NobodyXY wrote:
How could you even model that? Do they have an androgynous third sex like the humans in Knights of Sidonia? Looks like impaled guy might have three weapons or they have an arrow bundle. The Interceptor looks really cool and has an XCOM vibe. That paint job looks very basic or unfinished though. A little bit of weathering on the bigger enforcer models would be cool.

 judgedoug wrote:
I ordered a bunch, but now I wish I had ordered twice as many.

 GrimDork wrote:
Warpath kickstarter apparently hits on the 21st this month.
Dun
Dun
Duuu'uuun!

 judgedoug wrote:
At this point there's no way I won't at least get the "sweet spot" plege; every Mantic KS has always been worth it at that level.

 Da Boss wrote:
Interesting. I'll be watching this, but mostly for the rules I think. I'm not a big fan of Mantic's universe, and would probably rather kitbash minis. But I do like the idea of a squad based game.

 JoshInJapan wrote:
I'm Kickstarted out for the year, and probably for a while into next year. I'll watch it, but I can't afford any new toys for quite a while.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
I could say something unkind about them probably being out of money to fulfill the previous kickstarters. Seriously, almost nothing new from KoW2 has been produced yet and absolutely nothing from DZ2.

 Alpharius wrote:
I want to believe...

...and I also want a plastic Space Dwarf army!

 Alpharius wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
I could say something unkind about them probably being out of money to fulfill the previous kickstarters. Seriously, almost nothing new from KoW2 has been produced yet and absolutely nothing from DZ2.

If this is indeed the case, that is rather...troubling.

Hopefully everything's OK over there in...Nottingham.

 adamsouza wrote:
Day 1 I'm going to pledge the $150 sweet spot and then just check back on the last day to see how ridiculously it has grown

 GrimDork wrote:
I have too much fun watching the ups and downs. Though, towards the second half of DBX I just clocked out and stopped paying attention

 NTRabbit wrote:
Corporation vs Z'Zor as the 2 player starter box and the opening hard plastic salvos in the Warpath KS has long been rumoured.

 Alex C wrote:

 NTRabbit wrote:
Corporation vs Z'Zor as the 2 player starter box and the opening hard plastic salvos in the Warpath KS has long been rumoured.

Corp. Vs. Z'zor Warpath starter rumor was debunked back during the DZ2 KS.

It will be a thing, but it will be for a future DZ product, not Warpath.

 NTRabbit wrote:

 Alex C wrote:

 NTRabbit wrote:
Corporation vs Z'Zor as the 2 player starter box and the opening hard plastic salvos in the Warpath KS has long been rumoured.

Corp. Vs. Z'zor Warpath starter rumor was debunked back during the DZ2 KS.

It will be a thing, but it will be for a future DZ product, not Warpath.

I don't recall that

 NTRabbit wrote:
I rarely, if ever, read the comments on a large kickstarter. Thousands of posts a day that are 90% inane and unrelated crap that could go on a forum, 8% creepy and disturbing requests from backers I'd rather not associate with, and then 2% stuff that's useful but tends to end up in the next update anyway.

Mantic wrote:Corp and Z'zor are reserved for a future Deadzone set

 Azazelx wrote:
I wonder if this is being Kickstarted now in reaction to the Gates of Antares Starter Boxed set that's about to be released? Or if it's a factor at all?

 Azazelx wrote:
...unless they change their minds, like they did with this KS being now.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
The plague 3A are the really terrible ones with the Mantic Torsos, right? Seems like A pretty big waste of resources making them into plastic.

 GrimDork wrote:
I'd be down for a crap load of plague troops. Not into doing a hundred of them in restic, but plastic I could see. Fun to paint. Looking forward to kitbashing in those dbx mutant bits in with my remaining restic supply.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Am I the only one who bought DBX stuff to play DBX with?

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Am I the only one who bought DBX stuff to play DBX with?

overtyrant wrote:
Wow I'm glad I didn't get any pathfinders, 3 of them look like they have a major waist problem!

overtyrant wrote:
Surely your waist is not going to be that thin in armor, even for a women! Should you even be able to tell by the waist at 28mm if a model is a female or not?

 dragqueeninspace wrote:

overtyrant wrote:
Wow I'm glad I didn't get any pathfinders, 3 of them look like they have a major waist problem!

