Switch Theme:

Mantic Games - Warpath Universe News and Rumours  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in au
Screaming Shining Spear





Adelaide, Australia

They've pretty much stated outright that the Warpath campaign is going to be a carbon copy of the KoW 2E campaign, short and sharp, 3 pledge levels (rules, army, mega army/2 army), and focussed on completing the missing units for the first 4 armies before moving onto the next 2, and wilder stuff like Z'Zor has already been explicitly ruled out.

   
Made in gb
Novice Knight Errant Pilot






Stew has replied to some questions in the alpha feedback thread. It looks like hubs are being added to the extra rules section if you don't use the multi basing trays, which they have playtested as 60mm x 90mm. Unit bases will be for 5 normal sized infantry or 2 large infantry and will be standard. The bases are being designed to allow the models to be removable for use in ff and dz aswell.


http://thelaughterofthedamned.blogspot.co.uk/
 
   
Made in us
Near Golden Daemon Caliber






Illinois

Oh man... I could have some fun with a 60x90mm tray... Especially with socketable/removable models, lets you make every 5 guys into a mini-dio. If you want.

So if you're doing 60x90 5-man multibases... that means a bigger squad of 20-30 will have 4-6 multibases, which will have to have coherency probably? Basically moving around a unit of 'slightly larger than dreadnoughts'. This seems acceptable. Enemy fire will either remove a whole fireteam or just add to the stress of the unit until a fireteam can be removed? Or would a unit of 5 multibases still only have models removed if the unit lost it's nerve? I guess the later from what we've been hearing. Interesting either way.

 
   
Made in gb
Novice Knight Errant Pilot






 GrimDork wrote:
Oh man... I could have some fun with a 60x90mm tray... Especially with socketable/removable models, lets you make every 5 guys into a mini-dio. If you want.

So if you're doing 60x90 5-man multibases... that means a bigger squad of 20-30 will have 4-6 multibases, which will have to have coherency probably? Basically moving around a unit of 'slightly larger than dreadnoughts'. This seems acceptable. Enemy fire will either remove a whole fireteam or just add to the stress of the unit until a fireteam can be removed? Or would a unit of 5 multibases still only have models removed if the unit lost it's nerve? I guess the later from what we've been hearing. Interesting either way.


I believe you need to do enough damage to remove a full team and excess is discarded, however suppression caused by damage stays and can build up breaking a unit. However you can remove suppression through actions. You never remove individual models only teams.


http://thelaughterofthedamned.blogspot.co.uk/
 
   
Made in us
Near Golden Daemon Caliber






Illinois

Yeah that's what I meant. I wasn't sure if they were going to go with KoW style such that your nerve had to be broken via a test to wipe the whole unit and otherwise it was at 100%, or that you could pop up individual fireteams as the unit got damaged.

What you just said sounds awesome. Basically you roll dice to determine damage and either 'wound' the unit or not by removing individual fire teams. The unit builds up suppression which would be simple to track with a dice or a little scrolling card-counter thing (like x-wing but just numbers, etc) and if they end up panicking you can remove the whole blob too.

Basically, you go from having 20 individuals to having 5 larger groups made of individuals (who don't technically matter). So each unit is made of teams, which can still be removed individually like 40k refugees are used to. Kind of like having a unit of monstrous creatures, except without wound tracking...only whole elements are removed when the damage is enough, with the suppression mechanic making the extra damage not seem trivial.

I'm probably filling in some of my own blanks here.. but it sounds pretty cool to me.

 
   
Made in gb
Novice Knight Errant Pilot






 GrimDork wrote:
Yeah that's what I meant. I wasn't sure if they were going to go with KoW style such that your nerve had to be broken via a test to wipe the whole unit and otherwise it was at 100%, or that you could pop up individual fireteams as the unit got damaged.

What you just said sounds awesome. Basically you roll dice to determine damage and either 'wound' the unit or not by removing individual fire teams. The unit builds up suppression which would be simple to track with a dice or a little scrolling card-counter thing (like x-wing but just numbers, etc) and if they end up panicking you can remove the whole blob too.

