of course, not, but then the argument that "don't worry, your Ogres will still be cool everywhere" etc don't fly, do they? There's really no good excuse for removing models from lists.

You either play the new edition, or give up an entire game, because they made changes you don't like, and move on to another game, until they ineviatabley make changes you don't like. I've been gaming for nearly 30 years and this cycle just repeats itself.

I've been gaming for longer than you. Who gives a gak? Attempted and failed dick measuring contest aside, how does a bad habit that's happened before make it fine for it to be happening again, especially when the manufacturer in this case specified that they wouldn't pull the same old gak?

How about the things that were removed from your list now requiring a unit of troops from another list? How about wanting to include two of the removed things not being possible since they come from "Good" and "Evil" lists, so you'd need two units of troops from different races, except you can't ally with both good and evil?

Please give me an example of this that isn't KoM war machines. It's already been mentioned ad nauseum that the KoM war machines were intended to be consolidated into the 2 current stat lines.

Mortars in Abyssal Dwarves and Organ Guns in Dwarves. Both removed from KoM for no real reason - especially in light of the fact that both War Machines' stats still exist in the game. Because Ronnie doesn't want KoM to be too much like The Empire is what I've seen mooted, which is a far cry from what was said and accepted two years ago, a year ago, and last month when they were the spunky underdog and KoM were a line they said they were not planning to make figures for, and wanted the list to be flexible enough to run Romans, Vikings, Empire or Btrettonians.

It's fine if you're happy with every one of the changes and the way it's all been handled, but don't expect me not to complain about the stuff I don't like. Which includes the horrible way that the whole thing is being handled and (un)balanced.

Mortars are still in, they are just called catapult. KoM habe 2 generic war machines which can be anything.
I like the idea and in my opinion it is better than having 6 different war machines which are more or less the same.

They only thing they should change would be to change the names into "generic indirekt fire warmachine" and add a smaller version to both (less damage, lower points)

Mantic official tournaments are intending on allowing Allies so they'll be taking the lead on it at least.

 adamsouza wrote:
Been reading the feedback on the Beta on the Mantic Blog, and I am dissapointed in some of the ridiculous complaints and people ignoring answers to their own questions.

In my experience, the further you move out of the GW bubble and its immediate satellites (PP, Corvus Belli...) the more ridiculous hobbyists you get. Try the TMP forums. Some people there literally still act exactly like nerds were portrayed in 80s media - the sad, dumb, mouth-breathing, awkward, obsessive-compulsive, middle-aged toy train collectors who get upset if anything in their little world gets moved one inch out of place.

 Azazelx wrote:

It's fine if you're happy with every one of the changes and the way it's all been handled, but don't expect me not to complain about the stuff I don't like. Which includes the horrible way that the whole thing is being handled and (un)balanced.

Which is what I've come to expect from you. I can't recall a post from you where you weren't complaining, and when any of it was constructive.

 adamsouza wrote:

 Azazelx wrote:

It's fine if you're happy with every one of the changes and the way it's all been handled, but don't expect me not to complain about the stuff I don't like. Which includes the horrible way that the whole thing is being handled and (un)balanced.

Which is what I've come to expect from you. I can't recall a post from you where you weren't complaining, and when any of it was constructive.

He makes a lot of great points, but doesn't candy coat them like some people do. I appreciate his comments, sometimes they are overboard, but most of those times I can see where he's frustrated and just venting. Let's remember to be nice

Any idea how long the beta test is to last? I get the impression that the books off to the printers soon.

^ 3 weeks.

 adamsouza wrote:

 Azazelx wrote:

It's fine if you're happy with every one of the changes and the way it's all been handled, but don't expect me not to complain about the stuff I don't like. Which includes the horrible way that the whole thing is being handled and (un)balanced.

Which is what I've come to expect from you. I can't recall a post from you where you weren't complaining, and when any of it was constructive.

You should probably read more in that case. Plenty that I say is constructive. Of course, if you already don't like me for whatever reason then your opinions of anything I type is going to be coloured negative, or ignored though that's no skin off my nose. Please feel free to continue with the ad hominems, though. Entertain yourself by all means.

Of course, if you think everything in this case is sweetness and light, if you think that asking the volunteer RC to repoint all units in the game within 1 week. If you think a 3-week playtest timetable is all reasonable, peachy-keen, and likely to be for the benefit rather then the detriment of the future of the game, then you're welcome to hold those beliefs.

If you think that my opinion that all of those things ridiculous and unreasonable makes me a bad person, then I'll just have to live with your disapproval.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 adamsouza wrote:
Been reading the feedback on the Beta on the Mantic Blog, and I am dissapointed in some of the ridiculous complaints and people ignoring answers to their own questions.

In my experience, the further you move out of the GW bubble and its immediate satellites (PP, Corvus Belli...) the more ridiculous hobbyists you get. Try the TMP forums. Some people there literally still act exactly like nerds were portrayed in 80s media - the sad, dumb, mouth-breathing, awkward, obsessive-compulsive, middle-aged toy train collectors who get upset if anything in their little world gets moved one inch out of place.