I don't think that is a problem but a side effect of being chicks.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Other than that, though, I'm glad Mantic is at least trying to add some women to their Sci Fi minis roster.

 judgedoug wrote:

But they don't have shapely bosom armor, high heeled jackboots, electro whips and nip-spikes. How do I know they're women?

BobtheInquisitor wrote:The hips should have been the differentiating part then, no? Typically, when I see a woman with the same hip shape and width as a man's, she doesn't have some tiny little waist above it. That's just photoshop fails bad. #bodyhorror

RedSarge wrote:Remember lads, at 28mm scale things need to be exaggerated a little bit for us wargaming blokes.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 dragqueeninspace wrote:

overtyrant wrote:
Wow I'm glad I didn't get any pathfinders, 3 of them look like they have a major waist problem!

I don't think that is a problem but a side effect of being chicks.

The hips should have been the differentiating part then, no? Typically, when I see a woman with the same hip shape and width as a man's, she doesn't have some tiny little waist above it. That's just photoshop fails bad. #bodyhorror

Other than that, though, I'm glad Mantic is at least trying to add some women to their Sci Fi minis roster.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 dragqueeninspace wrote:

overtyrant wrote:
Wow I'm glad I didn't get any pathfinders, 3 of them look like they have a major waist problem!

I don't think that is a problem but a side effect of being chicks.

The hips should have been the differentiating part then, no? Typically, when I see a woman with the same hip shape and width as a man's, she doesn't have some tiny little waist above it. That's just photoshop fails bad. #bodyhorror

overtyrant wrote:
They just don't look right to me, the males are absolutely fine but the females waist looks like the have some sort of torture girdle on.

 Alex C wrote:
The way that Enforcers come into being, it wouldn't surprise me if they were pumped full of testosterone...

 Vermis wrote:
Very... nineties look to those sprue bits and layouts. Gonna be honest, I have doubts these'll look very natural when built. Serviceable, maybe, but off.

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 dragqueeninspace wrote:

overtyrant wrote:
Wow I'm glad I didn't get any pathfinders, 3 of them look like they have a major waist problem!

I don't think that is a problem but a side effect of being chicks.

The hips should have been the differentiating part then, no? Typically, when I see a woman with the same hip shape and width as a man's, she doesn't have some tiny little waist above it. That's just photoshop fails bad. #bodyhorror

Other than that, though, I'm glad Mantic is at least trying to add some women to their Sci Fi minis roster.

 AlexHolker wrote:

 Alex C wrote:
The way that Enforcers come into being, it wouldn't surprise me if they were pumped full of testosterone...

That's not an excuse. Only an idiot invents reasons to produce miniatures that nobody wants, and nobody who wants female miniatures wants them to be man-shaped.

 Alex C wrote:
This whole discussion, to me anyway, seems like nitpicking just to find something to have a go at Mantic about.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Yeah, honestly I think they look fine. Not really getting the hate. But it's a mantic thread, so the usual haters will hate.

Women have smaller frames than the men, and aren't overly sexualized. Isn't this supposed to be a good thing? And mantic isn't taking the "fear of females other than elves" approach. I just...some people want to bitch simply to bitch.

 judgedoug wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Other than that, though, I'm glad Mantic is at least trying to add some women to their Sci Fi minis roster.

But they don't have shapely bosom armor, high heeled jackboots, electro whips and nip-spikes. How do I know they're women?

 dragqueeninspace wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 dragqueeninspace wrote:

overtyrant wrote:
Wow I'm glad I didn't get any pathfinders, 3 of them look like they have a major waist problem!

I don't think that is a problem but a side effect of being chicks.

The hips should have been the differentiating part then, no? Typically, when I see a woman with the same hip shape and width as a man's, she doesn't have some tiny little waist above it. That's just photoshop fails bad. #bodyhorror

Other than that, though, I'm glad Mantic is at least trying to add some women to their Sci Fi minis roster.

when looking at something like this the ratio/relationship of hip, waist and chest is far more important that the absolute size especially when dealing with size differences of approx 1mm. If it was me then I would have done it the same way if only to avoid the risk of having two male figures and three male figures with fat asses.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

Well, maybe I can justify buying a sprue for the robot dog.

 CptJake wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

Well, maybe I can justify buying a sprue for the robot dog.

I have a couple sprues coming. When they arrive if you want a robot dog it is yours. Damned things are way to silly for my tastes.

 judgedoug wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Other than that, though, I'm glad Mantic is at least trying to add some women to their Sci Fi minis roster.