Basically, you go from having 20 individuals to having 5 larger groups made of individuals (who don't technically matter). So each unit is made of teams, which can still be removed individually like 40k refugees are used to. Kind of like having a unit of monstrous creatures, except without wound tracking...only whole elements are removed when the damage is enough, with the suppression mechanic making the extra damage not seem trivial.

I'm probably filling in some of my own blanks here.. but it sounds pretty cool to me.


yep, thats the gist of it, although not really my cup of tea for 28mm, it reminds me epic 40k.


http://thelaughterofthedamned.blogspot.co.uk/
 
   
Made in us
Near Golden Daemon Caliber






Illinois

Well, I mean I prefer 10-20 man skirmish myself these days... but if I have a chance to bring all the boys out at once, that gist seems relatively solid to me. Will be interested to see how the multibases work with scenery and cover/terrain mechanics.

Single-wide BZ towers will be a mess as the bases would hang over, but 3" BZ panel shelves would work. Or just put a couple of them on top of a 6x6'' roof or something.

 
   
Made in gb
Novice Knight Errant Pilot






 GrimDork wrote:
Well, I mean I prefer 10-20 man skirmish myself these days... but if I have a chance to bring all the boys out at once, that gist seems relatively solid to me. Will be interested to see how the multibases work with scenery and cover/terrain mechanics.

Single-wide BZ towers will be a mess as the bases would hang over, but 3" BZ panel shelves would work. Or just put a couple of them on top of a 6x6'' roof or something.


I believe when you enter a building with a unit, the unit bases are removed and the building then counts as the unit, that way you wouldn't need to balance figures on the terrain. If you kept your figures removable you could put a few on the scenery to representing them garrisoning it. As for cover if half the hub is concealed then it counts as being behind/in cover, which would be much easier than micromanaging the individual hubs the previous version had.


http://thelaughterofthedamned.blogspot.co.uk/
 
   
Made in us
Thermo-Optical Tuareg





California

So, I haven't paid much attention to the alpha rules. What is the whole "hub" thing you guys keep talking about? Is it basically just movement trays?

   
Made in us
Loyal Necron Lychguard






Palm Beach, FL

Hubs were leaders of small 5 man miniteams within a unit. To move, you'd move the hubs, and then move the rest of the models, such that the models aren't more than 2" away from their respective hubs.

I never had as much a problem moving as some people - for the giant unit of Zombies from the test lists, I'd move the 6 hubs and then the 24 dudes would just be placed wherever appropriate. It didn't really matter weather or not two regular dudes swapped teams.
   
Made in au
Veteran Inquisitorial Tyranid Xenokiller




Down Under

That sounds reasonable, there has to be more to it for all the Hub-Hate?

Glory is fleeting. Obscurity is forever.




 
   
Made in at
Second Story Man





Austria

The HUB hate is because if everything is measured from the unit leader and the unit does not suffer from getting damage all other models are just placeholders and not necessary for the game.

So you can play with 1 model per unit instead of 10 and that's why some don't like because in 40k their models are at least wound markers......

and the idea to have just one leader which does everything necessary and the unit has just to be in his command range is nothing new.
That's also the reason why Starship Troopers has no problem with 100 Bugs VS a 3 model Marauder army.

But Warpath has some other problems.
They want to make something unique but still stay close to 40k and listen to those who want to change it more into another 40k like game.
It is also a mix of a Action/Reaction System and IGYG which would get the game into a lot of troubles later.


For Firefight, it would be better to skip it and just add some additional rules to Deadzone for games with more models.

Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise 
   
Made in au
Screaming Shining Spear





Adelaide, Australia

Deadzone doesn't scale up that large, turns into too much time consuming micromanagement.

Firefight is the critical ruleset, and it always should have been - we needed a scaleable rule set that started at the Firefight level, and had rules at the back for scaling up to mass battle. The hate is because they started with a mass battle rule set that could not scale down, and hand waved the problem away as solver by the hub setup - which was disliked by a different group of people for being obtuse and clunky in the mass battle game - until enough people complained that wasn't what was promised.