There are plenty in the "GW bubble" as well. It's part of the hobby. Just that the GW bubble is bigger, and so perhaps the "ridiculous" hobbyists stand out less. of course, this is the internet, so you'll always find people with ridiculous views, and always find people willing to lump any member of any online community together as a pack of idiots, seperate of course from the poster themselves. How often do we see "Dakka complains about this, then Dakka complains about that!" as though the population of this website is a hivemind...

 Azazelx wrote:
If you think that my opinion that all of those things ridiculous and unreasonable makes me a bad person, then I'll just have to live with your disapproval. .

I think you keep adding color commentary about my thoughts and motivations that are complete figments of your imagination, and I'm adding you back to my ignore list.

 Azazelx wrote:
How often do we see "Dakka complains about this, then Dakka complains about that!" as though the population of this website is a hivemind...

I completely agree

Well, from reading this (certainly within the context of people that read this thread) I will say that Deadleh's comments will have done more to damage KoW2's prospects than any production difficulties, resin problems or anything else that Mantic has slipped up with in the past.

Certainly interesting to read the comments, but must say I'm looking forward to some objective commentary and review of the new book.

 Azazelx wrote:


They can "push" for whatever they like, but we all know it won't happen in a lot of tourneys.

TOs can and will do what they like. Its only wargaming. In any case TOs and people who play in tournaments shouldn't mess with the rules or even attend tournaments, according to some games designers.

 adamsouza wrote:

 Azazelx wrote:
If you think that my opinion that all of those things ridiculous and unreasonable makes me a bad person, then I'll just have to live with your disapproval. .

I think you keep adding color commentary about my thoughts and motivations that are complete figments of your imagination, and I'm adding you back to my ignore list.

Works for me. I didn't even know I was there or removed. FWIW, most of your posts don't stand out in any way to me, I've always found it easy to gloss over your stuff without particularly caring one way or another.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Pacific wrote:
Well, from reading this (certainly within the context of people that read this thread) I will say that Deadleh's comments will have done more to damage KoW2's prospects than any production difficulties, resin problems or anything else that Mantic has slipped up with in the past.

He's far from the only one, though. If you read the comments by various members of the RC on the Mantic Beta forum, Daedleh's comments are reflected there by more than one of them, though perhaps less bluntly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Pete Melvin wrote:

 Azazelx wrote:

They can "push" for whatever they like, but we all know it won't happen in a lot of tourneys.

TOs can and will do what they like. Its only wargaming. In any case TOs and people who play in tournaments shouldn't mess with the rules or even attend tournaments, according to some games designers.

Well, Alessio was always apparently a tournament-oriented player, so with that kind of background you would imagine that absolute clarity of rules wording would be seen as not only valuable, but incredibly important. Which is why it's all very odd.

 Pacific wrote:
Well, from reading this (certainly within the context of people that read this thread) I will say that Deadleh's comments will have done more to damage KoW2's prospects than any production difficulties, resin problems or anything else that Mantic has slipped up with in the past.

If it gets enough community members to read the rules, test them, and voice their complaints, then it has done a great service to the game. If the voice is ignored or not sounded, then the unfixed weaknesses in the rules will do more to damage the brand than anything else save a whole lot of terrible minis.

I thoroughly detest any and all attitudes that encourage silence or biting ones tongue.

Especially since his complaints are valid and not some figment of his mind.

 Pacific wrote:
Well, from reading this (certainly within the context of people that read this thread) I will say that Deadleh's comments will have done more to damage KoW2's prospects than any production difficulties, resin problems or anything else that Mantic has slipped up with in the past.

I agree, totally.

It's amusing, really, the essence of what he has said is that KoW2 is straight up going to be better than KoW1.

However, the tone was so bad, that is what people have run with.

You say that as though there aren't a number of glaring problems? It's not just a tone people are "running with"

 NTRabbit wrote:
You say that as though there aren't a number of glaring problems? It's not just a tone people are "running with"

I would invite you to tell me of the ruleset that doesn't have something in it that can be exploited to a silly degree or doesn't ever marginalize a model/unit ever. This would indeed be a most interesting ruleset to use, especially if if's in the mass-battle fantasy genre as I have a large WHFB collection and have yet to play a single game of it. I'm dubious that such a thing exists, obviously, but if you know of one that please share the wealth, good sir. Assuming I am correct that such a thing does not exist, I will go back to the truism that "perfect is the enemy of good".

While the idea of AC ignoring the RC out of alphabetical prejudice (they're not even a vowel OR in the first half of the alphabet...dirty peons not understanding how the *C hierarchy works...) doesn't exactly make me want to rush out and buy the rules, judgedoug is correct that the overall assessment on the state of the rules from Daedelah (sorry if I butchered that) was positive. He just disliked the methods used, the personality clash and some of the "change for change's sake" maneuvers.