But they don't have shapely bosom armor, high heeled jackboots, electro whips and nip-spikes. How do I know they're women?

Spoiler:

 judgedoug wrote:
It looks to me like the models are wearing a sort of standard issue body armor and clothing, the female figure just happens to be slighter.

That is 100% perfect for me. I hate cheesecake, personally.

 streetsamurai wrote:

Are these the plastic pathfinders ?

 DaveC wrote:
Forgefather Tank WIP

 MLaw wrote:
Looks to be a turret to me. Either way, as someone who has been buying FF stuff I'm glad that tank doesn't have a beard

 MLaw wrote:
Looks to be a turret to me. Either way, as someone who has been buying FF stuff I'm glad that tank doesn't have a beard

 judgedoug wrote:
That looks simply terrible.

 MLaw wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:
That looks simply terrible.

Those are likely the blocking shapes to establish the masses that the sculpt will be based on. WiP means work in progress if you're unfamiliar with that particular acronym.

 judgedoug wrote:
That looks simply terrible.

 judgedoug wrote:
so I'm guessing that if you shoot at it from the front, you get a "Bullet Catcher" bonus since the rounds will impact on those ridges and the force will be directed internally.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MLaw wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:
That looks simply terrible.

Those are likely the blocking shapes to establish the masses that the sculpt will be based on. WiP means work in progress if you're unfamiliar with that particular acronym.

You can only polish a turd but so much

 Alex C wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:
That looks simply terrible.

Of course it does, it's not finished.

Looks very close to the concept artwork though, by the time it's done I'm sure it will look miles better.

That's assuming you like Space Dwarf Face-Tanks using a chassis derived from the most competitive robot shape on Battlebots.

 Alex C wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:
That looks simply terrible.

Of course it does, it's not finished.

Looks very close to the concept artwork though, by the time it's done I'm sure it will look miles better.

That's assuming you like Space Dwarf Face-Tanks using a chassis derived from the most competitive robot shape on Battlebots.

 judgedoug wrote:
so I'm guessing that if you shoot at it from the front, you get a "Bullet Catcher" bonus since the rounds will impact on those ridges and the force will be directed internally.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MLaw wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:
That looks simply terrible.

Those are likely the blocking shapes to establish the masses that the sculpt will be based on. WiP means work in progress if you're unfamiliar with that particular acronym.

You can only polish a turd but so much

 Barzam wrote:
eell, I'm pretty sure Takara did make some 1/48 kits of those. I just hope that if they get a dropship, that they don't make it a faceship as well.

 judgedoug wrote:
That looks simply terrible.

Discussion Points

Unit Hubs: These rules were written before the Firefight edition was conceived, and therefore contain a few compromises with regard to how units move around the table – hubs and unit coherency and how they interact with line of sight, model placement etc. We know that there are clunky elements to these rules, and are still working on them.
As a mass-battle game, the rules may be slicker if it used some sort of unit stands, like Kings of War or other smaller scale games out there like Dropzone Commander. However, some people were not keen on the idea, and so to cater for as many people as possible the rules were written to allow for individual model placement.
Now that we have Firefight, we do have the option to make Warpath use these unit stands – those who aren’t keen on the aesthetic have another option instead. Using stands as a core part of the rules means that the rules on hubs and unit positioning can be massively simplified, with knock-on streamlining effects to other areas of the rules.
What are your thoughts?

Points Values: Please be aware that these points values have had minimal testing. They are educated estimates, and as such, some of them may be quite wrong. Once we finalise the core rules and go to open beta, these will refined to properly balance the game.

Army Selection Rules: These have not yet been written, and will come once the rules are solidified. For now just use what you’ve got that feels balanced. We are also aware that the unit upgrades are a little inconsistent – these will be clarified later.

 Mort wrote:
I am fine being in the minority, but I think the FF tank looks awesome. The design reflects the armor that some of their models wear fairly accurately, in my opinion. I see the 'face' design that some of you are referring to, but I don't think it's nearly as bad as it's made out to be.

Then again, I am in the camp that thinks every Space Marine vehicle looks silly, and every Sigmarite figure is ugly. I don't want vehicles that look like ones you can easily find in other lines. To each their own, and all that.