Firefight absolutely cannot be "skipped". Skipping it makes Warpath DOA.

   
Made in at
Second Story Man





Austria

And because Deadzone doesn't scale it need additional rules.
Scaling up the basic Deadzone to a 30 Model Game would be better to scale down Warpath.

And I still see now reason why Firefight is needed.
People want a 40k size game and got Warpath, which uses less models than 40k (standard is here 1750 points and a normal Space Marine amry would have double to model count than the planed Enforcer army for standard size Warpath).

Than people are asking for a smaller 40k size game which should scale up to a model count similar to 40k.
But than Firefight will have the same problems because some players still believe that 40k is not a mass battle game and don't want to use rules that would fit the game size better.

so the hate against warpath was just because Mantic uses the term Mass-Battle, which is the right term, but people wanted a Skirmish game with 60 models per side like 40k which is stupid because a real Skirmish will never work with at this scale


And if you want a ruleset which scales perfect from 5 models per side to 200 models per side, than you need to take Starship Troopers post Klendathu to be your basic ruleset (and not a 40k like game)

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/09/21 08:01:45


Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise 
   
Made in gb
Pious Warrior Priest




UK

Deadzone: Less than 20 models.
Firefight: 20-60 models.
Warpath: 60+ models.

Roughly speaking, with some big variation depending on personal preference (especially between Warpath and Firefight)).

Also, Warpath isn't IGYG, it is alternate activation, with overwatch and charge reactions.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/09/21 08:11:55


 
   
Made in au
Screaming Shining Spear





Adelaide, Australia

 kodos wrote:
And because Deadzone doesn't scale it need additional rules.
Scaling up the basic Deadzone to a 30 Model Game would be better to scale down Warpath.

And I still see now reason why Firefight is needed.
People want a 40k size game and got Warpath, which uses less models than 40k (standard is here 1750 points and a normal Space Marine amry would have double to model count than the planed Enforcer army for standard size Warpath).

Than people are asking for a smaller 40k size game which should scale up to a model count similar to 40k.
But than Firefight will have the same problems because some players still believe that 40k is not a mass battle game and don't want to use rules that would fit the game size better.

so the hate against warpath was just because Mantic uses the term Mass-Battle, which is the right term, but people wanted a Skirmish game with 60 models per side like 40k which is stupid because a real Skirmish will never work with at this scale


And if you want a ruleset which scales perfect from 5 models per side to 200 models per side, than you need to take Starship Troopers post Klendathu to be your basic ruleset (and not a 40k like game)


Additional rules would not help scale Deadzone because it's not designed to do that, just as the first Warpath alpha document was designed for 60-150 models a side at a minimum and could not scale down. Tacking on bits that were never meant to be there in the first place is how you end up with Frankenstein rules, a confusing and contradictory mess.

The right thing to do would have been to make a rule set that was designed from the beginning to start at 20-60 models and scale up seamlessly. Instead, because Mantic were laser focussed on mass battles but wanted caveats for smaller stuff rather than the second set of rules they promimed earlier, we got a Mass Battle rule set that was compromised, by things like hubs, in order to try and cover the much demanded smaller battles - which it failed to do anyway. That's why the rethink now.

Also, the "you just want not-40k" is frequently thrown around by the Mass Battle only posters on the Mantic forums, and it's as hollow a claim here as it is there, same as the jibes to "go pick one of the hundreds of other rule sets instead". I want a tactical, sci fi wargame based on small numbers of small squads with 1-2 vehicles, that actually have room for meaningful movements and tactics on a 6x4 table. I find the numbers spoken about in the mass battle rule set to be so constricting as to turn a normal sized table into Napoleonic firing lines. This is just holding Mantic to the higher standard to which they should be held.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/09/21 09:17:24