 NTRabbit wrote:
You say that as though there aren't a number of glaring problems? It's not just a tone people are "running with"

Which part of the rules? I've now read over the 2nd edition beta rules twice, and it's pretty much overall better than KoW1. I feel as though the hundred-plus games of KoW1 I've played in the last 2.5 years would give me the experience to know which part of the rules needed tweaking - and those parts have been addressed. AC and the RC, and Deadle's great efforts, look to have made an already fantastic game even better by polishing the few rough edges.

So, again, which part of the rules has been made worse?

Core rules are far better. Redoing all unit costs was an awkward idea.

 judgedoug wrote:

 NTRabbit wrote:
You say that as though there aren't a number of glaring problems? It's not just a tone people are "running with"

Which part of the rules? I've now read over the 2nd edition beta rules twice, and it's pretty much overall better than KoW1. I feel as though the hundred-plus games of KoW1 I've played in the last 2.5 years would give me the experience to know which part of the rules needed tweaking - and those parts have been addressed. AC and the RC, and Deadle's great efforts, look to have made an already fantastic game even better by polishing the few rough edges.

Why weren't you on the Rules Committee?!?

I'm pretty sure most people have a beef with building the units from the ground up, not with fixes to the core rules.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
I'm pretty sure most people have a beef with building the units from the ground up, not with fixes to the core rules.

^This. 90% of the beta-rage is being driven by changes (or lack of) to the army lists, not with the core rules where the consensus seems to be "a few little bits to tidy up".

 Alpharius wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:

 NTRabbit wrote:
You say that as though there aren't a number of glaring problems? It's not just a tone people are "running with"

Which part of the rules? I've now read over the 2nd edition beta rules twice, and it's pretty much overall better than KoW1. I feel as though the hundred-plus games of KoW1 I've played in the last 2.5 years would give me the experience to know which part of the rules needed tweaking - and those parts have been addressed. AC and the RC, and Deadle's great efforts, look to have made an already fantastic game even better by polishing the few rough edges.

Why weren't you on the Rules Committee?!?

Shrug, I didn't play any tournaments or anything, just a LOT of KoW. I have four fully painted armies and another four waiting in the wings, haha. I'm also a Warlord Games "Sarge" demo guy for Bolt Action since late 2013, so maybe that would have been a conflict?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Baragash wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
I'm pretty sure most people have a beef with building the units from the ground up, not with fixes to the core rules.

^This. 90% of the beta-rage is being driven by changes (or lack of) to the army lists, not with the core rules where the consensus seems to be "a few little bits to tidy up".

Gotcha. Well, I'll be hopefully getting in a few games this week. I'm going to try one each with my Dwarves, Basileans, Orcs, and Goblins. And I just remembered I have my Greek Kingdoms of Men army, so, Alpharius, actually, 5 painted armies, doh!

I reviewed the Beta list, and aside from typical angst about my units changing slightly, I think the changes are for the best. In my opinion, Warmachines needed a pretty big nerf, and got a least a decent nerf. Hevay Cav needed toned down, and got it. More rules scale, and a lot of wonkiness in the troop/regiment/horde heirarchy were resolved.

Having good units and bad units isn't the end of the world for a game. Nearly every game, including rigorously tested games like Warmachine, have bad units (although PP enthusiasts would still claim that they are just niche, not bad).

The biggest problem wasn't that unit x was better than unit y, but that entire archtypes were better than others. Warmachines were simply the best, heavy cav was next best, and shooting units were pretty mediocre. I'm going to assume that the points are reasonably balanced. If they aren't, than KoW does what every other game does: adapt. I'm curious what Mantic will do to keep the game fresh over the next few years without a new army list.

I've found this rules talk all very interesting indeed, especially as it comes on the heels of an interview Beasts of War did with Dave, the creator / rules writer of Dropzone Commander last week.




I find the varying approaches to rules design to be very interesting indeed.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
I'm pretty sure most people have a beef with building the units from the ground up, not with fixes to the core rules.

This.

Asking the RC to repoint everything within a week (how and why is it their job, exactly?) and a 3-week playtest period both seem extremely problematic. Alessio working one day a week on it seems like a poor choice as well, whether/regardless of it's on the part of Alessio or Ronnie. Given that it's a Flagship game for Mantic and has a "hard" deadline set by KS - as it seems to be quite behind schedule leading to those very important elements being rushed.

The wholesale removal of units and named characters (Wights, Priests, Pentinents, The Captain, Beresos) "removal" of unique units who's stats remain in the game for other armies via consolidation into "Crossbows and Catapults" (KoM Organ Guns, Mortars), and the addition/rewrite of another army list into one featuring quite a few WH-style individual unit rules rather than KoW-style USRs. No-show for the Dark Elves List (I think this is simply an anti-Raging Heroes KS tactical move) These things don't endear, especially as they appear to have been a surprise to all including the RC - and with the aforementioned 3-week timetable... well, some say three weeks, others say "we don't know" - neither is especially good when months should really be had in order to balance all those points changes...