 DaveC wrote:
Update Warpath Alpha rules

Discussion Points

Unit Hubs: These rules were written before the Firefight edition was conceived, and therefore contain a few compromises with regard to how units move around the table – hubs and unit coherency and how they interact with line of sight, model placement etc. We know that there are clunky elements to these rules, and are still working on them.
As a mass-battle game, the rules may be slicker if it used some sort of unit stands, like Kings of War or other smaller scale games out there like Dropzone Commander. However, some people were not keen on the idea, and so to cater for as many people as possible the rules were written to allow for individual model placement.
Now that we have Firefight, we do have the option to make Warpath use these unit stands – those who aren’t keen on the aesthetic have another option instead. Using stands as a core part of the rules means that the rules on hubs and unit positioning can be massively simplified, with knock-on streamlining effects to other areas of the rules.
What are your thoughts?

Points Values: Please be aware that these points values have had minimal testing. They are educated estimates, and as such, some of them may be quite wrong. Once we finalise the core rules and go to open beta, these will refined to properly balance the game.

Army Selection Rules: These have not yet been written, and will come once the rules are solidified. For now just use what you’ve got that feels balanced. We are also aware that the unit upgrades are a little inconsistent – these will be clarified later.

http://manticblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Warpath-KS-Alpha.pdf

 MLaw wrote:
My biggest gripe isn't with the shape or theory behind it, it's that the actual design process seems to have stopped past the basic drawings. It doesn't feel like they imagined themselves sitting in this tank and operating it so much as them figuring out a gimmicky look and running with that.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Seeing that list makes me realize that I will be buying all the Mantic tanks just because they will be plastic and (most likely) much more affordable.

Most of my sci fi tanks and/or walkers are from Dust, AT-43, and Robogear. I'll probably get the Dreamforge HoverStuG when it comes out, but that's because I'm already invested in their Star Wars Space nazi aesthetic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MLaw wrote:
My biggest gripe isn't with the shape or theory behind it, it's that the actual design process seems to have stopped past the basic drawings. It doesn't feel like they imagined themselves sitting in this tank and operating it so much as them figuring out a gimmicky look and running with that.

This seems to be a trend all across the hobby. Mantic is just running a little farther with it.

Perhaps they can fit in a line about the Corporations hiring graphic designers to design their vehicles for a specific psychological effect, such as branding. "Look out! That's an Enforcer(TM) Dropship!"

 MLaw wrote:
Yeah, the main reason I posted that list was so people could draw the comparisons to what Mantic is showing. I spent a lot of time researching the different sci-fi tanks out there and there's definitely more than I listed. Mantic is steering clear (mostly) of the dieselpunk/ww2 aesthetic so yeah.. I tried to steer the list that direction too. From the go I've thought Mantic has had a more video game look and I like that a lot but if they got in there and put a little more polish on their rules, designs, etc then they would tip over that line they keep toeing. As an example.. I really like the Industria Mechanica stuff, and I see that potential in Mantic but they keep getting so close and then just being like "eh screw it, that's good enough".

 judgedoug wrote:

 MLaw wrote:
Yeah, the main reason I posted that list was so people could draw the comparisons to what Mantic is showing. I spent a lot of time researching the different sci-fi tanks out there and there's definitely more than I listed. Mantic is steering clear (mostly) of the dieselpunk/ww2 aesthetic so yeah.. I tried to steer the list that direction too. From the go I've thought Mantic has had a more video game look and I like that a lot but if they got in there and put a little more polish on their rules, designs, etc then they would tip over that line they keep toeing. As an example.. I really like the Industria Mechanica stuff, and I see that potential in Mantic but they keep getting so close and then just being like "eh screw it, that's good enough".

I'm intimiately familiar with that list, actually, because I've been collecting near-future/sci-fi minis and vehicles for years. Most of my collection is Antenociti's Workshop, at least 15-20 of their tanks, vehicles, and APC's, to go along with T-80's, Leopard 2A6, and other MBT's that will most assuredly be used for another 20+ years (for near future conflicts). Interestingly I bought Mantic's Enforcers in restic when they came out because they match the AW functional yet sci fi aesthetic quite well... so I was hoping Mantic would just hire AW to design their vehicles. Sadly that is not the case.

 highlord tamburlaine wrote:
I own exactly zero space machines of the future.

I will happily partake of this Kickstarter since all these mobile head shaped vehicles will match with the corresponding ground troops.