   
Made in us
Major




In a van down by the river

Trying to frame the "Why Firefight?" discussion differently, you need to look at reality to discover why there is no one-size-fits-all ruleset that you can simply bolt-on rules to and have it work well. Here's some simple words you can find in most any military lexicon:

Squad/Section
Platoon
Company

A squad leader is concerned about his men. A platoon leader concerned about his squads and a company commander concerned about his platoons. Notice the level of abstraction that goes from individual, to small groups to bigger groups. Each man is likely keeping tabs on the same number of individuals, but those individuals represent many more people as you go up the chain. This structure is in place for a reason; the military is very conservative, but they do have a very keen grasp of how the mind works and what it is capable of. Now, let's stick some numbers with those words:

Squad/Section - 8-14
Platoon - 15-30
Company - 80-250

Now, those numbers aren't hard-and-fast as you can reinforce each of those elements to get a smidge under double the numbers and still be functionally correct with the phrase "reinforced platoon." Coincidentally, a company is probably the largest tactical unit in an army; once you start dealing with battalions or regiments you're crossing over to a more strategic simulation.

WarPath Alpha was clearly aimed at being a company-level simulation, which is fine and I think when you look at the things required by that level of abstraction that most of the design choices are understandable. DeadZone is a squad-based game, where there's much more tracking of individuals and the like, still very abstracted compared to some squad-systems, but really not intended for large numbers.

However, that leaves a hole at the platoon-level simulation. Scaling up DeadZone doesn't really work, for the same reason that scaling up 40k to Apocalypse level tends to not really work that well. Yes, the rules will function but the games take far longer than desired and you can feel the gears of the ruleset grinding a bit. You have too much detail in the simulation for the level you're going for. Similarly, scaling down WarPath Alpha is unsatisfying for the same reason playing a game of 40k with 8 models is not as fun as playing a system like Infinity, Necromunda or Mordheim; there's less on the table so the abstraction level is too high and the game is over too little thought given to squads (i.e. - the simulation is not representative).

Does that mean that bolt-ons cannot work? No, in fact for certain scenarios like tournaments the higher level of abstraction may mean more games played which could be more important. However, in general it does mean that you're trying to shoehorn in something that wasn't meant to do the job. It works at a basic level, but strapping a rocket to a brick is not quite the same thing as "flying" either.
   
Made in au
Longtime Dakkanaut





Melbourne, Australia

KS up.

And funded.


The galaxy is littered with the single-planet graveyards of civilisations which made the economically sensible decision not to explore space. 
   
Made in ie
Fixture of Dakka






Probably best to keep the KS talk to the other thread http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/663623.page

I'll keep this one updated with news and rumours, if both threads get used for the same thing this one will probably get locked like the last one did (and then the KS thread got moved out of N&R requiring this new thread)
   
Made in si
Foxy Wildborne







Heads up, I got my DBX missing parts today without ever having received a reply to my missing order form.

Posters on ignore list: 36

40k Potica Edition - 40k patch with reactions, suppression and all that good stuff. Feedback thread here.

Gangs of Nu Ork - Necromunda / Gorkamorka expansion supporting all faction. Feedback thread here
   
Made in ie
Fixture of Dakka






Jake has posted new blog posts about Deadzone Redux (the new name for the core rules) - http://quirkworthy.com/

looks like individual cards are out in favour of a faction reference sheet and force composition is now based on what leader you pick.


Cards in Deadzone Redux

I’ve had a few queries about cards in the upcoming Deadzone Redux, so I thought I’d answer them here by explaining my current thinking on the topic.

When we started looking at updating the rules, I read a lot of comments online and talked to a lot of DZ fanatics about what they saw as strengths and weaknesses in the game. The chaps at Mantic also had ideas about what they thought had worked and what had fallen short. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, and allows you to see all sorts of things you could have done better

I took this collection of broad notions and started working on mechanics that would make them happen in a final product. After some experiments I pitched a series of different versions to Ronnie and the crew, and they liked one that was quite dramatically modified from the original. Well, it is and it isn’t. The vibe is recognisably Deadzone and the core rules are sometimes identical, it’s just that I’ve done a great deal of streamlining to make it faster and bloodier so it feels more heavily changed that it actually is.

Regardless of the technicalities of the rules, what’s great for me is that everyone who’s tried the new game raves about how much they love it

In the process of making these changes I’ve replaced all the existing cards with processes that simply work better. Like I said, some dramatic changes.

I’m not going to tell you all the details just yet, but let me explore some of the basics.

Cards in DZ fall into 3 types: stat, battle and mission.

As I mentioned in my overview of the new army building, this is now focussed firmly on the commander’s character, and for this reason the individual trooper stat cards are no longer as useful. What I’m experimenting with currently is an army reference sheet – one per commander – that has all his army’s details on. So, if you had reference cards for 3 different Enforcer commanders there would be considerable overlap, but each would be different. This army reference sheet would therefore be used both for building an army and playing the game, which I find quite appealing. In terms of size, I’m thinking no bigger than both sides of a single A4 sheet, and smaller if we can get all the info in less space (or on one side). This would include the stats for the army, unit selection options, weapon stats, army special rule and missions.

Battle cards have been replaced by a more dynamic system that avoids some of the cancelling effect the earlier cards had: I play a card and you play a counter which takes time but has no actual effect on the tabletop. I don’t mind this approach to card play in the right place, I just think that the new approach is far superior for Deadzone. You’ll notice how I didn’t tell you exactly what this approach was. It’s one of the core changes in DZR and I’ll come back to deal with it in its own post so I have the room to discuss it properly. Stick to cards for now.

The final type of old cards are the mission cards. I really like the idea of faction specific missions and felt it could be developed further. The new army building approach is commander focussed, so I wanted to make the mission characterisation that level too. I’ve kept a couple of core missions that anyone can do, but with more individualised missions the definition is at the commander-specific army level, meaning that these will be on the army reference sheet I mentioned above and will be appropriate for that specific army. Obviously there will be overlap between factions, it’s just that the specific combination of missions can be tailored to suit each commander, which should allow us to balance the armies better.

So the old cards are superseded by better ways to do similar things. You still have stats and missions on hand to refer to, and can still change the course of the battle in your favour by carefully using a limited resource of tweaks and buffs. It’s just all slicker now



Deadzone Redux Army Building

I answered a question on this in the comments of an earlier post. However, knowing how often these things get missed, I thought I’d pull it out and make it a post for everyone to see.

We’re not done with this yet, so expect more details over the next few weeks as it gets more refined. Overall, my aim is to include as much character within a simple process as possible. For the moment, it works like this:

You start by choosing a commander. This choice then influences everything else. Each faction will have several commanders to pick from, each with their own way of winning battles. Some commanders are more assault-oriented, and others more shooty. Some like balanced forces and others go all-out for a single type of troops. This is all reflected in the next step.

Your choice of commander determines the troop, weapon and equipment options you can pick from. So, if you pick Sergeant Howlett as your commander you’d have access to lots of assault troops and specialists that back up that way of fighting, but much less of everything else. As you’d expect.

Unit choices are currently along the lines of you can take 0-1 of these or 1-3 of those, with the options and upgrades being allocated on a per-commander basis to maximise the character of each force. So, to stick with Howlett, he must take some assault Enforcers. Anything else would simply not reflect his character.

One of the nice things about this approach is that we can simply add a new characterful force list if we make a new commander. So the Warpath background can expand as it needs to, and Deadzone can grow alongside it.

Another nice facet of this approach is that it can be used to limit the cherry-picking approach that is designed purely to win at all costs and ignores the story and character of the universe. Instead, the forces can be designed to include both advantages and disadvantages which makes for a much more interesting tactical challenge on the tabletop. Howlett is really nasty up close, but he struggles at a distance because that’s simply not how he fights. And overcoming that struggle is part of the fun

   
Made in gb
Pious Warrior Priest




UK

The commander thing is news to me, looks like it will be a similar system to DBX with the army list and/ or points costs changing depending on who your leader is.