 DaveC wrote:
I don't think there is going to be an Enforcer tank they use the Interceptor and Bomber as their APC and tank

 DaveC wrote:
I don't think there is going to be an Enforcer tank they use the Interceptor and Bomber as their APC and tank

 highlord tamburlaine wrote:
I think Bob and I will need to have a Face/Off.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
On a similar note, my Forgefathers will send their tank on one last mission into a church full of murder birds to earn the money needed to transplant their tank's armorglass viewport panes onto a crippled Asterian tank in the hope of redemption.

 Gitzbitah wrote:
Or, mantic is simply setting up for its inevitable run on Titan sized products- with modular head/tanks!

 judgedoug wrote:

The problem is that the available "space tanks" are all terrible - 40k tanks... what else?

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

Perhaps they can fit in a line about the Corporations hiring graphic designers to design their vehicles for a specific psychological effect, such as branding. "Look out! That's an Enforcer(TM) Dropship!"

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Have we seen the Asterian tank printed master yet? From the drawings and the renders, it looks sleek and deadly, although I also find it looks a little like an inverted NSEA Protector, a Miranda to the Protector's Constitution, if you will.

 GrimDork wrote:
I don't think infantry would be *much* bigger than that signature, look at the back with the little clampy things, I'm assuming each of those docks a cypher or battle drone.

 judgedoug wrote:


What military designs it's armored vehicles to _match_ the infantryman's uniform? *barf*

 judgedoug wrote:

The problem is that the available "space tanks" are all terrible - 40k tanks... what else? Antenociti's Workshop has drastically thinned their lines, the few tanks that Khurusan makes are super expensive, crappy manufacturers like Grendel resin are all 40k knock offs. And i's hard to find 1/48 Kitech/Zhengdefu stuff nowadays. We have no good plastic 28mm scale sci fi tanks.

But you're correct, Space Marine vehicles are pretty much gak. (but Sigmarites are awesome)

First up is Mantic Games’ Warpath: Firefight (official announcement here). This is an interesting one, because rather than design a new game from scratch, I have the tricky job of taking a ruleset that’s been developed for quite some time, with substantial input from a hard core of fans, and develop a variation on the system. Essentially, I’m taking the large-scale, free-flowing strategic game and transforming it into a smaller-scale, squad-based tactical game. The brief, however, is to keep as many concepts as possible so that it’s familiar to existing players, while introducing lots of nuances and tactical elements to scratch that smaller-scale itch. No pressure then. This game will be developed during the forthcoming Kickstarter, with feedback from fans coming in even as I write, which is a very different way of working for me!

 scarletsquig wrote:
Most likely thing that will happen is no hubs for Warpath and unit stands as standard, with something entirely different for Firefight.

Two rulesets mean hey can ditch the odd blend of single figures and units that the team/hub system represented.

 GrimDork wrote:
I don't usually advise against magnets, but there are some relatively easy ways to make 25mm holes in thin card/board/plasticard into which you can slot your minis' bases. Think display bases or stuff like the warbases company produces.

Magnets are cool too though, and much space such future.

@MLaw, so it's the urban dictionary of wargaming? Kind of scary when you think of it that way...


I think if you're gonna magnetize large units it becomes more economical to get some kind of thin sheet steel as the base material and add the magnets under the model's bases alone. Sill it's effort. Depending on the shape(s) that the units may be deployed in, I think I'll probably be going with the one inch punch route like I'm doing for removable elements in my KoW units.

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
The facebook group has been asking for votes on what people are looking forward to more, firefight or warpath and it's split pretty much evenly (firefight has a slight edge)

so much as a lot of use don't like the hub idea there seem to be a substantial number who do

(I wonder what the split is like between 'serious' players who'll exploit the hubs while bemoaning their complications and the less serious who just want to push some minis around a table?)

 MLaw wrote:
I'm definitely not alright with magnetizing a horde army. It's expensive and time consuming enough without having to glue down 150 pairs of magnets. Especially since you'll need to make sure the polarity matches so the stands don't have to have exactly the right figure in exactly the right slot.

It is really starting to feel like these guys are fumbling their way through hoping to hit on something that works. While I don't like the hub system and won't play the game if it uses it, Mantic are allowing a few too many cooks in the kitchen so to speak by opening this up so loosely to public feedback. It doesn't become game design by virtue of intelligent design at that point it becomes design by the most vocal and active. It's kinda hard to respect that IMO.

 TheWaspinator wrote:
Forge Father technology should have detachable metal beards as thrown weapons.

 MLaw wrote:

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
The facebook group has been asking for votes on what people are looking forward to more, firefight or warpath and it's split pretty much evenly (firefight has a slight edge)

so much as a lot of use don't like the hub idea there seem to be a substantial number who do

(I wonder what the split is like between 'serious' players who'll exploit the hubs while bemoaning their complications and the less serious who just want to push some minis around a table?)

I don't think that generalization is necessarily fair. From a tactical standpoint hubs/stands are dumb at 28mm. What happens when you want your guys to file down an alleyway? How will they crowd onto a roof? If there is an area with scatter terrain you can't really optimize your movement and positioning for cover based on that. IMO, it just dumbs the whole thing down. It works with smaller scales because the figures and terrain are smaller and a) it's impractical and kinda difficult to pick up little 6mm or 15mm guys like that. You can damage them and they're fiddly. Even with that, I still prefer Gruntz though for 15mm, primarily because it does not use stands. For 6mm yes.. I'm all in on stands but I do understand why people want/use them in 15mm too.

Outside of that, when you abstract units into nothing more than big blobs, you might as well cut out a circle of felt and drop a dice on it to be your unit. I get it, this is for mass combat but making it clunkier is not going to speed it up.

Anyway.. it is interesting to see that the split is that even. I don't know where this poll is but I'll find it and add my vote to the thumbs down towards hubs.

 Bolognesus wrote:

Last I checked the steel plate any sensible implementation of such hubs would use does not generally have much of a magnetic polarity.

 Bolognesus wrote:

 MLaw wrote:
I'm definitely not alright with magnetizing a horde army. It's expensive and time consuming enough without having to glue down 150 pairs of magnets. Especially since you'll need to make sure the polarity matches so the stands don't have to have exactly the right figure in exactly the right slot.

It is really starting to feel like these guys are fumbling their way through hoping to hit on something that works. While I don't like the hub system and won't play the game if it uses it, Mantic are allowing a few too many cooks in the kitchen so to speak by opening this up so loosely to public feedback. It doesn't become game design by virtue of intelligent design at that point it becomes design by the most vocal and active. It's kinda hard to respect that IMO.

Last I checked the steel plate any sensible implementation of such hubs would use does not generally have much of a magnetic polarity.

Aside from that, when polarity even matters you generally just have all magnets stuck together as a long cylinder (somehow they tend to do that. somehow ) and just glue the end of the cylinder to a base, slide off the other magnets (minus the one you just glued on) and do the same thing to the next 49 or so bases. Use cyanoacrylate and zipkicker and mark the non-glue-ey end of the stick-o-magnets with a bit of electrical tape and you'll be checking polarity all of three to five times for 150 models. That is, again, if polarity even matters.

Magnetizing is one of those things which seems like a pain until you spend aprox 5 min working out a sensible workflow before you start

 lord_blackfang wrote:
These things have been around for a decade.
http://blotz.co.uk/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=24_26_71_38

 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.

 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.

 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.

 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)

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

 scarletsquig wrote:
The commander thing is news to me

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

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

 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.

 scarletsquig wrote:
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.

 CptJake wrote:
That is pretty cool. Are these new rules what is supposed to ship when the latest DZ KS stuff ships?

The one I’d like to deal what today is the fact that some people might have bought the existing DZ recently, and might feel a bit miffed about shelling out for a new one.

Rest assured, the main point of reworking DZ is to get more people playing it. With this as the aim Ronnie’s keen on making this transition as smooth as possible.

The way this is achieved hasn’t been finalised, but Ronnie said he was happy for me to let you know the sort of thing that he currently has in mind. This starts with giving a digital copy to all the original KS backers. For those who’ve bought DZ after this, there will be some sort of discount scheme. The sort of thing that Flames of War has done between editions seemed to work – get your old edition stamped for a hefty discount on a new one.

Something like that.

 Tyr13 wrote:
Theyve already started doing that though, with KoW. The Ogre hunters were never part of the kickstarter, yet weve seen their renders. and they seem to be coming soon. Still a nice change though.

 Vermonter wrote:
Which should make some of their critics pretty happy, I guess?

 Vermonter wrote:


So Mantic is evidently now seriously considering doing major releases outside of the KS platform. Which should make some of their critics pretty happy, I guess?

Deadzone Redux Command Dice
Posted on October 6, 2015 by Quirkworthy

I’ve shown a few pics of us playtesting DZR recently, and you may have noticed some bespoke D6s we’ve had lying around. So far, nobody guessed quite what they are, though there have been some fun suggestions. Today I thought I’d explain what they really do.

Meet the Command Dice.



These are, (hopefully) obviously, not final production copies. They’re my playtest versions, and incidentally a great illustration of how impermanent “permanent” markers are. Playing with these means smudgy hands.

To Start With, Why Command Dice?

The new dice are a replacement for the old deck of Battle cards. As such, their job is to provide a set of gameplay tweaks as a resource for the players to manage. How you use them is an opportunity for players to demonstrate their skill. It also helps to make every game different and reduces any predictability in what you and your opponent can achieve. With the right combination of Command Dice at the right moment you can do almost anything. If you use them well.

I was originally planning to use bespoke dice with the original version of Deadzone, but for various reasons that didn’t happen. Cards are fun too, and was happy using them. However, this new dice system is faster to play, easier to explain, and still retains the gameplay features I was after. So I think this change is a big win

What Are Command Dice?

Command Dice are an abstract representation of the training and cohesion of a well-led fighting force. They allow us to include moments of cunning and planning as well as luck without the need for complex rules. It’s easy to imagine what each Command Dice result represents. It might be a carefully lined-up shot, a sneaky ambush, a sucker punch, sly feint, or coordinated attack. Thinking about the results in this way helps make the story of your battle that much more interesting.

How Do You Get Them?

At the start of each Round, both players check how many Command Dice they are entitled to, and roll them afresh.

Each Strike Team starts with 3 Command Dice. Some abilities (notably Tactician (x)) alter this number.

As long as the player’s Strike Team has at least half of its models still on the table, they may re-roll as many Command Dice as they choose. If they re-roll any dice then they must keep the second result. All re-rolls must be made at the same time and before the first activation of the Round.

The results of these dice must be used during that Round or they will be lost. Unused Command Dice are discarded at the end of each Round.

How Do You Use Them?

Most results are used to enhance the actions of the active model when it is your Turn. The exceptions are adding dice to a model’s roll when it is attacked in your opponent’s Turn, and some army special effects.

Each Command Dice is discarded as its result is used.

What Do They Do?

I’ve laid out the dice in the picture above to show one of each side: all 6 sides are different. In order, they mean:

Symbol Meaning Notes
+1 +1 model activation Normally players take Turns activating a single model. Use this immediately after you have taken a Turn with one model to take a Turn with another. If you have rolled this result several times then you can take Turns with several models in a row.
Cube +1 dice to any normal test If you have rolled this result several times then you may choose to add more than one dice to a single test.
Move Additional Move action The Move is restricted to 1 cube only, regardless of the model’s Speed stat.
Shoot Additional Shoot action
Fight Additional Fight action
Mantic Splat! without text in Army special The effect is different for each army. Army special effects do not count towards any other restriction on number of actions per Turn unless specifically mentioned otherwise.

Move, Shoot and Fight allow the model to do that action on top of their normal 2 short or 1 long actions. They are very useful as they don’t count towards the normal restriction that you cannot repeat a given action within a Turn.

Special actions are defined at the army level, and every army has a unique effect.

Design Notes

As the dice are rolled at the start of each Round, and then spent during it, you reduce the amount of fiddling about off-table. You either have an option this Round, or you don’t. Changes (other than spending them) are corralled into a single bookkeeping phase at the start of the Round.

Although the dice are the same for everyone, the ability to re-roll the ones you don’t like plus the variable meaning of the special result makes them quite bespoke in practical effect. It also means that I can change what I want from them as the game plays out. So, if I have an assault army I might want to get lots of extra Move actions early on, to close the range, but then want more Fight actions and bonus dice in later Rounds. The Command Dice let you choose each Round what kind of tactics you’re going to use. However, because they’re dice they aren’t guaranteed to play nice with your plan…

Our testers so far have been really pleased with the results on the tabletop, which is gratifying. A couple were a little skeptical at first, though that seems to have quickly evaporated when they’ve tried it out in practice. I hope you find the same.

The beta rules will be out soon (though I can’t tell you when yet as I don’t know), so you might want to make your own set of Command Dice in anticipation. That’s partly why I’m telling you this now. Alternatively, you can always use a normal D6, reading the results in the same order as the table. When I ran my first playtests I had the above table printed out beside each player, and we just put normal D6 on the relevant row as reminders of what we had left.

 DaveC wrote:

Deadzone Redux Command Dice
Posted on October 6, 2015 by Quirkworthy

I’ve shown a few pics of us playtesting DZR recently, and you may have noticed some bespoke D6s we’ve had lying around. So far, nobody guessed quite what they are, though there have been some fun suggestions. Today I thought I’d explain what they really do.

Meet the Command Dice.



These are, (hopefully) obviously, not final production copies. They’re my playtest versions, and incidentally a great illustration of how impermanent “permanent” markers are. Playing with these means smudgy hands.

To Start With, Why Command Dice?

The new dice are a replacement for the old deck of Battle cards. As such, their job is to provide a set of gameplay tweaks as a resource for the players to manage. How you use them is an opportunity for players to demonstrate their skill. It also helps to make every game different and reduces any predictability in what you and your opponent can achieve. With the right combination of Command Dice at the right moment you can do almost anything. If you use them well.

I was originally planning to use bespoke dice with the original version of Deadzone, but for various reasons that didn’t happen. Cards are fun too, and was happy using them. However, this new dice system is faster to play, easier to explain, and still retains the gameplay features I was after. So I think this change is a big win

What Are Command Dice?

Command Dice are an abstract representation of the training and cohesion of a well-led fighting force. They allow us to include moments of cunning and planning as well as luck without the need for complex rules. It’s easy to imagine what each Command Dice result represents. It might be a carefully lined-up shot, a sneaky ambush, a sucker punch, sly feint, or coordinated attack. Thinking about the results in this way helps make the story of your battle that much more interesting.

How Do You Get Them?

At the start of each Round, both players check how many Command Dice they are entitled to, and roll them afresh.

Each Strike Team starts with 3 Command Dice. Some abilities (notably Tactician (x)) alter this number.

As long as the player’s Strike Team has at least half of its models still on the table, they may re-roll as many Command Dice as they choose. If they re-roll any dice then they must keep the second result. All re-rolls must be made at the same time and before the first activation of the Round.

The results of these dice must be used during that Round or they will be lost. Unused Command Dice are discarded at the end of each Round.

How Do You Use Them?

Most results are used to enhance the actions of the active model when it is your Turn. The exceptions are adding dice to a model’s roll when it is attacked in your opponent’s Turn, and some army special effects.

Each Command Dice is discarded as its result is used.

What Do They Do?

I’ve laid out the dice in the picture above to show one of each side: all 6 sides are different. In order, they mean:

Symbol Meaning Notes
+1 +1 model activation Normally players take Turns activating a single model. Use this immediately after you have taken a Turn with one model to take a Turn with another. If you have rolled this result several times then you can take Turns with several models in a row.
Cube +1 dice to any normal test If you have rolled this result several times then you may choose to add more than one dice to a single test.
Move Additional Move action The Move is restricted to 1 cube only, regardless of the model’s Speed stat.
Shoot Additional Shoot action
Fight Additional Fight action
Mantic Splat! without text in Army special The effect is different for each army. Army special effects do not count towards any other restriction on number of actions per Turn unless specifically mentioned otherwise.

Move, Shoot and Fight allow the model to do that action on top of their normal 2 short or 1 long actions. They are very useful as they don’t count towards the normal restriction that you cannot repeat a given action within a Turn.

Special actions are defined at the army level, and every army has a unique effect.

Design Notes

As the dice are rolled at the start of each Round, and then spent during it, you reduce the amount of fiddling about off-table. You either have an option this Round, or you don’t. Changes (other than spending them) are corralled into a single bookkeeping phase at the start of the Round.

Although the dice are the same for everyone, the ability to re-roll the ones you don’t like plus the variable meaning of the special result makes them quite bespoke in practical effect. It also means that I can change what I want from them as the game plays out. So, if I have an assault army I might want to get lots of extra Move actions early on, to close the range, but then want more Fight actions and bonus dice in later Rounds. The Command Dice let you choose each Round what kind of tactics you’re going to use. However, because they’re dice they aren’t guaranteed to play nice with your plan…

Our testers so far have been really pleased with the results on the tabletop, which is gratifying. A couple were a little skeptical at first, though that seems to have quickly evaporated when they’ve tried it out in practice. I hope you find the same.

The beta rules will be out soon (though I can’t tell you when yet as I don’t know), so you might want to make your own set of Command Dice in anticipation. That’s partly why I’m telling you this now. Alternatively, you can always use a normal D6, reading the results in the same order as the table. When I ran my first playtests I had the above table printed out beside each player, and we just put normal D6 on the relevant row as reminders of what we had left.