Not sure what that means for campaign play if your leader then ides, or if you have multiple leaders...

I can confirm that the replacement for battle cards (and command actions, too) is much better than what existed previously.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/09/23 17:27:38


 
   
Made in gb
Noise Marine Terminator with Sonic Blaster





Melbourne

 scarletsquig wrote:
The commander thing is news to me


So a normal day on a Mantic RC then

Ex-Mantic Rules Committees: Kings of War, Warpath
"The Emperor is obviously not a dictator, he's a couch."
Starbuck: "Why can't we use the starboard launch bays?"
Engineer: "Because it's a gift shop!" 
   
Made in ie
Fixture of Dakka






Plague Aberration - he's on a 60mm base but will be shrunk slightly to fit better.





Chief Mauhulakh and the Orc Sky Scraper.



   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





The Battle Barge Buffet Line

 Vain wrote:
That sounds reasonable, there has to be more to it for all the Hub-Hate?


I believe a better term would be hub-bub.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 DaveC wrote:
Plague Aberration - he's on a 60mm base but will be shrunk slightly to fit better.




That does look pretty cool. Kind of like one of the comic book/movie/videogame versions of the Hulk's Abomination.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/09/23 19:28:44


We Munch for Macragge! FOR THE EMPRUH! Cheesesticks and Humus!
 
   
Made in us
Legendary Master of the Chapter





SoCal

I like that abomination, although not quite as much as I like the Plague G1 Doomsday. The Mantic proportions work pretty well for the kind of rage beast he appears to be, in my opinion. The sculpting looks good on the face and limbs, but I think he could use a bit more texture work; the spikes on his shoulders look more like Super Saiyajin hair than bone and sinew.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The two orx Jango Fetts look pretty boring to me. Their center lines are lacking any real motion, which gives them a very stiff, static appearance for a pair of rocketeers.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/09/23 19:39:20


   
Made in us
Experienced Saurus Scar-Veteran





California the Southern

I agree with Bob- the Marauders look way too static to be in flight, or hovering, or however they're going about their business.

Mantic better not shrink that Aberration like they mentioned. The bigger, the better in that thing's case.

Poorly lit photos of my ever- growing collection of completely unrelated models!

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/627383.page#7436324.html
Watch and listen to me ramble about these minis before ruining them with paint!
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmCB2mWIxhYF8Q36d2Am_2A 
   
Made in au
Longtime Dakkanaut





Melbourne, Australia

 scarletsquig wrote:
The commander thing is news to me, looks like it will be a similar system to DBX with the army list and/ or points costs changing depending on who your leader is.


The way Ronnie was explaining it on the Mantic NA podcast it came across as if it would be like wacrasters in Warmachine, in that you could have the entire same army but swapping the commander would give it a different flavour as bonuses were given and taken away from one commander to the next.

I really like the sound of it, and it's a way to really make the high cost armies like the Forcers have some variety.

The galaxy is littered with the single-planet graveyards of civilisations which made the economically sensible decision not to explore space. 
   
Made in gb
Pious Warrior Priest




UK

I see how it could work, I've simply never been a fan of special characters and the choice of leader determining the models you can play with.

I'm mainly hoping it isn't some DBX thing where I need a multi-page spreadsheet to put together a simple list, I have an extensive collection of DZ miniatures and really don't want to have to use Howlett if I want to use my assault Enforcer minis or whatever.

I'd much rather have balanced points values rather than special characters that come with their own fixed strike teams.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2015/09/23 21:10:19


 
   
Made in si
Foxy Wildborne







Well, if it's bad, I'll just continue building on my own patch.

I do quite like how the leader ability works in Relic Knights and in Wrath of Kings.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/09/23 21:16:49


Posters on ignore list: 36

40k Potica Edition - 40k patch with reactions, suppression and all that good stuff. Feedback thread here.

Gangs of Nu Ork - Necromunda / Gorkamorka expansion supporting all faction. Feedback thread here
   
 
Forum Index » News & Rumors
Go to: