Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/16 11:40:07


Post by: DaveC


14th July 2017 - Deadzone Errata and FAQ - http://www.manticgames.com/SiteData/Root/File/FREE%20RULES/Deadzone%20Errata%20V2.1%202nd%20pass.pdf
https://manticblog.com/2017/07/14/deadzone-2-1-faqerrata-whats-changed/

Link to the General Discussion threads - Mantic's Sci-Fi games are now part of the Misc. Sci-Fi Miniature Games sub forum:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/forums/show/94.page

Index of News and Rumour contents with direct links

Industrial Terrain pre-production samples pg15 - http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/420/648800.page#8000987
Veer-Myn Progenitor and Chem Thrower renders pg15 - http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/420/648800.page#7979553
Asterian Droid print pg 18 - http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/510/648800.page#8010958
Asterian Troop Transport art pg 19 - http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/540/648800.page#8034382
WIP pics of painted Enforcer Interceptor pg19 - http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/540/648800.page#8093975
Rin Nomad pag 19 - http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/540/648800.page#8094080
Kalyshi renders pg 20 - http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/570/648800.page#8101425
Painted Enforcer Jetbike - pg21 - http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/600/648800.page#8116078
Veermyn and Pathfinder test sprues pg 24 - http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/690/648800.page#8125597
Plague Aberration and Orc Sky Scraper render pg 29 - http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/840/648800.page#8144499
more Veer-Myn previews, Broodmother, Shredders/Ravagers page 34 - http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/990/648800.page#8224026
Open Day pictures page 37 - http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/1080/648800.page#8271735
Deadzone 2.0 Beta rules page 44 - http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/1290/648800.page#8297080
GCPS Trooper and Plague Murder Birds preview page 48 - http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/1410/648800.page#8332777
Updated Deadzone Redux rules page 51 - http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/1500/648800.page#8338555
Updated Deadzone Redux v1.5 rules page 56 - http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/1650/648800.page#8360160
Updated Warpath Beta rules page 57 - http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/1680/648800.page#8373166
New GCPS renders page 60 - http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/1770/648800.page#8408999
Plague Hornet renders page 61 - http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/1800/648800.page#8437449
Corporation Mule renders page 66- http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/1950/648800.page#8493913
DZ:I painted previews page 67 - http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/1980/648800.page#8511433
Warpath V1.0.1 links page 69 - http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/2040/648800.page#8522428
Painted FF Tank page 73 - http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/2160/648800.page#8582874
Enforcer and FF starter and booster sets page 74 - http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/2190/648800.page#8584456
Painted Kalyshi page 74 - http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/2190/648800.page#8584949
VM Nightmare sprue page 75 - http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/2220/648800.page#8587386
Painted GCPS troop preview page 75 - http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/2220/648800.page#8592125
Painted Asterian Marionettes page 78 - http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/2310/648800.page#8617602
Deadzone Gameplay video page 79 - http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/2340/648800.page#8619735
VeerMyn Piper retail sculpt page 86 - http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/2550/648800.page#8660990
Open Day Ltd. Edition Teraton Shock trooper page 87 - http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/2580/648800.page#8667556
Open Day pictures page 87/88 - http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/2580/648800.page#8668595
Asterian Escort concept page 88 - http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/2610/648800.page#8669292
"New" Dreadball MVPs page 89 - http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/2640/648800.page#8695038
Dreadball 2nd Edition announcement page 89 - http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/2640/648800.page#8707631
Deadzone FAQs and Errata page 89 - http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/2640/648800.page#8718594
HIPS Mule and Unit Bases page 92 - http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/2730/648800.page#8732065
Painted Mule, Marionettes, Plague Burster, Subject 901 page 93 - http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/2760/648800.page#8750115
More Painted GCPS - Marines, Rangers, Weapon Team Hornet page 94 - http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/2790/648800.page#8774965
Painted Forge Father Hultr Half-Track - now in PVC page 95 - http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/2820/648800.page#8800368
Warpath Beta rules v1.3 (22nd July) page 95 - http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/2820/648800.page#8807738
Deadzone Errata and FAQ update pg 122 - https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/3630/648800.page#9491944


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/16 11:44:53


Post by: Thraxas Of Turai


If they can make that Forge Father tank match the concept art and in hard plastic, then I will be a very happy man.

Cheers for re-starting the thread Dave I could not find the old one to post these up.

Have we seen the enforcer drop ship before? It seems familiar.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/16 11:47:34


Post by: DaveC


Yep same artwork they used before as is the Asterian Tank. I reposted it for completeness sake so it's all in this thread . I'll round up some of the other DZI and DBX stuff when I have more time.

I like the Forgefather Tank it has just the right amount of Forgefather design without being OTT (IMO)


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/16 12:59:10


Post by: scarletsquig


You guys are going to love the new Warpath rules.

BoW backstage pass only thing is a bit annoying, I remember them doing that with the WP 1.0 beta back in the day... but at least you know it's on the way.

The new rules were demo'ed at the Open Day today, so here's some teasers:

- d6 is the main dice used.
- 4 stats per unit: Spd, Acc, Def, Brk
- Element-based gameplay, 5 models per game unit (or 2 for large infantry, 1 for massive infantry). Multibasing is entirely optional, same as KoW, all that is required is to mark out a leader model for each team, everything is measured from there.
- Scalable morale and model removal mechanic. Not KoW or Warpath 2.0, something new that's in-between the two. Brk stat scales with unit size.
- Command Pool of dice (custom d8's) that can be used to execute command orders.
- Suppression features heavily as a mechanic.
- Activation is straightforward. The entire weird WP 2.0 mechanic is scrapped. One player activates a unit, then the other player activates a unit etc.
- Long and Short Actions are the system used to move/shoot/melee/regroup etc. with units, similar to Deadzone and Mars Attacks.

Gameplay is fast at its core, with little in the way of stats to remember or things to look up, the game scales very nicely, I can see the rules working out great for games of either 30 minis a side or 200. Tactical complexity comes with firepower decisions (suppress or kill?), command orders, mission-focused gameplay.

Might even be worth giving the rules a try at 6mm using some old Epic figures too!

The public beta on this will be very long, you will have months and months to play and offer feedback before the Kickstarter even begins.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/16 14:05:57


Post by: Thraxas Of Turai


Great to hear that ScarletSquig, a long beta will be great for the game (and help those of you on the Rules Committee too).

It looks like things are looking up in the world of Warpath.



Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/16 14:06:56


Post by: kodos


I am not sure what to think about command dice, but the rest sounds good


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/16 14:30:01


Post by: RobertsMinis


I like the look of all those vechicles, they fit well with the current models.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/16 14:32:46


Post by: Nostromodamus


Everything is awesome


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/16 14:53:25


Post by: lord_blackfang


Put me down for 12 of those FF tanks.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/16 14:59:14


Post by: BrookM


Are they ever going to do anything with the Corporation again?


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/16 15:01:22


Post by: Nostromodamus


 BrookM wrote:
Are they ever going to do anything with the Corporation again?


Yes. Corp vs. Z'zor DZ campaign.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/16 15:02:30


Post by: BrookM


So, no vehicles any time soon then? I mean, this is supposed to be their not-Guard faction, but as of yet it still doesn't have any vehicles or the like..


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/16 16:08:03


Post by: Kalamadea


Damn, after Deadzone it would have been nice to have a D8 based wargame, but D6s are easier to buy and roll in mass quantities I suppose and is more in-line with Mantics target demographic: former GW players

Some of that rundown sounds great, some not so much. The limited stats I'm not a fan of, but the measuring from leader to leader gives me a bit of a Starship Troopers vibe. A good thing, that was a solid game mechanically. I'm assuming Brk is morale? "break point" or somesuch? I'm a little surprised they don't have separate Shoot and Fight values like in DZ, doesn't seam like it would add too much to the complexity but would differentiate units better.

Suppression isn't something that excites me in a wargame one bit. It's fairly realistic, but it's absolutely boring to place all your pretty little toys on the field and be unable to move or shoot with them for half the game, It's far less frustrating to just remove them from the table as casualties. It's my least favorite thing about deadzone and I don't think I could be any less excited about Blaze Away type effects being added to WP.

That said, the alternating activations is good news. Hopefully they have a mechanic to buffer using cheap units as activation sinks, balancing horde-style vs elite forces has always been a big problem in alt-act games and usually swings hard in favor of one over the other, but I always found alt-act to add an immediate level of depth over I-go-U-go games. Alt-act adds a lot of what I like about euro-style board games: having a large amount of choices but limited chances to act and needing to prioritize what you want/need to accomplish most.




Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/16 16:31:54


Post by: Pacific


Definitely like the look of the FF tank !

Been waiting for these rules for a while, hopefully there will be a load of other releases along at the same time (and really flesh out some of the factions).


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/16 16:35:12


Post by: RiTides


Thanks for making a new thread, DaveC! I'll certainly be interested in how that Tunneler looks when sculpted


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/16 16:40:02


Post by: DaveC


one more from fistyglueman

[Thumb - T06lWnp.jpg]


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/16 17:12:45


Post by: OrlandotheTechnicoloured


Mmm I thought they'd promised the beta rules to backers in one of the deadzone campaigns..... I guess not

I like the astrian tank (or flying machine in my hands) and the Tunneler is a must have if they can make it nice and sharp in HIPS


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/16 18:30:13


Post by: AlexHolker


That dropship was designed by somebody who knows nothing about aerodynamics. We know GW is gak at this, but that doesn't mean Mantic needs to too.

 scarletsquig wrote:
BoW backstage pass only thing is a bit annoying, I remember them doing that with the WP 1.0 beta back in the day... but at least you know it's on the way.

Backstage pass? Seriously? Why the feth should we pay those clowns at BoW for the privilege of doing Mantic's job for them?


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/16 18:53:51


Post by: BobtheInquisitor


 AlexHolker wrote:
That dropship was designed by somebody who knows nothing about aerodynamics. We know GW is gak at this, but that doesn't mean Mantic needs to too.

 scarletsquig wrote:
BoW backstage pass only thing is a bit annoying, I remember them doing that with the WP 1.0 beta back in the day... but at least you know it's on the way.

Backstage pass? Seriously? Why the feth should we pay those clowns at BoW for the privilege of doing Mantic's job for them?



Honestly, I think it would be boring and out of character for the Enforcers drop ship to look streamlined. I'm willing to pretend they have some sort of aerodynamic force fields that give the ship an effective blended/lifting body flying teardrop shape, and enough thrust to ignore aerodynamics altogether if they want.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/16 19:08:22


Post by: UNCLEBADTOUCH


That vermyn tank could prove useful for reasons........... Yes.......reasons


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/16 19:13:49


Post by: migooo


UNCLEBADTOUCH wrote:
That vermyn tank could prove useful for reasons........... Yes.......reasons


Indeed.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/16 19:22:49


Post by: kodos


Because I am used to the GW Space Marines Fighter Design, the Enforcer DropShip looks perfectly aerodynamic to me


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/16 19:46:18


Post by: AlexHolker


 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
 AlexHolker wrote:
That dropship was designed by somebody who knows nothing about aerodynamics. We know GW is gak at this, but that doesn't mean Mantic needs to too.


Honestly, I think it would be boring and out of character for the Enforcers drop ship to look streamlined. I'm willing to pretend they have some sort of aerodynamic force fields that give the ship an effective blended/lifting body flying teardrop shape, and enough thrust to ignore aerodynamics altogether if they want.

I, of course, disagree. To me, what makes an interesting design interesting is how the aesthetics of the faction are tempered by necessity. You want to rely on the "Rule of Cool" to avoid criticism of the design, but the "Rule of Cool" only applies if you don't need to cite it. The rules of competent vehicle design do not rely on the audience liking your design so much more than the alternatives that they turn a blind eye to its flaws - a dropship that looks like it could actually work stands on its own merits.

And "Lol, forcefields" is a terrible cop-out. Where's the fun in buying a "dropship" whose most significant feature is something we, the audience, cannot see? You can get away with it somewhat with aliens of the unfathomable sort, but this is a human aircraft which should be much more WYSIWYG.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/16 20:37:52


Post by: Barzam


Meh, don't care about the aerodynamics of it, I just really want one of those dropships. Or a few. I really like its design. I could go for some Asterian and Forge father tanks, too.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/16 20:41:56


Post by: Nostromodamus


I especially like how the Forge Father tank retains the "this could be used for mining" look, with the bulldozer blade front armor and the mining laser cannon.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/16 21:05:19


Post by: Gimgamgoo


Considering the aerodynamic "shoe boxes" that GW get away with. I think the Enforcer drop ship looks very aerodynamic. I for one am looking forward to its release.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/16 21:18:16


Post by: ski2060


Why do you need aerodynamics when you can handwavium Antigravity.

With anti-gravity you can fly a brick with thrusters.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/16 21:26:35


Post by: highlord tamburlaine


Take your flying contraptions and give me more mining drill machines.

Those veermyn are some lucky ducks... err rats, to be more precise.


Would be great to have some sort of marker for one erupting out of the ground.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/16 21:38:50


Post by: Fezman


That first tank looks pretty stylish...even if I didn't play any Mantic games I'd probably still buy it. Hope the final product will end up looking as good as the concept art!


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/16 22:24:29


Post by: migooo


 Fezman wrote:
That first tank looks pretty stylish...even if I didn't play any Mantic games I'd probably still buy it. Hope the final product will end up looking as good as the concept art!


There's the problem they seem very square in actuality.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/16 22:56:14


Post by: privateer4hire


Multi-basing will help attract 40k refugees, too.
People who are tired of having their unit members individually based in 40k will see this as another draw to Warpath.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/16 23:31:22


Post by: lord_blackfang


I have literally never ever heard anyone complain about individual basing in 40k.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/16 23:41:01


Post by: highlord tamburlaine


The more I look at the Forgefather tank, I see a face where the driver's windows are and a beard where the bulldozer parts are.



Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/16 23:48:13


Post by: Alpharius


privateer4hire wrote:Multi-basing will help attract 40k refugees, too.
People who are tired of having their unit members individually based in 40k will see this as another draw to Warpath.


lord_blackfang wrote:I have literally never ever heard anyone complain about individual basing in 40k.



I agree - in fact, 'multi-basing' will be more likely to keep 40K refugees away, if mandatory.

Thankfully, it isn't!


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/17 01:41:08


Post by: privateer4hire


 lord_blackfang wrote:
I have literally never ever heard anyone complain about individual basing in 40k.

Me neither. IMO block basing/5-man unit building blocks is difference for difference's sake.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/17 05:26:12


Post by: Kalamadea


privateer4hire wrote:
Multi-basing will help attract 40k refugees, too.
People who are tired of having their unit members individually based in 40k will see this as another draw to Warpath.


mandatory multibasing would be an ABSOLUTE dealbreaker for me, I would never even consider playing WP in that case. As said, it's an issue that nobody has ever brough up in sci-fi wargaming. 28mm napoleonics? Sure, base em all together. Fantasy? go ahead. Great War? well, I suppose it could be alright... WW2 and later? single base or nothing

I don't even like multibasing my 15mm WW2 stuff


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/17 06:03:48


Post by: privateer4hire


Yeah, fortunately it's not mandatory. So there's that.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/17 06:05:48


Post by: Dannicus


I am intrigued by what has been presented about the system.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/17 08:39:15


Post by: kodos


I see a lot of mini dioramas for my Space Wolfes in Warpath with the multibase option


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/18 14:45:59


Post by: judgedoug


I think people are confusing multi-basing with unit-level rules.

Some rulesets are model level, with each model possessing it's own movement, shooting, etc. Infinity or Warmachine, for instance.

Other rulesets scale it up, to unit-level, where measuring and movement is all done from a single point, the unit leader. AT-43, Dakka's own Maelstrom's Edge, etc, all use this system, as does apparently the new Warpath beta.

You can certainly multi-base, but why? That would just make movement for 5-model units inconvenient.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/18 17:43:12


Post by: BobtheInquisitor


 AlexHolker wrote:
 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
 AlexHolker wrote:
That dropship was designed by somebody who knows nothing about aerodynamics. We know GW is gak at this, but that doesn't mean Mantic needs to too.


Honestly, I think it would be boring and out of character for the Enforcers drop ship to look streamlined. I'm willing to pretend they have some sort of aerodynamic force fields that give the ship an effective blended/lifting body flying teardrop shape, and enough thrust to ignore aerodynamics altogether if they want.

I, of course, disagree. To me, what makes an interesting design interesting is how the aesthetics of the faction are tempered by necessity. You want to rely on the "Rule of Cool" to avoid criticism of the design, but the "Rule of Cool" only applies if you don't need to cite it. The rules of competent vehicle design do not rely on the audience liking your design so much more than the alternatives that they turn a blind eye to its flaws - a dropship that looks like it could actually work stands on its own merits.

And "Lol, forcefields" is a terrible cop-out. Where's the fun in buying a "dropship" whose most significant feature is something we, the audience, cannot see? You can get away with it somewhat with aliens of the unfathomable sort, but this is a human aircraft which should be much more WYSIWYG.


If that's what you find interesting, then I hope someone comes along to make plastic kits for you. I'll buy some, too. Practical, realistic designs would definitely be a breath of fresh air. Just don't expect them to fit in with the same setting as space rats, space orx, Enforcers that are anatomically impossible, Corporation marines who grow three head sizes when they die, space dwarfs in power armor with space hammers, and a bunch of other stuff I wouldn't consider the least bit "tempered by necessity."

Considering the tech level and implied power generation abilities of the Enforcers, I would compare them more to Star Wars than 2001 when it comes to design practicality. I have no problem with Star Wars ships shaped like hamburgers lifting straight up, flying through an atmosphere, and leaving orbit within a matter of minutes, so the Enforcer ship doesn't make me bat an eye. Could it have been designed to be more practical from either an aerospace or military perspective? Most definitely. At least it doesn't look like a flying lamp post. I like the design, ridiculous or not.

Force fields really aren't necessary for sci fi with super material sciences, but I figured you wouldn't like it any better if every panel and bolt on that ship was more resilient than the One Ring of Sauron.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/18 20:13:51


Post by: NTRabbit


From this point on the Brk stat is to be known as the Berk stat





I'm a backstager so I'll have the rules on Friday - even if I wasn't it wouldn't bother me much, because it's only an alpha and only for a fortnight, everyone is going to have plenty of time to test and give feedback.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/18 20:20:40


Post by: Dakkamite


 lord_blackfang wrote:
I have literally never ever heard anyone complain about individual basing in 40k.


You've never met an Ork player then.

Or guard.

Or nids.

Or renegades.

Element basing might ruffle some feathers but its a *huge* +1 from me, and by being optional it gives us the best of both worlds.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/18 21:14:05


Post by: xraytango


Or you could individually base them then drop them in a sabot, y'know.

Heh, that rhymed....


Also does anyone have an idea as to when the DZ2 pledge manager will go live, I thought it would be about now?


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/19 02:41:21


Post by: JoshInJapan


I rather liked the gambling activation mechanic. I'm sorry to see it go. That said, I'm quite pleased with all of the vehicles.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/21 19:19:24


Post by: DaveC


The Warpath alpha rules will go on general release on the 12th of June.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/21 19:46:22


Post by: BrookM


 Dakkamite wrote:
 lord_blackfang wrote:
I have literally never ever heard anyone complain about individual basing in 40k.


You've never met an Ork player then.

Or guard.

Or nids.

Or renegades.

Element basing might ruffle some feathers but its a *huge* +1 from me, and by being optional it gives us the best of both worlds.
I'm a guard player and I'd rather keep everything individual. Unless having as many models get hit by a template as possible is the way the game is supposed to be played.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/21 22:23:35


Post by: Pacific


 DaveC wrote:
The Warpath alpha rules will go on general release on the 12th of June.


O.O Oooohhh.. and so it begins !

Really looking forward to seeing what these turn out like, my Forge Fathers are a-waiting !


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/21 23:25:51


Post by: ulgurstasta


 BrookM wrote:
 Dakkamite wrote:
 lord_blackfang wrote:
I have literally never ever heard anyone complain about individual basing in 40k.


You've never met an Ork player then.

Or guard.

Or nids.

Or renegades.

Element basing might ruffle some feathers but its a *huge* +1 from me, and by being optional it gives us the best of both worlds.
Unless having as many models get hit by a template as possible is the way the game is supposed to be played.


Well thats assuming that the game will have blast templates, which seems unlikely.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/21 23:32:17


Post by: Dakkamite


Hope not. Needing to individually space those dozens of models is a huge issue. Lots of fiddling, slows down movement a lot, and really doesn't add to the game at all.

Warpath's current "a hit does X hits" system is so much faster and easier.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/22 16:41:57


Post by: DaveC


Warpath Alpha rules are up

http://www.beastsofwar.com/backstage/warpath-alpha-rules-download-exclusive-enforcer-interceptor/

The army lists are limited to a small amount of Enforcers and Plague and have no points yet.

and Enforcer Interceptor Pictures




Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/22 17:02:54


Post by: Barzam


 DaveC wrote:
Warpath Alpha rules are up

http://www.beastsofwar.com/backstage/warpath-alpha-rules-download-exclusive-enforcer-interceptor/

The army lists are limited to a small amount of Enforcers and Plague and have no points yet.

and Enforcer Interceptor Pictures




I need like 3 of these things. Now. Here's hoping that it'll use the same hard plastic they used on the Mars Attacks vehicles.

Edit - looking closer at it, it looks like the Interceptor has a removable crew pod. That's really cool!


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/22 17:07:10


Post by: Azreal13


Anyone have any idea on the scale of the Interceptor?

Quite fancy using it as Fw Xiphon, as it'll no doubt be hugely cheaper and I prefer the look, but size will be important.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/22 18:08:15


Post by: Tyr13


Still annoyed by the paywall. Itd have made a lot more sense to give it to selected retailers. Buy something from them and get a free download code for the rules. Or just give them away for free and spread the word. Giving it exclusively to BoW backstagerts doesnt achieve anything, apart from appeasing BoW... and they already get quite a lot of exclusive content anyway....


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/22 19:18:37


Post by: AlexHolker


Agreed. Beasts of War has done nothing to deserve this cronyism. I mean, literally their very first interaction with Warpath was to delay the announcement in favour of drinking beer out of a urinal when they were already an hour behind schedule.

And that interceptor looks like crap.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/22 19:29:09


Post by: Pacific


Alex you do crack me up

I actually think it looks really good, can see this getting a lot of interest from players of all sorts of sci-fi games. I'm sure the price is probably going to be pretty reasonable for it as well.

Just having a look at the rulebook now. I assume these rules will have been with the playtesting community for a while, or have they had them already for some time?


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/22 19:30:20


Post by: Alpharius


You're...a backstage pass holder?!?


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/22 19:31:04


Post by: edlowe


The interceptor looks pretty cool but I'll be sticking with the plague and veermyn.

Bit peeved that bow has the alpha rules on a pay for exclusive. Seems a bit of a kick in the teeth to mantics backers and fans. Hopefully someone can repost the rules somewhere, or give a summary.

Actually since this was mantics big reveal week it would have made more sense for them to release it today on their blog.



Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/22 19:32:40


Post by: Pacific


I'll post a summary as soon as I've had a proper read. Although, the caveat being that I've not been a Warpath player in the past so won't be able to comment on how the new version differs.

 Alpharius wrote:
You're...a backstage pass holder?!?


I am indeed *cough*


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/22 19:56:41


Post by: Alpharius


Well, you're not only a Backstage Pass holder, but you're also a scholar and a gentleman - cheers!


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/22 20:33:42


Post by: MasterSlowPoke


It looks like units are bought as teams. Teams are 5 for regular infantry, 2 for heavy infantry, 1 for massive infantry. One of the models is going to be the 'hub' for the team, and casualties are removed one whole team at a time. For example, a Space Marine Terminator squad would look like this

Space Marine Terminator Squad
- Terminator Team (2 models)
--- 4 Power Fist attacks, 4 Storm Bolter attacks
- Terminator Team (2 models)
--- 4 Power Fist attacks, 4 Storm Bolter attacks
- Terminator Fire Support Team (2 models)
--- 4 Power Fist attacks, 4 Cyclone Missile shots OR 8 Assault Cannon shots, you choose each time the unit fires
- One team can be upgraded to have a Terminator Captain, giving access to Orders and reduction in the effect of Surpression
nd
When you'd shoot them, you'd either fire
8 Storm Bolters, 4 Cyclone Missiles
or
8 Storm Bolter shots, 8 Assault Cannon shots

in combat, you'd have 12 Power Fist attacks. If you got to the first Brk threshold, you'd remove one of the teams at the owner's discretion.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/22 21:39:21


Post by: lord_blackfang


That sounds like they managed to jam together the worst of both worlds.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/22 22:07:05


Post by: Mymearan


So squads within squads? That seems needlessly complicated...


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/22 22:28:23


Post by: NTRabbit


It's not actually that complicated - teams are parts of units, anywhere from 1 team (Enforcer heavy support unit) to 6 teams (Plague Zombies) in the limited army lists currently provided, and you do everything by the unit when activating. So you activate a unit, move all the teams to where you want them while maintaining team and unit coherency, and when attacking every team in the unit attacks - at least, every team in range and with line of sight. Measurement is hub to hub, line of sight is hub to any part of the target unit. That's my take on first reading anyway.

Some things are very similar to Deadzone, some are extensions, and some things are new. There are no opposed rolls either, everything is quick and clean against a stat line - so where Deadzone combines to hit and to damage into one opposed roll with armour an auto success and AP an armour canceller, Warpath has split it into a to hit roll and a to damage roll, unopposed, with the Deadzone add/subtract dice on to hit plus 4 modifiers that give +1/-1/-2 to the dice result against your accuracy, and to damage is only modified by adding any AP rating the shooting unit has and comparing to the target defence.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/23 08:39:17


Post by: Wonderwolf


Admittedly, it's just a summary, but it seems hugely counter-intuitive to not actually use the models/miniatures as such as basis for a game mechanic or two (say .. as wound counters for a unit), even if you don't want to go into 40K-levels of detail.

What's the advantage of "teams" over pinging rules off individual models? Wouldn't it make sense to just replace each "team" with a single model and simply (in the example of Terminators given above) double that models Powerfist/Stormbolter attacks per model so the current "team-stats" become the "model-stats" of miniatures in the unit?


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/23 08:43:28


Post by: NTRabbit


Yeah can't claim to be a fan of the by-the-team casualty removal, as it stands every mini that isn't the hub is nothing more than a line of sight liability, not even rising to the heights of wound counter.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/23 08:47:04


Post by: Mymearan


^this. I see no reason not to use single models in this case. Also, if I'm reading it right, you measure LoS and range from one of the models in a team? So if you have three teams in a unit, you have to keep track of which three models are the "hub" for each team? Again, seems needlessly complicated.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/23 08:56:35


Post by: NTRabbit


Well that bit isn't so hard, you just have to make sure every hub stands out in some way - paint job, sergeant model, token, etc, no different than remembering which mini in a 40k infantry squad is the sergeant/exarch/whatever, just with extra measuring/los relevance


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/23 09:01:52


Post by: NoggintheNog


Wonderwolf wrote:
Admittedly, it's just a summary, but it seems hugely counter-intuitive to not actually use the models/miniatures as such as basis for a game mechanic or two (say .. as wound counters for a unit), even if you don't want to go into 40K-levels of detail.

What's the advantage of "teams" over pinging rules off individual models? Wouldn't it make sense to just replace each "team" with a single model and simply (in the example of Terminators given above) double that models Powerfist/Stormbolter attacks per model so the current "team-stats" become the "model-stats" of miniatures in the unit?


I haven't had chance to try the rules in a game yet, but I think the idea is that it makes different weapons within a unit much easier to manage. The examples in the rules have a squad of enforcers, one team of 5 men has the normal laser assault rifles, the second team has a burst laser for extra firepower.
It also means that individual units can be spread a little more than they would be in something like 40K, 4" between teams in a unit is the rule for cohesion.

Someone mentioned hubs above, the hub is the officer or team leader, and must always be visible to both players, so the guy with a standard, officer marking on the helmet or whatever, so it should not slow things down at all in practice.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/23 09:10:47


Post by: lord_blackfang


Not slow things down? From what I understand, in a squad of 10 Peacekeepers or such you'll need 5 fancy leader dudes, and keep track which of the 5 mooks is best buddies with which of the leaders because they move and die together - but apart from that, the mook just gets in his boss's way.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/23 09:17:43


Post by: NTRabbit


There's no squad of 10 peacekeepers, at least not in the demo list - the Peacekeeper Unit is two teams of 2 peacekeepers, plus a team of 2 heavy weapon peacekeepers for a total of 6 models, 3 of which just need a stripe on the helmet or a ring around the base to indicate leadership.

Or, leaders all get their leader mini/stripes/whatever you choose to use, and all the mooks in his squad get the same coloured ring around their base, either painted or an additional bit of perspex.

Once you have a system in place and you get used to it, it doesn't seem all that hard to keep track of; mooks just getting in the way is a different problem


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It's 4" cohesion between hubs in a unit, 2" cohesion between models in a team and their hub.

Also models cannot be within 1" of each other unless they are assaulting, and that goes for friendly models too (confirmed by Mantic), so no tight clustering.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/23 09:59:12


Post by: lord_blackfang


Brilliant, so Peacekeepers come on sprues of 5 but are fielded in units of 6. GW would be proud.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/23 10:03:48


Post by: Pacific


I think you need to calm down a bit lord_blackfang, you're jumping to conclusions about the rules when we haven't had the possibility of digesting them properly. I'm reading through them at the moment and will post comments later on this evening.

Although, admittedly this is the problem with releasing them in a limited fashion and not just having them available to download from Mantic's website. Information is coming out piecemeal, and as is the way with these things people are jumping to the worst conclusions possible in each case.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/23 10:13:37


Post by: Wonderwolf


NoggintheNog wrote:


I haven't had chance to try the rules in a game yet, but I think the idea is that it makes different weapons within a unit much easier to manage. The examples in the rules have a squad of enforcers, one team of 5 men has the normal laser assault rifles, the second team has a burst laser for extra firepower.
It also means that individual units can be spread a little more than they would be in something like 40K, 4" between teams in a unit is the rule for cohesion.

Someone mentioned hubs above, the hub is the officer or team leader, and must always be visible to both players, so the guy with a standard, officer marking on the helmet or whatever, so it should not slow things down at all in practice.


But how is that different to doubling up, say, the Tac Squad in 40K from 8 dudes with Bolters, 1 Sergeant and 1 Plasma gun to 16 dudes with Bolters, 1 Seargeant-team/due and 2 guys with Plasma guns, always removing "teams of 2" when you take a wound, giving each "team" the total number of attacks/shots that currently a single Marine has (or triple it, or quadruple it, or whatever)?

And 4" cohesion is fine with me, but you can do 4" cohesion between individual models as well as "teams". That rules isn't really tied to the "team"-thingy.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/23 10:26:38


Post by: scarletsquig


 lord_blackfang wrote:
Brilliant, so Peacekeepers come on sprues of 5 but are fielded in units of 6. GW would be proud.


Units of 10 for Warpath retail, I heard.

Fair point about 2 man teams being fiddly for Large Infantry, it's something that stood out as odd to me too, just made a post about it in the RC forum.

With 2 models in a team the rules lose the benefits of abstraction and create more micromanagement than having teams of 1 would involve.

"Paint 5 different colours per unit, + base rings and stuff to pick out leaders" is much trickier than either "the models are all 1 model teams" or "2 teams of 5 guys and the 2 leader models are leaders".

I will play some games first, but have a feeling that teams should be either 5's or 1's with the rules as they are.

The 40k terminator squad wasn't the best analogue to describe the hub/team system, about 90% of the units in the game have teams of 5 rather than 2, which works great.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/23 10:34:18


Post by: Paradigm


The more I hear about this ruleset, the more I dislike it. The team mechanism seems both unnecessary and overcomplicated, and just there for the sake of being different, rather than actually improving the game. I don't see the point in it, when you could just divide the attacks for each team and do it per-model (thus being far more familiar to most gamers).

Can anyone see/explain what actually makes the team mechanic better than single models?


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/23 10:45:02


Post by: Wonderwolf


 scarletsquig wrote:


The 40k terminator squad wasn't the best analogue to describe the hub/team system, about 90% of the units in the game have teams of 5 rather than 2, which works great.


From the limited information, it seems fairly irrelevant whether it's teams of 2, 5, 10 or 1.000.000. They seem to be the "equivalent" of a single model in a larger squad-type organisation.

They don't serve as an organisational unit you can activate by themselves (because you activate/move the whole squad of several "teams"). Neither do they provide anything game-play wise, that other squad-based 28mm games do with single models.

Admittedly, similar mechanics do exist, mostly in ~10mm games. It feels a bit like a "base of guys" (3 or 5 or howevermany) as you'd seem them in old Epic or DZC, but it is - mechanically - a clunky mechanic there, which mainly exists for reasons of scale/immersion, because individual 10mm infantry models would be rather finicky to handle physically and because infantry isn't the main-show of these games for the most part. Hell, even 40K uses it to an extend for IG heavy weapon teams and the like.

It's not unheard of. It's just not very elegant (from the limited information I've read) and it needlessly breaks the "link" between rules and models for no clear benefit I can see (at 28mm scale).



Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/23 10:45:06


Post by: Nostromodamus


Sounds like a pile of crap to me. I was expecting a streamlined ruleset for mass combat like KoW, not all this fiddly bollocks.

Oh well, saves me money at the end of the year for other stuff.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/23 11:04:32


Post by: Alpharius


With GW and 40K being at their most 'vulnerable' in well, possibly ever, this is not sounding like the ruleset we were looking for!


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/23 13:28:32


Post by: Daedleh


The rules make more sense if you assume people will multibase their teams, so you don't need to worry about the leader or whatever. It's been left up to the player whether they multibase or not, in the same way that you're "free to multibase" in Epic or leave all the models separate.

Warpath isn't intended to be "40k but not" and I think Mantic are wanting to do something that's more different to 40k than KoW is to WHFB.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/23 13:34:03


Post by: Wonderwolf


 Daedleh wrote:


Warpath isn't intended to be "40k but not" and I think Mantic are wanting to do something that's more different to 40k than KoW is to WHFB.


But what would actually change, rules-wise, if you'd replace this multibase of, say, 3 models that makes a "team" with just a single model that has identical stats to the previous "team", all other rules remaining unchanged?

Whether it's similar or different to 40K is not really the question. I'm scratching my head as to what game-play advantage you'd actually gain from this approach.




Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/23 13:39:32


Post by: Daedleh


I'm not defending it, just explaining I'm not a fan of the approach.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/23 13:41:06


Post by: AegisGrimm


Ugh. Multi-base units just don't do it for me, though it's obviously a mechanism to push the apocolypse-level gameplay Mantic wants from Warpath.

Unless the bases are like War of the Ring with removeable individual figures, storage is going to be a pain, and regardless multi-basing will work horribly clunky with the terrain common to sci-fi wargames.

Even At-43 and Confrontation Age of Ragnorok used leaders to measure range, bit kept individually based figures important for everything else.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/23 13:50:20


Post by: insaniak


 NTRabbit wrote:

Or, leaders all get their leader mini/stripes/whatever you choose to use, and all the mooks in his squad get the same coloured ring around their base, either painted or an additional bit of perspex.
That would look ghastly.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/23 13:54:34


Post by: Paradigm


 Daedleh wrote:

Warpath isn't intended to be "40k but not" and I think Mantic are wanting to do something that's more different to 40k than KoW is to WHFB.


Thing is, though, whether they're trying to be different from 40k or not, I'm not seeing any kind of positive to the mechanic. It would work for 6, 10, 15 or even 20mm gaming, but in 28mm it seems like an attempt to be 'different' for the sake of it. At the end of the day, the reason a lot of games copy each other is that there are some mechanics that just work, and Mantic shouldn't be ashamed to use them, or try and deviate just because they can.

Warpath has swung wildly in scope and style over the years; is this version pretty much set in stone even if a large portion of the potential audience don't like it? Or is there some chance that, if enough people comment to that effect, we may see something more akin to 2.0?

Either way, I think I'll just keep playing 2.0 as my alternative sci-fi system.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/23 14:07:31


Post by: Daedleh


 Paradigm wrote:
 Daedleh wrote:

Warpath isn't intended to be "40k but not" and I think Mantic are wanting to do something that's more different to 40k than KoW is to WHFB.


Thing is, though, whether they're trying to be different from 40k or not, I'm not seeing any kind of positive to the mechanic. It would work for 6, 10, 15 or even 20mm gaming, but in 28mm it seems like an attempt to be 'different' for the sake of it. At the end of the day, the reason a lot of games copy each other is that there are some mechanics that just work, and Mantic shouldn't be ashamed to use them, or try and deviate just because they can.

Warpath has swung wildly in scope and style over the years; is this version pretty much set in stone even if a large portion of the potential audience don't like it? Or is there some chance that, if enough people comment to that effect, we may see something more akin to 2.0?

Either way, I think I'll just keep playing 2.0 as my alternative sci-fi system.


I agree. There are good reasons why the same mechanics keep coming up time and time again, and good reasons why certain mechanics, such as 28mm sci-fi multibasing, aren't done.

I don't know how set in stone this is. There's been a lot of work put into it (I saw a version several months ago and that was already a long way into development) and there are some people who like this approach, such as the Warpath 1.0 fans. I don't know if they're the majority of people, don't think they are, but then I don't know if Mantic want their game to appeal to the majority or whether they're going for a niche set of fans.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/23 14:47:25


Post by: lord_blackfang


Multibasing in 28mm is ridiculous.

5-man teams could look better by just saying you have X individual units that have to stay within 4" of each other.

2-man teams are nonsense and if it comes to that - I would just not even deploy the mooks. These 3 models are a unit of 6, done.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/23 15:28:51


Post by: Tyr13


Pretty much. Why buy 25 models if 5 will do? Particularly since Ive still got to build and paint them? Ive never liked big 40k games, the scale is just wrong for it. Warpath shouldnt even try. 28mm just doesnt work for it.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/23 15:49:43


Post by: Kalamadea


 lord_blackfang wrote:
Multibasing in 28mm is ridiculous.

5-man teams could look better by just saying you have X individual units that have to stay within 4" of each other.

2-man teams are nonsense and if it comes to that - I would just not even deploy the mooks. These 3 models are a unit of 6, done.


That's the entire problem with the proposed system, there is NO reason to deploy mooks at all. Even in 5 man teams, if everything is handled by the team leader and if there's no removal mechanic for individuals, just buy your one guy and use the other 4 as 4 more "teams", it's all the same except your money goes 400% farther and you only have to paint 1/5th of the models to play the exact same game. As has been said, this sounds like the worst of all options with no upside. It works so well in KoW because most armies, whether for KoW or other fantasy/historical games, are already practically multibased already. In fact it helped to solve an issue in WHFB where you bought models individually but they were essentially just wound markers on what was essentially a multibase to begin with.

 insaniak wrote:
 NTRabbit wrote:

Or, leaders all get their leader mini/stripes/whatever you choose to use, and all the mooks in his squad get the same coloured ring around their base, either painted or an additional bit of perspex.
That would look ghastly.

took the words out of my mouth


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As an additional thought and at the risk of being positive about something for once, maybe Warpath as-written but with single-models would make a decent skirmish level game?


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/23 16:04:22


Post by: Pacific


 Kalamadea wrote:
 lord_blackfang wrote:
Multibasing in 28mm is ridiculous.

5-man teams could look better by just saying you have X individual units that have to stay within 4" of each other.

2-man teams are nonsense and if it comes to that - I would just not even deploy the mooks. These 3 models are a unit of 6, done.


That's the entire problem with the proposed system, there is NO reason to deploy mooks at all. Even in 5 man teams, if everything is handled by the team leader and if there's no removal mechanic for individuals, just buy your one guy and use the other 4 as 4 more "teams", it's all the same except your money goes 400% farther and you only have to paint 1/5th of the models to play the exact same game. As has been said, this sounds like the worst of all options with no upside. It works so well in KoW because most armies, whether for KoW or other fantasy/historical games, are already practically multibased already. In fact it helped to solve an issue in WHFB where you bought models individually but they were essentially just wound markers on what was essentially a multibase to begin with.


A lot of people get excited by the prospect of seeing hundreds of miniatures arrayed in battle on the tabletop. You could look at the success of 40k Apocalypse for this, or many, many other historical games over the years for examples of this. As such, I don't think it's just a case of 'but, why don't you just use one miniature, lol' because if we start down that route, you could make the argument that counters or tokens await. Visual spectacle is a massive appeal of wargaming.

What I think they are trying to do with this ruleset is make it possible to play in a set period of time, while having that massive miniature count. It's a difficult balance between abstraction and making the game relate on a squad level. Is it possible? Arguably 40k has tried to do this for the past few editions, with limited success.

What I do think is plain to see (based on comments I have read here) is that, while multi-basing is pretty much a requirement for mass-battle fantasy or historical systems, people are for whatever reason unable to accept this as something that is done for sci-fi games. From reading through this aspect of the rules, I think Mantic have got a very difficult balancing act and are trying to appease both camps, perhaps with the thought that ultimately players will come to the (probably correct) conclusion that moving a 100+ miniatures a turn separately is nuts, and will ultimately decide to multibase if given the opportunity.

I'm still reading through the rules here (and maybe someone with more experience of Warpath 1 and 2 will be better positioned to comment than I) but this is the design brief that's written at the start of these alpha rules. What Mantic are trying to achieve here:

While the rules themselves are still mutable, there are some things that aren’t – the criteria for what we want to achieve with this game.
To put you in the right mind-set, here are our key aims for this game:

- Playable in 30-120 minutes with 30-150 miniatures per side on a 6x4 board.
- Simple unit-based core mechanics for fast and intuitive gameplay. The base unit in the game should be a team rather than an individual figure.
- The game should present tactical dilemmas about what to do and when – it should avoid obvious choices.
- The focus of the game should be suppression, manoeuvrability, capturing terrain and objectives, and of course shooting.
Melee should be less frequent, but when it happens it should be very brutal and over quickly.
· Armies should have a combined arms approach with an interesting mix of infantry, armour and support units, but in different combinations for different factions.
· The game should include mechanics for interfering with the sequence of play, providing more choice without adding complexity.

There are secondary goals, but these are the main ones. Hopefully you’ll agree that these have been met.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/23 16:12:04


Post by: Daedleh


 Kalamadea wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
As an additional thought and at the risk of being positive about something for once, maybe Warpath as-written but with single-models would make a decent skirmish level game?


I think so. Just make the BRK stat a single number which is how many points of damage the unit takes before removing a casualty - 1 for regular infantry models - and most of the system would work brilliantly and be an excellent Sci-Fi game. Suppression would have to be played around with since it's based on teams and the current BRK values, but that's not insurmountable. I really like the way the rest of the game works - shooting, terrain, assault, movement are all great - but the hub/team concept just kills it stone dead for me.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/23 16:14:31


Post by: Paradigm


 Pacific wrote:
[
What I do think is plain to see (based on comments I have read here) is that, while multi-basing is pretty much a requirement for mass-battle fantasy or historical systems, people are for whatever reason unable to accept this as something that is done for sci-fi games


That is simply because in fantasy games, and for historical up to ACW era, battles are often pitched, on open fields and are to all intents and purposes, fights of attrition. Meanwhile, sci fi combat and modern battles are far more fluid; individuals dart in and out of building and cover, they have no formation beyond rermaining in proximity, and basically, units are much more organic. They can change in size and density, they can adapt far better than a solid block of troops, and are typically smaller.

Basically, fixed multi-basing doesn't mesh, visually or mechanically, with futuristic combat.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/23 16:17:00


Post by: Psychopomp



Hmmm. The team-based thing sounds weird, but I'm hearing things third-hand during an Alpha. As an Epic fan, I do see potential in it. Having to deal with individuals in the ever-growing battle scale of 40K is what finally turned me off of it a few years back. I often wondered, "Why bother with single Space Marines when a tactical squad is 8 bolter attacks, plus a heavy and special weapon attack?"

We've been promised a huge open playtest period, and given what I just saw the rules committee do with Kings of War, I still hold hope that this will turn into something awesome by the time the Kickstarter rolls around.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/23 17:10:10


Post by: OrlandotheTechnicoloured


I can just about see why they want to do it, but I think it will be a major failure on the table if only because of the inbuild prejudice many gamers have about it,

and if not many people are playing because of this, attracting the people who aren't bothered is much harder as there are fewer opponents out there

that said I can't see them changing it now, they've had plenty of critisim already on a variety of forums whenever the multi basing idea came up and from the sounds of it that's still there in a 'well it's technically optional' sort of way

and when have mantic ever dumped something they've spent money and effort on even when it would probably have been for the best ...(1st goblin sprue and most of the Basileans I'm looking at you here)


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/23 17:18:31


Post by: NobodyXY


I'd agree that multi basing isn't Ideal unless the models are removable because I'll probably play deadzone most out of the two. But I do understand the reasons for doing it this way. The way it's written would work for huge battles a lot better than having to move tons of single models. Single models are preferable with 30ish models per side but does not scale up well at all. That being said heavy infantry in my opinion need to be reworked. The fact that you can abstract away a unit into 1 model means that it's less of a financial burden for people/kids just getting into it. Also I hate not having painted up models on the table which will be hard to avoid at 50+ models on the table but with multi-basing I can do one unit per team to start then fill in the missing models as I paint them. removing single casualties is also something that doesn't scale well in my opinion.

A lot of neat ideas in there. The suppression mechanic/economy seems really interesting and has got me pretty excited!

The charge reactions seems to me to lend more depth to a melee units strategy of attack rather than whatever is close/dies quickest.

The faction command orders give a bit more flavour to the armies something I found lacking in the last edition of warpath. I still need to reread the command dice section as I haven't really gotten to grips with it.

Vehicle squadrons basically inform me of what the purpose of this ruleset is, mass battles.
It seems that I will be able to play at the level I want (1500pts and up) without it bogging down into
an all afternoon game, which is important to me.

As for representing the teams/hubs I'd like to see some examples before I form an opinion.

Finally I'd like to point out a few things
A) The rules are in alpha which for video games means that some features aren't present or haven't been fleshed out.
B) A rule committee exists telling me that yes there is some room for the community to have their say which is more than other mass battle games have going for it.
C)Most things are going to get repackaged to better fit with the new deadzone and warpath force organization. So I would wait on trying to build an army out of the DS stuff.

EDIT: single-basing is still an option. all moving is done from your leader and so is shooting if I'm reading it right. Coherency is the only thing that changes(not much I'd imagine in practice as models had to stay together anyway).


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/23 17:24:18


Post by: AegisGrimm


 Paradigm wrote:
 Pacific wrote:
[
What I do think is plain to see (based on comments I have read here) is that, while multi-basing is pretty much a requirement for mass-battle fantasy or historical systems, people are for whatever reason unable to accept this as something that is done for sci-fi games


That is simply because in fantasy games, and for historical up to ACW era, battles are often pitched, on open fields and are to all intents and purposes, fights of attrition. Meanwhile, sci fi combat and modern battles are far more fluid; individuals dart in and out of building and cover, they have no formation beyond remaining in proximity, and basically, units are much more organic. They can change in size and density, they can adapt far better than a solid block of troops, and are typically smaller.

Basically, fixed multi-basing doesn't mesh, visually or mechanically, with futuristic combat.


Absolutely, and that can work for fantasy as well. Say what you want about the Cronfrontation Age of Ragnorok game (the prepainted part being a huge point of contention), but the ruleset handles midieval fantasy melee combat perfectly fine without ranked troops. You can have 10-man units of single-based models fighting other sized units just fine if that's what you want to base your ruleset on. In fact it's easier to develop "pile in" melee mechanics for individually based troop units becoming engaged than it is to govern how close melee affects the meeting and movement of opposing blocks of troops.


I'm actually surprised more fantasy games don't use individual models rather than just mimicking Warhammer Fantasy's Napoleonic blocks.

It's just very obvious that Mantic is aiming for giant armies on boards with very little terrain density. Shooting galleries, as it were.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/23 17:27:42


Post by: Wonderwolf


 NobodyXY wrote:
. Single models are preferable with 30ish models per side but does not scale up well at all.


Fair enough. But if they want to abstract away from the single model, why not just treat units as the smallest organisational unit for game-play purposes?

The problem is that this "team"-rule is, for all intents and purposes, the equivalent of the way single models work in games like 40K. Except that it is represented on the battlefield in a visually less appealing 2-5 multi-model-multibase-gaming piece instead of a single-model gaming piece.

It's all the clunkiness of 40K within-unit-micromanagement with break-limits and what not (which need to be tracked separately, instead of just using models as "wound counters") with all the visual awkwardness of using Epic/DZC-style infantry multibases scaled up to 28mm.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/23 17:42:05


Post by: Krinsath


I'll reserve judgement until I can read the rules for myself, but what I'm hearing is wholly unappealing; to the point of lowering my planned spend on DeadZone: Infestation. As was said, it's currently sounding like the worst of both worlds wherein you're better off doing as suggested and replacing "teams" with "models" and calling it a day. It might not look as nice or "epic" on the tabletop, but it's a damn sight easier on wallet and painting queue for an identical experience.

To be fair to the concept, I would agree that if you go to the Apocalypse-level model counts that multi-basing is a good idea because you're going to be working with things that remove entire squads of troopers at a time and the abstraction of the simulation makes it appropriate. Infantry isn't the focus of the battle so much as the things carrying those huge weapons. I can also agree that detailed record keeping such as found in skirmish games becomes tedious once you go past a dozen or so models on a side. There's a very hefty gulf between those two points, and I don't think the rules as I've heard presented (which may be inaccurate) do that model count justice. As some have already stated, it sounds like being different just for the sake of being different with no actual benefit being delivered to the gamer or the consumer.

Could be wrong, but it's a very bad first impression thus far.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/23 17:45:42


Post by: NobodyXY


Wonderwolf wrote:
 NobodyXY wrote:
. Single models are preferable with 30ish models per side but does not scale up well at all.


Fair enough. But if they want to abstract away from the single model, why not just treat units as the smallest organisational unit for game-play purposes?

The problem is that this "team"-rule is, for all intents and purposes, the equivalent of the way single models work in games like 40K. Except that it is represented on the battlefield in a visually less appealing 2-5 multi-model-multibase-gaming piece instead of a single-model gaming piece.

It's all the clunkiness of 40K within-unit-micromanagement with break-limits and what not (which need to be tracked separately, instead of just using models as "wound counters") with all the visual awkwardness of using Epic/DZC-style infantry multibases scaled up to 28mm.


I think the purpose is to allow a unit to have more than two states, Dead or Alive. Having wound tokens instead would mean that like last ed a unit fight at full strength until it's dead, which isn't Ideal either. At least this way you get a sense of damage done. Suppression also play a heavy part in this too. From my perspective and reading the alpha rules in full I got the sense that They wanted a better representation of battle damage/fatigue without single model wounds to allow for scaling.

visual awkwardness is sort of a personal preference but there has been mention of movement trays I believe. Which I'll probably make anyways. It seems the best of both worlds because you could take them out and set them up 'manually' if that would work out better. I probably won't go multibase only and will rather opt for a middle of the road approach.

The multi basing stuff made me a bit grumpy yesterday but after sleeping on it I better see its merit. especially after watching some kings of war and 40k battle reports lately I'd rather be able to watch someone play a full game right in front of me in an hour rather than spend that same hour getting a half-hearted bottom/top of the turn update.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/23 17:51:05


Post by: Wonderwolf


 NobodyXY wrote:
Wonderwolf wrote:
 NobodyXY wrote:
. Single models are preferable with 30ish models per side but does not scale up well at all.


Fair enough. But if they want to abstract away from the single model, why not just treat units as the smallest organisational unit for game-play purposes?

The problem is that this "team"-rule is, for all intents and purposes, the equivalent of the way single models work in games like 40K. Except that it is represented on the battlefield in a visually less appealing 2-5 multi-model-multibase-gaming piece instead of a single-model gaming piece.

It's all the clunkiness of 40K within-unit-micromanagement with break-limits and what not (which need to be tracked separately, instead of just using models as "wound counters") with all the visual awkwardness of using Epic/DZC-style infantry multibases scaled up to 28mm.


I think the purpose is to allow a unit to have more than two states, Dead or Alive. Having wound tokens instead would mean that like last ed a unit fight at full strength until it's dead, which isn't Ideal either. At least this way you get a sense of damage done. Suppression also play a heavy part in this too. From my perspective and reading the alpha rules in full I got the sense that They wanted a better representation of battle damage/fatigue without single units so to allow for scaling.

visual awkwardness is sort of a personal preference but there has been mention of movement trays I believe. Which I'll probably make anyways. It seems the best of both worlds because you could take them out and set them up 'manually' if that would work out better. I probably won't go multibase only and will rather opt for a middle of the road approach.

The multi basing stuff made me a bit grumpy yesterday but after sleeping on it I better see its merit. especially after watching some kings of war and 40k battle reports lately I'd rather be able to watch someone play a full game right in front of me in an hour rather than spend that same hour getting a half-hearted bottom/top of the turn update.


Ok. But none of the rules change if you'd use a single model as the "game piece" that designates a "team" on the table as opposed to the current mutlibase-idea.

It's not "faster" or "more streamlined" than the exact same game that uses single models in place of the multibases, so claims that it would be more conductive to larger battles seems a bit misleading.

It scales to larger games as well or as badly as playing Warhammer 40K and simply replacing each single model with 3 models (or 5 or 10) and removing 3 models (or 5 or 10) every time your opponent inflicts an unsaved wound on you, instead of just one.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/23 18:11:57


Post by: NobodyXY


Wonderwolf wrote:
 NobodyXY wrote:
Wonderwolf wrote:
 NobodyXY wrote:
. Single models are preferable with 30ish models per side but does not scale up well at all.


Fair enough. But if they want to abstract away from the single model, why not just treat units as the smallest organisational unit for game-play purposes?

The problem is that this "team"-rule is, for all intents and purposes, the equivalent of the way single models work in games like 40K. Except that it is represented on the battlefield in a visually less appealing 2-5 multi-model-multibase-gaming piece instead of a single-model gaming piece.

It's all the clunkiness of 40K within-unit-micromanagement with break-limits and what not (which need to be tracked separately, instead of just using models as "wound counters") with all the visual awkwardness of using Epic/DZC-style infantry multibases scaled up to 28mm.


I think the purpose is to allow a unit to have more than two states, Dead or Alive. Having wound tokens instead would mean that like last ed a unit fight at full strength until it's dead, which isn't Ideal either. At least this way you get a sense of damage done. Suppression also play a heavy part in this too. From my perspective and reading the alpha rules in full I got the sense that They wanted a better representation of battle damage/fatigue without single units so to allow for scaling.

visual awkwardness is sort of a personal preference but there has been mention of movement trays I believe. Which I'll probably make anyways. It seems the best of both worlds because you could take them out and set them up 'manually' if that would work out better. I probably won't go multibase only and will rather opt for a middle of the road approach.

The multi basing stuff made me a bit grumpy yesterday but after sleeping on it I better see its merit. especially after watching some kings of war and 40k battle reports lately I'd rather be able to watch someone play a full game right in front of me in an hour rather than spend that same hour getting a half-hearted bottom/top of the turn update.


Ok. But none of the rules change if you'd use a single model as the "game piece" that designates a "team" on the table as opposed to the current mutlibase-idea.

It's not "faster" or "more streamlined" than the exact same game that uses single models in place of the multibases, so claims that it would be more conductive to larger battles seems a bit misleading.

It scales to larger games as well or as badly as playing Warhammer 40K and simply replacing each single model with 3 models (or 5 or 10) and removing 3 models (or 5 or 10) every time your opponent inflicts an unsaved wound on you, instead of just one.


The difference would be one of aesthetics but still stands. To play a 50+ model 40k game will take X hours. To play a 50+ WP game will take Y hours. X is greater than Y is essentially what I'm saying. You can go either way 1 model per team or 5 per team and It would play the same. You can't do that in 40k because their is no abstraction. a 55 model force is x points always for 40k. with warpath it's "a y model force is x points" allowing for more scalability. Apologies if I'm being unclear.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/23 18:17:23


Post by: judgedoug


Mymearan wrote:
So squads within squads? That seems needlessly complicated...


Sort of like the US Marines who pioneered the most effective infantry formation in the world.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I love the hysteria, someone says "multi-basing" and everyone assumes the rules are multi-basing. It's not.

Everyone here is used to 40k, which is the worst system for sci-fi mass infantry battles ever designed.

Warpath is just using "cloud" formations, where only the leader model matters, for measuring and movement, etc., which is the first basis for an elegant ruleset without needless complications. This is not some new-fangled concept, it's been used in dozens of rulesets for over a decade, and is the only way to have a manageable game when model count is greater than Infinity/WMH.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Daedleh wrote:
people will multibase their teams


No


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 AegisGrimm wrote:
Ugh. Multi-base units


No


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 lord_blackfang wrote:
Multibasing in 28mm


No


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 NobodyXY wrote:
I'd agree that multi basing isn't Ideal


No


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just so everyone understands

THERE IS NO MULTI-BASING



Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/23 18:36:45


Post by: Tannhauser42


Amusingly enough, 40K has used multibasing for years: Imperial Guard Heavy Weapons Teams.
Anyway, I'll reserve judgement until after the rules go public, and preferably when they're also in something more than a barebones Alpha version. To completely dismiss and/or hate on a game that is in its Alpha state is premature. Changes will certainly be made, and it is important to try things first to see what works and what doesn't.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/23 18:38:02


Post by: judgedoug


Actually, I'm mistaken - Stargrunt II uses unit-clouds for movement and range purposes (measuring from the center of a unit formation), and that was released in 1996. SG2 is a rules triumph, and is now free! Thanks GZG http://downloads.groundzerogames.co.uk/sgii.pdf
I believe either Andy Chambers or Jervis Johnson stated that during the development of 40k3 they used SG2 as their inspiration for rules elegance.

And, of course, Tomorrow's War is the direct descendant of SG2.

Both of the rulesets are superior to individual model movement/range/blah, because they are designed as squad-level combat games, whereas 40k has it's roots in 10-20 model skirmish combat... and never grew out of those rules concepts, despite emphasizing a five-fold or more increase in model count in army list construction.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/23 18:42:30


Post by: NobodyXY



Just so everyone understands

THERE IS NO MULTI-BASING



Mantic has been experimenting with the idea and how it would work in practice.

Here's a quote:

- Is there a minimum base size for multibased teams? We were going over the pros and cons of multibasing and different formations, and got to the point where we were wondering if there was some specific minimum size a multibase or movement tool had to be for the regular and large infantry teams?

MANTIC: We've had a lot of debates on this one and haven't come up with a definitive answer yet as there are so many variables to think about. A common concern has been whether we want a team to fit within a piece of our plastic scenery, in which case about 70x70mm would be the maximum. However, this would only work for regular Infantry - Large Infantry can't fit on a base that size. I've been working to a size of around 60mm x 90mm for my testing, which is a base that fits both regular and large infantry, and is the same depth as the base of a massive infantry figure. It also has a little room for some cool diorama goodness . This isn't final though, so don't go getting anything made just yet.


https://manticforum.com/forum/warpath/warpath-rules-discussion/228601-warpath-alpha-feedback-thread

It isn't Required. The rules don't mention basing as far as I noticed.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/23 18:43:16


Post by: judgedoug


Wonderwolf wrote:
It's not "faster" or "more streamlined" than the exact same game that uses single models in place of the multibases, so claims that it would be more conductive to larger battles seems a bit misleading.


That is demonstrably false. When a unit requires a single measurement for it's movement, or for it's range, or for whatever purpose, it is X times faster than 40k-style individual measurement, where X is the number of models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 NobodyXY wrote:

Just so everyone understands

THERE IS NO MULTI-BASING



Mantic has been experimenting with the idea and how it would work in practice.

Here's a quote:

- Is there a minimum base size for multibased teams? We were going over the pros and cons of multibasing and different formations, and got to the point where we were wondering if there was some specific minimum size a multibase or movement tool had to be for the regular and large infantry teams?

MANTIC: We've had a lot of debates on this one and haven't come up with a definitive answer yet as there are so many variables to think about. A common concern has been whether we want a team to fit within a piece of our plastic scenery, in which case about 70x70mm would be the maximum. However, this would only work for regular Infantry - Large Infantry can't fit on a base that size. I've been working to a size of around 60mm x 90mm for my testing, which is a base that fits both regular and large infantry, and is the same depth as the base of a massive infantry figure. It also has a little room for some cool diorama goodness . This isn't final though, so don't go getting anything made just yet.


https://manticforum.com/forum/warpath/warpath-rules-discussion/228601-warpath-alpha-feedback-thread


And is the exact same as Bolt Action, 40k, Kings of War, etc - where there is no requirement for multi-basing. (but people do it anyways on weapons teams and such, or regiments in KoW, to make life easier).
Warlord even sells multi-bases for Bolt Action: http://us-store.warlordgames.com/collections/bases/products/bolt-action-squad-bases and http://us-store.warlordgames.com/collections/bases/products/bolt-action-support-bases
You can certainly multi-base your squads if you want. But just like this Warpath alpha, there is no requirement for multi-basing.

Notice the cover rules still uses number of models for unit's cover state. "If more than half of the models in the unit are partially or completely obscured by another unit or piece of terrain, the unit is in cover and anyone targeting the unit will suffer penalties when Shooting." Per-model determination of unit cover defeats any benefit of a multi-based ruleset.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/23 18:52:46


Post by: NobodyXY


 judgedoug wrote:
Wonderwolf wrote:
It's not "faster" or "more streamlined" than the exact same game that uses single models in place of the multibases, so claims that it would be more conductive to larger battles seems a bit misleading.


That is demonstrably false. When a unit requires a single measurement for it's movement, or for it's range, or for whatever purpose, it is X times faster than 40k-style individual measurement, where X is the number of models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 NobodyXY wrote:

Just so everyone understands

THERE IS NO MULTI-BASING



Mantic has been experimenting with the idea and how it would work in practice.

Here's a quote:

- Is there a minimum base size for multibased teams? We were going over the pros and cons of multibasing and different formations, and got to the point where we were wondering if there was some specific minimum size a multibase or movement tool had to be for the regular and large infantry teams?

MANTIC: We've had a lot of debates on this one and haven't come up with a definitive answer yet as there are so many variables to think about. A common concern has been whether we want a team to fit within a piece of our plastic scenery, in which case about 70x70mm would be the maximum. However, this would only work for regular Infantry - Large Infantry can't fit on a base that size. I've been working to a size of around 60mm x 90mm for my testing, which is a base that fits both regular and large infantry, and is the same depth as the base of a massive infantry figure. It also has a little room for some cool diorama goodness . This isn't final though, so don't go getting anything made just yet.


https://manticforum.com/forum/warpath/warpath-rules-discussion/228601-warpath-alpha-feedback-thread


And is the exact same as Bolt Action, 40k, Kings of War, etc - where there is no requirement for multi-basing. (but people do it anyways on weapons teams and such, or regiments in KoW, to make life easier).

Notice the cover rules still uses number of models for unit's cover state. "If more than half of the models in the unit are partially or completely obscured by another unit or piece of terrain, the unit is in cover and anyone targeting the unit will suffer penalties when Shooting."


Yeah I'm basically agreeing with you but with the caveat that you can multibase if you choose and that there are positives and negatives to both approaches.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/23 18:58:35


Post by: adamsouza


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

Warpath V1 = mutlibase like KOW.

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

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



Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/23 19:01:06


Post by: judgedoug


 NobodyXY wrote:
Yeah I'm basically agreeing with you but with the caveat that you can multibase if you choose and that there are positives and negatives to both approaches.


The only positive to bultibasing in any of the games I listed (and also in Warpath3 alpha) is that it makes them easier to physically pick up when deploying them or when picking up after a game. In all other cases sometimes it's really annoying deploying my heavy artillery in Bolt Action because of the big scenic multibase I put it on.

I'm reading a lot of the AAR for Warpath3 alpha and how the team/unit mechanic works and it's quite exciting.
I've yet to encounter a ruleset that fully captures how fireteams in squads works - in real life - and it sounds like Warpath3 may do just that.
(have not played yet, just read the rules)

for example, USMC:
- A squad is made up of three fire teams, in addition to a Corporal or Sergeant as squad leader. A squad is capable of integrating a variety of attachments from a weapons platoon.
- A fire team is the basic element of the ground combat element. It consists of four Marines: the team leader/grenadier (M4/M16 with M203), one rifleman (M4/M16), one assistant light machine gunner (M4/M16), and one light machine gunner (M249 SAW Light Machine Gun). The team leader is typically a Lance Corporal or Corporal.

The fire teams are autonomous units but function as part of the squad. This allows a squad to achieve an objective by providing it's own fire, maneouver, and assault elements, of which every fireteam is equally suited - allowing any element within a squad to function and adapt to whatever situation is required of them.

This is one thing popular rulesets have never gotten right - 40k is the most notorious offender - because the first design consideration at the ground up is to ignore any actual aspects of real infantry tactics.


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

Warpath V1 = mutlibase like KOW.

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

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



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

I feel like I'm in a weird twilight zone where literally no one has ever played anything other than 40k and it's making me weep for the state of gaming


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/23 19:14:34


Post by: lord_blackfang


It sounds like the major design goal of Warpath is to allow you to place more models on the table than the rules can actually handle.

So I have a cleaner solution.

Play a skirmish game designed for 30 models. Then litter the table with a bunch of extra models that don't do anything. Remove a few every so often when the "real" models are killed. Done.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/23 19:18:19


Post by: Azreal13


 judgedoug wrote:

I feel like I'm in a weird twilight zone where literally no one has ever played anything other than 40k and it's making me weep for the state of gaming


I'm with you, I've no real interest in playing, but the vested interest some people seem to have in getting the knives out for a game they haven't played seems odd. If I didn't recognise some of the names as long term and regular users, I'd even be discounting some of the posts as shilling.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/23 19:19:03


Post by: judgedoug


 lord_blackfang wrote:
Play a skirmish game designed for 30 models. Then litter the table with a bunch of extra models that don't do anything. Remove a few every so often when the "real" models are killed. Done.


You just described 40k, but you forgot the "5 hours" part.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Azreal13 wrote:
 judgedoug wrote:

I feel like I'm in a weird twilight zone where literally no one has ever played anything other than 40k and it's making me weep for the state of gaming


I'm with you, I've no real interest in playing, but the vested interest some people seem to have in getting the knives out for a game they haven't played

OR have even read the rules for, and are just making entirely absurd ridiculous assertions. "Someone said you have to smash your models with a hammer when they die." "I understand it might create a more tense environment, this new model-smashing mechanic, and force you to think more tactically, but this is just a bad design flaw." "GOOD JOB MANTIC WHY WOULD I BREAK MY MODELS" "Mantic... almost."
 Azreal13 wrote:
seems odd. If I didn't recognise some of the names as long term and regular users, I'd even be discounting some of the posts as shilling.


What's happened is that a game designed as the tactical combat portion of a friendly Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay-In-Space roleplaying game became really popular, and it's core design mechanics were never, ever changed. As it's game designers left over the years, they and the people they inspired all designed better game systems, with more elegance and abstraction and producing better results with less work... meanwhile, Space Warhammer never changed, and new players were added over the years, and Space Warhammer is all they've ever known.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/23 19:29:11


Post by: lord_blackfang


Ah, we're back to the standard "40k sucks, everything else is automatically good, if you don't like something it must mean you like 40k better, and that makes you ignorant and/or stupid"


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/23 19:36:19


Post by: Azreal13


I'd pitch it more in the direction of "you're entitled to your opinion, but when you're basing it on incomplete information or a lack of knowledge, I retain the right to think your opinion's stupid" direction.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/23 19:40:53


Post by: lord_blackfang


 Azreal13 wrote:
I'd pitch it more in the direction of "you're entitled to your opinion, but when you're basing it on incomplete information or a lack of knowledge, I retain the right to think your opinion's stupid" direction.


What you mean to say is, if you don't like an opinion, you assume it's based on ignorance. Classy. So how many game systems does one have to have under his belt to be allowed to have a legitimate opinion on Warpath?


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/23 19:59:48


Post by: Azreal13


No, seeing as the very early in development rules have only been made available behind a paywall as of today (?) I'm saying the odds of you having sufficient knowledge to be as critical as you are are fairly slim.

Nothing to do with your wargaming experience, now calm down you're in danger of breaching rule one for no reason other than I'm disagreeing with you.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/23 19:59:52


Post by: OrlandotheTechnicoloured


Well if it's (making snap judgements based in incomplete or assumed information) good enough for every GW release that hits the forum why should Mantic get away with anything different

I'm sure any of us who were at all serious in thinking we'd consider playing warpath 2.0 will take another look when mantic release more rules info where we'll either confirm or revise our snap judgement


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/23 20:01:31


Post by: carlos13th


I would have to look at the rules myself before making a judgement. If the game handles squads/fireteams in a similar way to how Full Specturm Warrior handled them and makes suppression and flanking important I will be very tempted. I think Sabol trays with removable casualties is a good way to do unit basing or clouds where only the leader is important for Sci Fi.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/23 20:02:24


Post by: Azreal13


 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
Well if it's (making snap judgements based in incomplete or assumed information) good enough for every GW release that hits the forum why should Mantic get away with anything different


I think it's dumb when that happens too.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/23 20:02:30


Post by: Pacific


Actually, yes there are some striking similarities in the sense that people are rushing to make judgement on something based on second-hand evidence or rumour.

Although, at least in this case the rules have actually been read by some and JudgeDoug has done the good thing of posting his findings here.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/23 20:14:53


Post by: NobodyXY


 carlos13th wrote:
I would have to look at the rules myself before making a judgement. If the game handles squads/fireteams in a similar way to how Full Specturm Warrior handled them and makes suppression and flanking important I will be very tempted. I think Sabol trays with removable casualties is a good way to do unit basing or clouds where only the leader is important for Sci Fi.


Well until then I can tell you that units are broken up into squads/fireteams called teams and that suppression plays a larger role on the overall battle from my point of view. Flanking isn't included as of this release which is kinda too bad because that plus breaking up a unit into it's team temporarily could open up some interesting options.

EDIT: oops all this is compared to the last ed of WP.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/23 20:20:56


Post by: insaniak


 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Amusingly enough, 40K has used multibasing for years: Imperial Guard Heavy Weapons Teams.

And the most common question asked by Imperial Guard players since those teams were introduced has been 'Can I base my heavy weapons guys on separate 25mm bases?'


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/23 20:40:44


Post by: Daedleh


 judgedoug wrote:


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

I feel like I'm in a weird twilight zone where literally no one has ever played anything other than 40k and it's making me weep for the state of gaming


Come off it. You know that people are using multibasing to refer to the whole-fireteams-removal mechanics. Being deliberately obtuse is doing wonders for your image.

I played 40k up until 6th, where I felt that the rules had gone completely bonkers and there were too many models on the table for any meaningful manoeuvring - and note that Warpath is aiming for a similar number of models and scale. I play KoW, Epic:A and Warmachine. I have previously played/collected Starship Troopers, WHFB, Gorkamorka, Deadzone, Flames of War, Bolt Action and plenty of others. I first saw these rules several months ago and have played a game of it.

Am I qualified enough for you or am I just a silly sausage who has only ever played 40k?


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/23 20:57:58


Post by: NTRabbit


28mm scale is too big for mass battle. The largest battle of 40k I've ever played is 1500 points and I felt that was too many minis on one 6x4 table for meaningful tactics.

Mass battle sci fi needs to be 6mm or 10mm, 28mm sci fi can't go any bigger than the company level or else it drowns the table.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/23 21:02:25


Post by: NobodyXY


The whole fireteam thing seems to be a core principle as per the design goal

Simple unit-based core mechanics
for fast and intuitive gameplay.
The base unit in the game
should be a team rather than an
individual figure.


In my opinion any method of wounding would probably have to be abstract per that design goal.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/23 21:09:44


Post by: Daedleh


Oh well, as long as it's a design goal then that's fine. All of our issues with it are gone.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/23 21:12:02


Post by: Warhams-77


I re-read Space Marine/Epic 1st edition lately (and the WDs from that time) and plan to play it using 28mm figs on cardboard/mdf/plastic trays. It's good to see Warpath will go into this direction too. Really looking forward to the new ruleset


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/23 21:39:17


Post by: NobodyXY


 Daedleh wrote:
Oh well, as long as it's a design goal then that's fine. All of our issues with it are gone.


I wasn't trying to hand wave your argument. I just wanted to point out that the smallest unit in the game is supposed to be a team and so methods of wounds are limited by the goal.
The biggest issue folks seem to have with team removal is that it seems unrealistic, I haven't heard any complaints about how it plays or is supposed play. If that's untrue feel free to post your opinion on it
and some ideas on it.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/23 21:54:49


Post by: insaniak


 NobodyXY wrote:

The biggest issue folks seem to have with team removal is that it seems unrealistic, .

From reading the last few pages, the issue that people have with it sn't that it's unrealistic, it's that it's pointless complication that doesn't really add anything useful to the game.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/23 22:31:30


Post by: NobodyXY


In my opinion single models as the smallest measurement of your force is needlessly complicated.While units as the smallest measurement of your force isn't ideal if your goal is a more realistic wounding method. So i guess what I'm saying is that I don't recall anyone coming up with a better method without resorting to single model removal. Apologies if I misrepresented anyone's position.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/23 23:28:27


Post by: AegisGrimm


I am mostly just stating my opinion that having a unit in any game be represented by a single large base with several models on it makes interactions with that unit and nearly any sort of detailed terrain horribly clunky. I would hate to see any more games that simulate WHFB's style of Napoleonic tactics, and would be happily wrong about Warpath.

For me 28mm gaming is all about tables of awesome terrain, and having a unit on that scale operate like a stand of Epic infantry would be a damn shame. The only way it's ok at 6-10 mm scale is that it's nearly functionally impossible to have things like small groups of scatter terrain like barrels, etc, so the lack of the ability of individual models to move between and around such things is not a noticeable thing.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/24 00:35:50


Post by: Tannhauser42


 Azreal13 wrote:
 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
Well if it's (making snap judgements based in incomplete or assumed information) good enough for every GW release that hits the forum why should Mantic get away with anything different


I think it's dumb when that happens too.


I would argue that the difference in this particular situation is that Mantic is actually playtesting this stuff publicly (well, fully public soon) and gathering feedback to make changes. What public playtesting and feedback collection does GW do?


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/24 02:05:53


Post by: Mort


 AegisGrimm wrote:
I am mostly just stating my opinion that having a unit in any game be represented by a single large base with several models on it makes interactions with that unit and nearly any sort of detailed terrain horribly clunky. I would hate to see any more games that simulate WHFB's style of Napoleonic tactics, and would be happily wrong about Warpath.

For me 28mm gaming is all about tables of awesome terrain, and having a unit on that scale operate like a stand of Epic infantry would be a damn shame. The only way it's ok at 6-10 mm scale is that it's nearly functionally impossible to have things like small groups of scatter terrain like barrels, etc, so the lack of the ability of individual models to move between and around such things is not a noticeable thing.



Could you go ahead and play with single-minis without the large bases, and just keep them close together as if they were on the large base, and proceed? This would allow you to position them on differen elevations (which might be clunky with big bases/trays...


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/24 02:21:04


Post by: DaveC


Models within a team only need to be within 2" of their Hub so you can spread them out a bit. Hubs from the same unit must be within 4" of each other.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/24 08:34:22


Post by: scarletsquig


If anyone wants the alpha rules, the facebook group "Warpath Universe" has them uploaded. I won't link out of courtesy to Dakka, but it's easy enough to search for.

Main thing that Mantic are looking for is feedback based on playing the game.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/24 09:42:45


Post by: lord_blackfang


 NobodyXY wrote:
I wasn't trying to hand wave your argument. I just wanted to point out that the smallest unit in the game is supposed to be a team and so methods of wounds are limited by the goal.
The biggest issue folks seem to have with team removal is that it seems unrealistic, I haven't heard any complaints about how it plays or is supposed play. If that's untrue feel free to post your opinion on it and some ideas on it.


My issue isn't model removal, it's the fact that playing a unit of 30 Orx will require tracking 7 different coherencies within just the one unit. It's as ridiculous as the micromanagement currently required in 40k because of directional shooting damage. Not to mention the headache and aesthetics issues of actually marking the models that belong together, or using multibasing (which also neatly prevents you from using the models with any other 28mm game). It gets even worse with Large Infantry. Is grouping models in pairs really worth all this extra hassle?

Add the fact that the system isn't even consistent (Massive Infantry gets Wounded instead and Vehicles are targeted individually even if they form a unit)



There also seems to be some wonky math in the suppression rules, but I don't have time to double check. Seems to me that the odds of "grounding" a unit oscillate as damage increases.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/24 09:59:06


Post by: CalgarsPimpHand


I can see lord_blackfang's point here, and with the rules as discussed in this thread I agree with him. This sounds like a bad move, and I think some people are intentionally mis-hearing the argument.

If the plan is to have teams of >1 models within units, and these teams cannot take wounds or lose members in any way, and they always move and fight as a team, and they are removed as casualties all at once as a team, and range and LOS are always determined from the team leader's position, then: placing them on the table as separate models serves *no* gameplay purpose. It's just money spent to make your game look cool, and time spent moving around models that aren't even wound markers; they literally may as well not be there. The teams are functionally identical to individual models within a unit and you may as well save yourself the money and play them using single models.

If you want to continue playing a 28mm game with individually based models, ideally you would keep most all of the abstractions mentioned above - "cloud" units that use team leaders for range and LOS - but retain the idea that individual models are removed as they die and the unit's strength scales accordingly. This removes the fiddly aspects of precisely moving and positioning a horde of models and checking LOS to each one, but still gives you a good reason to have all your giant pretty models in the first place.

If you want to streamline the game such that teams are the smallest divisible element of the game in every way, you may as well stop pretending like individual basing is still a real option, because it's an option without a purpose (except for ease of placement in terrain, but with all the added complexity of maintaining coherency) - as far as the rules are concerned, your models may as well be multibased.

And that's fine. For large battles, that's preferable. Epic: Armageddon is my favorite wargame by far, and multibasing is clearly superior for huge conflicts. But why bother writing rules for a 28mm multibased game? Be honest with yourself and either play a compromised ruleset where your massively expensive model investment means something (at least as wound counters), or play at a scale where removing 5 models at a time makes sense.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/24 10:53:40


Post by: CalgarsPimpHand


As a follow-up to my previous post, doing some reading on Mantic's forum I found this straight from the horse's mouth (i.e. their rules guy):
As I mentioned in an earlier comment, people who are in it purely for the gameplay will play a system like this at a smaller scale. People who play at 28mm do so because they like the models, and therefore the argument about needing them to actually do something holds a little less weight. Kings of War could be played with rectangles of cardboard if you wanted to, with no loss of playability. However, let's not get into that debate now

Personally I feel like it's a good looking ruleset, but at bad way to go for a 28mm scale game. I suppose I fall in with the first group of people the designer mentioned. I'd rather just play a game like this at 15mm or smaller. It does at least offer an interesting alternative for 28mm mass-battle that I think is missing from the marketplace, but I can't help but feel I'd be much more keen on it if 80% of your infantry models mattered for something besides LOS liability. I fully agree that in a modern wargame, suppression is MORE important than damage, but it's not that difficult to track damage (and scale firepower) by removing individual models while also tracking suppression in a more abstract way.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/24 10:55:36


Post by: OnePageAnon


Now that the WP3.0 rules have been released I opened a poll over on the Mantic forums asking which version of Warpath you like best. The way I see it a simple poll might be the easiest way for Mantic to see which direction people want the game to go in, so if you care about the future of WP this is your chance to get your opinion across in a simple way!

Vote on the poll here: https://manticforum.com/forum/warpath/warpath-rules-discussion/228939-which-version-of-warpath-do-you-like-best


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/24 11:22:37


Post by: lord_blackfang


Honestly... I might not mind using Warpath 3 for 15mm. FOW basing looks neat at that scale, and I don't particularly like any of the existing 15mm sci-fi rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, here's another annoyance. Orders use a dice pool mechanic with custom D8s. Really, you couldn't make this work in a way that is consistent with the rest of the rules? It feels like the 40k7 magic phase.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/24 12:46:14


Post by: Krinsath


CalgarsPimpHand, you have eloquently summarized my concerns very well with your post; have an exalt good sir.

To put it another way, my concern centers around the idea that models are not free. Hobby time painting them and the materials to paint them are not free. The time spent transporting them and moving them around on the table isn't free. The risk of breakage is an ever-present one we all accept (and probably have glue in our carry bags for that reason). From what I've heard thus far, there's no point to doing any of that other than "to look cool" which, while certainly a valid reason and overwhelmingly so in specific cases, I'm not sure offsets the time involved for all gaming scenarios. If the rules function well enough with a single model per team and a (comically) oversized base, it should beg the question of it is even worth having the other models on the table. If all they accomplish in the grand scheme is to up the cost of the game without providing a means for those models to actually be useful in their own right, I can't help but feel it's something of a raw deal. KoW and other fantasy mass-battle and historicals get away with it because it's highly thematic, and you can cheat on painting the interior models with slightly less care. No such luck in a modern/sci-fi theme.

I'm fine with multi-basing at a smaller scale, such as 15mm and under, because those stands of 4-5 guys still take less time than a single 28mm model; the "hobby cost" of a 15mm team is about even with a 28mm model. Doing a 28mm model at the number of models similar to 15mm or even 6mm scales, even to a basic gaming standard, is quite a different kettle of fish. I'm not really looking for a "return" per se when discussing costs, but it does factor into what I'm going to do as a hobbyist. If I can play WarPath, but it will take me dozens of hours more to create a fieldable army that's a disincentive towards picking WarPath, especially when for 80% of models I paint there may have little "reason" for them to be there.

Now that Squig has given me a way to read over the rules myself though (thanks Squig!), I'll undertake that and see if it's much ado about a little. I suppose in a worst case if it's just a good 80+ model/Not-Apocalypse ruleset, then I'll look at using Dakka's game to fill the gap of the more platoon-level combat (and if I get into Maelstrom's Edge, perhaps WP3 is a good mass-battle ruleset for that skirmish game).


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/24 13:05:25


Post by: AlexHolker


 scarletsquig wrote:
If anyone wants the alpha rules, the facebook group "Warpath Universe" has them uploaded. I won't link out of courtesy to Dakka, but it's easy enough to search for.

I've seen no sign of it. I've found the Marvel Universe's Warpath, Mantic's Warpath Universe and Transformers Universe's Warpath, but no Warpath Universe Facebook group.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/24 13:11:37


Post by: Krinsath


 AlexHolker wrote:
 scarletsquig wrote:
If anyone wants the alpha rules, the facebook group "Warpath Universe" has them uploaded. I won't link out of courtesy to Dakka, but it's easy enough to search for.

I've seen no sign of it. I've found the Marvel Universe's Warpath, Mantic's Warpath Universe and Transformers Universe's Warpath, but no Warpath Universe Facebook group.


Had the same problem using a search engine. Using FB's search feature takes you right there.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/24 13:31:08


Post by: AegisGrimm


See, I think even at 15mm scale I would rather play a game with individually based models in squads. moving and removing single figures has never been a problem for me.

I think it'd be cool to see another game work it's ranged combat like the short-lived AT43 from Rackham (the company tanking was more of it than '43 being a bad game). I'm pretty rusty on it but it went something like this:

All ranges are measured from the leader of a unit, but other than that all unit members operate like single figures, but as a "cloud". When shooting, the range gets measured from the unit leader to the target unit's leader. But the cool thing was that you then establish a "zone of fire" that was a corridor whose outside edges were between each unit's outermost models that could be hit by the attack. When the shooting rolls were all said and done, the target unit had to remove casualties from the closes models to the attack first. But the cool part was that if another unit's models, friend or foe, were in the zone of fire between the two units and were of the same size or larger than the target unit, they had to actually take the casualties first- as friendly fire.

Other than that, line of sight was established with the actual figures in the unit, so if half the unit and their leader was behind a large building and out of LOS and only three guys were hung out in the open, the range was still measured to the leader, but the zone of fire was only as wide as the attacking unit versus three figures (so a thin cone) if half or more of the unit was behind the building, those three guys got cover saves, but even if the attack rolled 5 hits, only the three guys could be allocated hits and removed as casualties.

I introduced the game to my buddy who was a hardcore 40K tournament player, and he thought games of AT43 went much faster with the smoother shooting and subsequent casualty removal mechanics therein.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/24 15:50:27


Post by: kodos


So WP3 is Flames of War in 28mm, seems like StarshipTroopers-pK is still the besteht alternative to 40k....


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/24 15:56:07


Post by: Wonderwolf


 kodos wrote:
So WP3 is Flames of War in 28mm, seems like StarshipTroopers-pK is still the besteht alternative to 40k....


Mantic's not making a 40K-alternative.

Mantic is angling for all those FoW/DZC-players, who constantly think to themselves: "Awesome game. I just wish the models were larger so it would look more like 40K parking lots on undersized tables."



Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/24 16:01:57


Post by: Paradigm


Wonderwolf wrote:

Mantic is angling for all those FoW/DZC-players, who constantly think to themselves: "Awesome game. I just wish the models were larger so it would look more like 40K parking lots on undersized table."


Both of them!

But as I said before, 40k-alternative or not, I really can't see what this team mechanic actually adds to the gameplay, beyond making 80% of your minis superfluous to actual gameplay and mandating either multi-basing or tedious 'who's in what team' bookkeeping. If there was a reason given beyond just being 'different', then I'd be more intrigued, but I just can't see the point at the moment.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/24 16:53:57


Post by: privateer4hire


 lord_blackfang wrote:
Honestly... I might not mind using Warpath 3 for 15mm. FOW basing looks neat at that scale, and I don't particularly like any of the existing 15mm sci-fi rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, here's another annoyance. Orders use a dice pool mechanic with custom D8s. Really, you couldn't make this work in a way that is consistent with the rest of the rules? It feels like the 40k7 magic phase.


Are you kidding about custom d8s or was that just hyperbole?


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/24 17:12:02


Post by: edlowe


Having not seen the rules due to the stupid bow exclusivity deal, I can't really comment on the mechanics.

However the multi basing has now pretty much killed my enthusiasm for the game. It just seems like an excuse to have lots of figures on the table that dont really do anything.

Imagine if gw said that from now on you had to have three models on a 40mm base instead of one, the rules stay the same but the battles are now much more epic.



Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/24 19:09:43


Post by: NTRabbit


 edlowe wrote:
It just seems like an excuse to have lots of figures on the table that dont really do anything.


And too many of them for a regular 4x6 table to boot. The core philosophy behind these rules is wrong, and it needs changing, but withhout throwing out the good parts they got anyway. As it stands, if I was presented with the current rules and asked what army I'd like to buy, my answer would be "Shaltari", and I'd send my money to Hawk.

privateer4hire wrote:

Are you kidding about custom d8s or was that just hyperbole?


The command dice in the alpha are listed as being d8s with custom faces



Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/24 19:15:58


Post by: kodos


Multibasing can be an advantage if done right.

One army with 20 Space Marines all on single base and each one count as single team.
The other army are Tyranids, with 100 gaunts, 5 per team on multibases.
Now both armys have 20 bases/teams and can act with the same speed


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/24 19:24:08


Post by: privateer4hire


 NTRabbit wrote:
 edlowe wrote:
It just seems like an excuse to have lots of figures on the table that dont really do anything.


And too many of them for a regular 4x6 table to boot. The core philosophy behind these rules is wrong, and it needs changing, but withhout throwing out the good parts they got anyway. As it stands, if I was presented with the current rules and asked what army I'd like to buy, my answer would be "Shaltari", and I'd send my money to Hawk.

privateer4hire wrote:

Are you kidding about custom d8s or was that just hyperbole?


The command dice in the alpha are listed as being d8s with custom faces



They should stick with that, possibly expand special dice use.
It's worked very well for X-Wing and Imperial Assault.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/24 20:13:15


Post by: lord_blackfang


X-wing has a single, consistent mechanic, though. What Mantic is doing is like if X-wing had the attack dice it has now, but Actions required a 3+ roll on a normal D6.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/24 20:28:01


Post by: privateer4hire


 lord_blackfang wrote:
X-wing has a single, consistent mechanic, though. What Mantic is doing is like if X-wing had the attack dice it has now, but Actions required a 3+ roll on a normal D6.

Color coded dice ala the new Terminator system might help with this.
That way the game would have internal consistency (e.g., I use blue dice only for morale or Enforcers always use red dice or get double dice or whatever).
Plus Mantic could make additional sales from specialized dice packs, pre-packaged for gaming convenience.
Fantasy Flight always includes almost enough dice to be convenient (you can still play but you have to re-roll dice in many situations) in their starter games.
They then make additional money from people buying an extra starter and/or the separate dice packs.
Win-win for the company.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/24 20:39:40


Post by: Wonderwolf


 kodos wrote:
Multibasing can be an advantage if done right.

One army with 20 Space Marines all on single base and each one count as single team.
The other army are Tyranids, with 100 gaunts, 5 per team on multibases.
Now both armys have 20 bases/teams and can act with the same speed


Doesn't make sense. Than I'd prefer they'd change the fluff so that 1 gaunt = 1 Space Marines, if speed is such an issue.

Miniatures games should provide rules to play with the miniatures I paint. If I have to abstract away from the lovingly painted miniatures I poured my hobby time into, I may as well go all-out wooden cubes or risk-style abstract counters. Defeats the point of playing with miniatures, if you're not playing with the miniatures.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/24 20:43:38


Post by: Azreal13


Wonderwolf wrote:
Miniatures games should provide rules to play with the miniatures I paint.


Firstly, stop stealing my material.

Secondly, not everyone has the same approach as you, some people may prioritise play over painting. Heck, you're not even convinced balance is necessary for a game.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/24 20:46:15


Post by: Wonderwolf


 Azreal13 wrote:
Wonderwolf wrote:
Miniatures games should provide rules to play with the miniatures I paint.


Firstly, stop stealing my material.

Secondly, not everyone has the same approach as you, some people may prioritise play over painting. Heck, you're not even convinced balance is necessary for a game.


I am not convinced that balance is the be-all and end-all of a game. But it's probably in the top 10 of things to consider (though probably not in the top 5).

That said, I'm obviously arguing from my own personal bias and preference. I may end up not playing Warpath if it doesn't deliver what I want from the game, but I'd be much happier if it did and I could throw some cash at Mantic.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/24 20:51:50


Post by: Azreal13


Well, then it's a good job these rules are in the alpha stage and Mantic have a track record of listening and changing based on player feedback.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/24 21:00:29


Post by: Alpharius


Wonderwolf wrote:
 Azreal13 wrote:
Wonderwolf wrote:
Miniatures games should provide rules to play with the miniatures I paint.


Firstly, stop stealing my material.

Secondly, not everyone has the same approach as you, some people may prioritise play over painting. Heck, you're not even convinced balance is necessary for a game.


I am not convinced that balance is the be-all and end-all of a game. But it's probably in the top 10 of things to consider (though probably not in the top 5).

That said, I'm obviously arguing from my own personal bias and preference. I may end up not playing Warpath if it doesn't deliver what I want from the game, but I'd be much happier if it did and I could throw some cash at Mantic.


Balance isn't important...?

Where have I read that before...in reference to 40K...

Hmmm...

Anyway, to echo some other sentiments out there, a lot of what we're being 'told' looks like it isn't adding anything other than unnecessary complexity for...some reason?

Still, I will of course hold final judgement until the final rules are released - but I was really hoping that Warpath would be a good replacement for 40K.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/24 21:15:21


Post by: edlowe


I been watching one of the videos from the open day with Ronnie discussing the warpath alpha. When asked about multi basing he states that although it is not nessicary he does consider it the best way to play the game. He compares it to his own dwarf army for kow, when he started it he had all his figures on single bases but has now moved to unit basing due to it being the better solution for the game. He believes that once people get used to warpaths rules people will be converted to basing their units in this way.

Another example given was to leave the comand figure for the unit on a removable base so that when a unit enters a building you place the command figure on the building removing the other models. In effect the building becomes the unit with the command unit representing this. I imagine this is to get round the inherent problems of placing the multi bases in the terrain.

I just hope mantic dial back the abstraction in the rules and throw some grit into the system. A good example would be the difference between epic 40k and epic armageddon. Epic 40k was a bit of a mess due to using a firepower table similar to bfg. Epic armageddon brought back the importance of individal models and their particular weapons and abilities and was a much better game for it. Imho.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/24 21:37:46


Post by: carlos13th


I am not sure where I stand on multibasing for warpath, dont love or hate the idea. I really like Multibasing in flames of war for example and having each unit as a diorama is cool but not sure I want it in a 28mm sci fi game. That said I am also of the opinion that mutli basing works best at smaller scales and that any sci fi game in 28mm over 50 or so models is going to be unwieldy.

Also I kinda want causality removal to be a thing in Sci Fi games and I prefer you to be able to enter buildings and use them tactically. The command figure representing the whole unit inside a building is the exact problem people are having at the moment though. If a unit can be represented by just the commander it makes the rest of the unit purely decorative and the game would play the same way with just the commander constantly representing the unit.






Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/25 01:50:11


Post by: Daedleh


 Azreal13 wrote:
Well, then it's a good job these rules are in the alpha stage and Mantic have a track record of listening and changing based on player feedback.


Having raised every issue that people have with multibasing right from the very start, before the rules were written, after they were written and now they've been publicly released, every answer I've seen from Mantic or the Pathfinders says that feedback on the multibasing is not welcome. It's how their game is going to be played, regardless of how many players it turns off.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/25 01:53:16


Post by: Nostromodamus


 Daedleh wrote:
It's how their game is going to be played


Or not played, as the case may be...


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/25 04:20:52


Post by: MasterSlowPoke


Played my first game of Warpath today. Ran really fast, the terrain mechanics are extremely elegently abstracted. Suppression actually matters. Overwatch seems like it will actually be useful.

You guys are being really silly by overreacting to something you haven't even read yet. Multibasing is not even close to being required. You The positions of the other models in the squad do matter for shooting and assault. You can just place the hubs down and forget about the rest of the teams.

Measurement is from the hub to any model in the target unit. Cover is based on half of the models being in cover. The other models still matter!


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/25 04:26:11


Post by: cincydooley


 Alpharius wrote:


Balance isn't important...?

Where have I read that before...in reference to 40K...


I guess the big difference is that GW is still in the business of making models that look good, even in the rules are questionably balanced.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/25 05:41:14


Post by: privateer4hire


Just read a bunch of feedback on Mantic's forums.
Their admin states WP 3.0 is NOT meant to be just a direct 40k alternative in terms of scale and scope so that's helpful in understanding design vision.

In case you'd like to read some of the discussions, there are:
https://manticforum.com/forum/warpath/warpath-rules-discussion/228601-warpath-alpha-feedback-thread

More I think on it, I'm thinking they should get rid of the d6s altogether. The bold approach they're going with makes it sound like the specialty d8s they want to use could be expanded upon.

One of the big grievances 40k players have is how d6 doesn't let you represent a Space Marine versus a normal guy with a pistol. Having a d8 (or more) spread---especially one that uses special symbols ala X-Wing and the FFG Star Wars RPG---could really revolutionize how sci-fi battles are fought on the tabletop.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/25 06:14:01


Post by: AlexHolker


privateer4hire wrote:
The bold approach they're going with makes it sound like the specialty d8s they want to use could be expanded upon.

Only if "bold" is a synonym for "stupid".

Ordinary D6s are always going to be the most convenient form of dice, because they are easily found in bulk and your customers probably already have a ton. If they are going to move away from D6s, D10s would be the second-best option. They are also available in bulk, although not quite as readily as D6s, and the math is easy for people to wrap their heads around since we already use a base 10 counting system. D20s are also readily available thanks to D&D, but they are naturally bulkier, more expensive and don't land as well as dice with a smaller number of sides.

Custom D8s are just an astoundingly bad idea. Practically the only reason to do it is to sucker people into buying their dice exclusively from you, instead of just buying a bagful of Chessex D6s or D10s.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/25 06:16:32


Post by: privateer4hire


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

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


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/25 06:40:13


Post by: NobodyXY


edlowe wrote:Having not seen the rules due to the stupid bow exclusivity deal, I can't really comment on the mechanics.

However the multi basing has now pretty much killed my enthusiasm for the game. It just seems like an excuse to have lots of figures on the table that dont really do anything.

Imagine if gw said that from now on you had to have three models on a 40mm base instead of one, the rules stay the same but the battles are now much more epic.



This is something they do. WYSIWYG isn't as strictly enforced because of abstraction. KOW doesn't enforce it either. Multi-basing isn't enforced in the rules. They have a small blurb about movement trays but that's all I read that from the rules on that subject of multi-basing and they just mention that its easier for movement. I'd see the enforcers in particular may not want to just becuase you have so few models by comparison to say a plague army.

NTRabbit wrote:
 edlowe wrote:
It just seems like an excuse to have lots of figures on the table that dont really do anything.


And too many of them for a regular 4x6 table to boot. The core philosophy behind these rules is wrong, and it needs changing, but withhout throwing out the good parts they got anyway. As it stands, if I was presented with the current rules and asked what army I'd like to buy, my answer would be "Shaltari", and I'd send my money to Hawk.

privateer4hire wrote:

Are you kidding about custom d8s or was that just hyperbole?


The command dice in the alpha are listed as being d8s with custom faces




The core philosophy is that you should be able to scale up and put a couple tables together and duke it out with a larger force IF you so choose. Nobody is forcing you to play gigantic games. Like KOW you have that option without it taking forever.

You can use d8s without custom faces but I agree that a D6 solution would be preferable.

lord_blackfang wrote:X-wing has a single, consistent mechanic, though. What Mantic is doing is like if X-wing had the attack dice it has now, but Actions required a 3+ roll on a normal D6.

1 type of dice is preferable for me as well.

carlos13th wrote:I am not sure where I stand on multibasing for warpath, dont love or hate the idea. I really like Multibasing in flames of war for example and having each unit as a diorama is cool but not sure I want it in a 28mm sci fi game. That said I am also of the opinion that mutli basing works best at smaller scales and that any sci fi game in 28mm over 50 or so models is going to be unwieldy.

Also I kinda want causality removal to be a thing in Sci Fi games and I prefer you to be able to enter buildings and use them tactically. The command figure representing the whole unit inside a building is the exact problem people are having at the moment though. If a unit can be represented by just the commander it makes the rest of the unit purely decorative and the game would play the same way with just the commander constantly representing the unit.






Which part of the building section made you think they weren't tactical? How is a command fig on top of a building any better than in DZC where you have units "inside" a building but rest them on top.if you don't like it don't multibase.

Daedleh wrote:
 Azreal13 wrote:
Well, then it's a good job these rules are in the alpha stage and Mantic have a track record of listening and changing based on player feedback.


Having raised every issue that people have with multibasing right from the very start, before the rules were written, after they were written and now they've been publicly released, every answer I've seen from Mantic or the Pathfinders says that feedback on the multibasing is not welcome. It's how their game is going to be played, regardless of how many players it turns off.


I'd honestly like a Quote from the rulebook stating that multi-basing is mandatory or even mentioned. Again don't multibase if you don't want to.

MasterSlowPoke wrote:Played my first game of Warpath today. Ran really fast, the terrain mechanics are extremely elegently abstracted. Suppression actually matters. Overwatch seems like it will actually be useful.

You guys are being really silly by overreacting to something you haven't even read yet. Multibasing is not even close to being required. You The positions of the other models in the squad do matter for shooting and assault. You can just place the hubs down and forget about the rest of the teams.

Measurement is from the hub to any model in the target unit. Cover is based on half of the models being in cover. The other models still matter!


Overwatch was the one thing I personally wanted to see brought over from DZ. How was the Charge Reaction in play? I can't wait to play a game but life conspires against me

Finally I'd like to point out the sizes of the armies so we can better compare them to rulesets that are already released. because it too hasn't been mentioned.
Enforcers (Tough shooty army)
24 infantry
6 heavy infantry
1 walker

Plague (horde army)
70 infantry (30 of which are zombies)
6 heavy infantry
2 walkers

What surprises me about the plague army is that there are so few 2a's. I would probably have more if I was up against enforcers.

So are those numbers close to other standard sized armies in other games?(Warzone,ME and 40k) are the only ones I can think of. If you're on the fence based solely on the, in my opinion, overly inflated multi-basing issue I'd give it a test with whatever you happen to have on hand. see if the team's thing is an actual deal breaker or if it's something you like etc. I get the sense that this ruleset was designed with a more modern firefight in mind. Less killing more pinning etc.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/25 07:46:19


Post by: NTRabbit


 NobodyXY wrote:

The core philosophy is that you should be able to scale up and put a couple tables together and duke it out with a larger force IF you so choose. Nobody is forcing you to play gigantic games. Like KOW you have that option without it taking forever.


Except the problem is that instead of being a game designed for the company level that scales up well, this is a game designed for the mass battle level that doesn't scale down particularly well. It's a huge problem if they ever want any critical mass of people to play the game.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/25 08:16:43


Post by: NobodyXY


 NTRabbit wrote:
 NobodyXY wrote:

The core philosophy is that you should be able to scale up and put a couple tables together and duke it out with a larger force IF you so choose. Nobody is forcing you to play gigantic games. Like KOW you have that option without it taking forever.


Except the problem is that instead of being a game designed for the company level that scales up well, this is a game designed for the mass battle level that doesn't scale down particularly well. It's a huge problem if they ever want any critical mass of people to play the game.


How far do you want it to scale down? As far as I can see the test armies seem to be at a reasonable model count for a 6x4. It's less a company action and closer to each army having one or two platoons. What model count in your opinion should it have? I see few problems that smaller scale games would face. I imagine doing smaller scale games on a standard board setup would be over pretty quickly. But add a dozen or so terrain pieces that units may enter/exit, shoot from/shoot into etc. gives it a much more building to building battle feel which is something I haven't seen a lot of. With single models being the smallest piece of your army scaling down would be easier but would make scaling up a choir.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/25 08:22:39


Post by: CalgarsPimpHand


 MasterSlowPoke wrote:
You guys are being really silly by overreacting to something you haven't even read yet. Multibasing is not even close to being required. (...) The other models still matter!

 NobodyXY wrote:
I'd honestly like a Quote from the rulebook stating that multi-basing is mandatory or even mentioned. Again don't multibase if you don't want to.

We all understand that multibasing isn't literally required in the rules.

But it's like your town saying "Sure you can park on this street, but first you need to get a permit from this building between the hours of 11 and 2 on a Tuesday, and then once you park there you still have to feed the parking meter every half hour". It's legal but it's discouraged.

Individually basing your models is fine and legal but it's clearly not how the game is intended to be played. The rules are set up to make the game run fast and smooth, but keeping track of team coherency within units is the opposite of smooth, especially when the individual models you're moving around are almost meaningless anyway. Furthermore, the way weapon power is worked out is by team as well, with only a loose link to what your models are armed with or how many there are. Having the individual models floating around makes that more difficult because you have to first visually figure out who is on what team, then remember what that team's stats are while ignoring the visual cues of what your individual models have. Again, the way the weapon rules are intended to work it's much faster and easier to multibase, and having individual models actually makes it counter-intuitive.

Anyway, I'll stop beating a dead horse. Multibasing isn't even a bad thing, I'm sure it would play better in a big game. It's just that I personally would not want to get involved in another 28mm game that more or less required play at such a huge scale - I'll stick with Epic: Armageddon and DzC for multibased mass battle games. But understand that while we know multibasing is not required, it's highly encouraged by the rules. I think Mantic should be more up front about that, but I suppose they're afraid of scaring off more players.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/25 08:44:12


Post by: NTRabbit


 NobodyXY wrote:
With single models being the smallest piece of your army scaling down would be easier but would make scaling up a choir.


That's why, after we argued bitterly when this all came up last year, Mantic promised us two distinct rule sets - an individually based company sized rule set, and a multibased/movement tool based mass battle rule set.

Instead, what they've done is ignore it, and give us just the mass battle rule set they had been failing to push with some hand waving that it's totally fine for small scale battles and not multibasing - when reading the rules shows that trying to do that bucks badly against the way the rules have been designed. And yes, I have read the rules, I think I was quite literally the first backstager to download and read them.

If they want to keep pushing the mass battle thing then fine, but unless they do what we asked for and release a companion rule set designed from the core up to work as a single based company game, Warpath is going to be DOA with not remotely enough people willing to convert - especially when there are successful and well designed mass battle games in a proper scale out there already.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/25 08:56:20


Post by: kodos


Wonderwolf wrote:
 kodos wrote:
Multibasing can be an advantage if done right.

One army with 20 Space Marines all on single base and each one count as single team.
The other army are Tyranids, with 100 gaunts, 5 per team on multibases.
Now both armys have 20 bases/teams and can act with the same speed


Doesn't make sense. Than I'd prefer they'd change the fluff so that 1 gaunt = 1 Space Marines, if speed is such an issue.

Miniatures games should provide rules to play with the miniatures I paint. If I have to abstract away from the lovingly painted miniatures I poured my hobby time into, I may as well go all-out wooden cubes or risk-style abstract counters. Defeats the point of playing with miniatures, if you're not playing with the miniatures.


I miss the part were multibasing don't let you play with the miniatures you painted.
Or does 40k multibasing prevent you from playing your single based weapon teams?


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/25 09:00:53


Post by: Baragash


 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:
 MasterSlowPoke wrote:
You guys are being really silly by overreacting to something you haven't even read yet. Multibasing is not even close to being required. (...) The other models still matter!

 NobodyXY wrote:
I'd honestly like a Quote from the rulebook stating that multi-basing is mandatory or even mentioned. Again don't multibase if you don't want to.

We all understand that multibasing isn't literally required in the rules.

But it's like your town saying "Sure you can park on this street, but first you need to get a permit from this building between the hours of 11 and 2 on a Tuesday, and then once you park there you still have to feed the parking meter every half hour". It's legal but it's discouraged.


Except it's nothing like that, so there's that.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/25 09:05:04


Post by: NobodyXY


Nothing is stopping you from kitting out your models as WYSIWYG. You jump to conclusions regarding multibasing. It's more likely that mantic realizes that sci-fi folks are used to single bases and plan to use movement trays as a middle of the road approach. 5 man trays like the litko(?) ones with the bases to fit is what I imagine. After all deadzone and warpath are meant to be interchangeable. I see it this way WP lets you single, multibase or use a movement tray. Which ever way you pick their will be pro's and cons. Moving to just single bases would exclude multi-bases. Moving to only multi-bases exclude singular bases. Movement trays exclude none while having almost all the advantages of single and multi-bases. and fewer/less severe downsides.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 NTRabbit wrote:
 NobodyXY wrote:
With single models being the smallest piece of your army scaling down would be easier but would make scaling up a choir.


That's why, after we argued bitterly when this all came up last year, Mantic promised us two distinct rule sets - an individually based company sized rule set, and a multibased/movement tool based mass battle rule set.

Instead, what they've done is ignore it, and give us just the mass battle rule set they had been failing to push with some hand waving that it's totally fine for small scale battles and not multibasing - when reading the rules shows that trying to do that bucks badly against the way the rules have been designed. And yes, I have read the rules, I think I was quite literally the first backstager to download and read them.

If they want to keep pushing the mass battle thing then fine, but unless they do what we asked for and release a companion rule set designed from the core up to work as a single based company game, Warpath is going to be DOA with not remotely enough people willing to convert - especially when there are successful and well designed mass battle games in a proper scale out there already.


Unfortunately I wasn't around for those discussions do you have a link? I'd very much like to read through the discussion. I've only seen you mention a dual ruleset and never heard anything about it before now. Was this before or after deadzone? The run up to WP 2.0? after? Appologies if this is common knowledge I haven't really payed much attention before DZ.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/25 09:49:58


Post by: NTRabbit


This was last year while Deadzone was shipping, and I'm pretty sure the thread is gone.

We were told Mantic were formulating the core concept for Warpath 3 in advance of the Alpha that was tentatively scheduled to be sent to all Deadzone backers with wave 3 (but obviously didn't happen), and that the prevailing attitude within the development group was very much to ditch Warpath 2 and return to the Warpath 1, Kings of War in space philosophy based around multibases and no unit removal. So a lot of people argued long and hard, and Ronnie announced twin simultaneous rule sets would be developed - a mass battle multibase set true to what the team wanted, and a smaller single base set to match what the majority of the community wanted. Same minis, some rules overlap, but fundamentally different cores.

Clearly that promise was dropped, because all we got was the multibase mass battle ruleset with no genuine capacity to scale down to the level most people wanted.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/25 10:09:13


Post by: ulgurstasta


 NTRabbit wrote:

Clearly that promise was dropped, because all we got was the multibase mass battle ruleset with no genuine capacity to scale down to the level most people wanted.


I dont see the point, we already have a skirmish game, so why wouldn't´t they make a mass battle game? You could always play low-point games if the scale bothers you, but this is Mantic after all. Their focus have always been building big armies.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/25 10:34:00


Post by: NTRabbit


Because sci fi + mass battle + 28mm don't go together, plus there are options between skirmish and mass battle - what we argued for was just such a thing, called company level. It's about 40-60 guys plus a tank per side at most. If you look on the Mantic forum, one of the Warpath rules committee guys has just listed games of 60-100 a side as being "typical", not even maximum, so you can see how serious a disconnect there is.

Mass battle scifi belongs in smaller scales like 6mm and 10mm, or 15mm at a push, where you can actually have massive armies without overwhelimg a 6x4 table and preventing the sort of modern-plus warfare the genre demands.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/25 10:48:44


Post by: sukura636


I actually looked at the Mantic forum, and saw someone suggest you try playing a game before stating that it categorically doesn't work.

The playtest board up at Mantic is 4' x 3'. Played with about 50 plague and half as many enforcers. I've played a much earlier version of the rules with 80 models on my side on a 6x4 board. There was space to maneuvere. there was space to put the rules print out on the edge, too.

I think that what's going on here is that you don't like the game offered. That's 100% fine, but it doesn't suddenly invalidate it on your say so. If you don't like 28mm mass battles then you won't like this game. If I read Warpath and wanted a small scale zombie-skirmish, then I'd be disappointed, but it wouldn't be down to the game, but rather my own expectations.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/25 11:04:45


Post by: NTRabbit


It really doesn't matter what the rules are, how many 28mm minis fit onto a table is a function independent of the rules you're using them with.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/25 11:47:41


Post by: edlowe


Heres a quote from matt gilbert on the mantic forums explaining the game size

I think it’s worth clearing up a misconception which seems to have muddied the waters.

“Warpath is a mass-battle game”. Correct, but what does that mean? It means, that the game itself has the ability to play mass-battles built into its “DNA” from the start – that it should be able to scale from smaller platoon and company sized engagements right up to multi-table, using-all-your-model battles without significant, or indeed (hopefully) any changes and still work just as well. This has been one of Ronnie's design goals for a very long time.

It does not mean that players are expected to be fielding 250 models per side each on a 6x4 table with wall to wall units and nowhere to move. Quite rightly, we all know that isn't going to work.

Some of the typical lists I've been playing with during playtesting in what I’d consider a “normal” game have been (roughly… I can’t recall everything):


8 Jet bikes
2 striders
Orbital commander
6 peace keepers
5 pathfinders
30-40 enforcers (mix of team types in themed units (e.g. unit of 2 teams of assault enforcers).


10 valkyrs
1 battle tank
1 or 2 jotunns
5 or 10 forge guard
30-35 steel warriors in various team configs
1 or 2 iron ancestors


Two max units of 3rd gens (60 models) – mix of different team types
20-30 zombies
Pair of units with 2 3rd gen teams inc. mortars
1 aberation
Pair of terratons
1 1st gen
2 units of 6 2nd gens
1 battle tank

Enforcers and FF are at the elite and therefore lower model count end of the scale, and plague are at the other, horde end.

I’ll try and dig out some pictures of games in action and they show what I’d expect from a typical game size on a 6x4.

Hopefully this will help clear up the confusion.



The part ive bolded explains why the wp 2.0 rules were abanddoned to return to the wp 1.0 kow in space rules


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/25 12:22:27


Post by: AegisGrimm


I dunno if they are going to convert many players when the "standard" armies are even larger than in 40K.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/25 13:33:53


Post by: NTRabbit


They won;t convert any at all, they're making a game people have already told them twice that they don't want


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/25 14:10:48


Post by: Daedleh


To be fair, it is a game that some people want. Some people do look at 40k and wish it could be even bigger. I'm not convinced that it's the majority of people, but if Mantic want to go after a niche audience then they're of course free to do so. I'll certainly be looking at other 28mm Sci-Fi games instead, and look to a reasonable scale for "mass battles".


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/25 14:52:31


Post by: privateer4hire


 NTRabbit wrote:
...
Clearly that promise was dropped, because all we got was the multibase mass battle ruleset with no genuine capacity to scale down to the level most people wanted.


I'm betting it's more like Mantic are pointing at Deadzone as the skirmish level version so all they are on the hook for to the fans is the Big Battles version currently being developed.

On the Big Battles front, maybe they need to go Warlord's Bolt Action Tank War route (in addition to specialty dice to allow a larger spread of stats).
http://www.warlordgames.com/preview-tank-war-supplement-for-bolt-action/

For the unitiated, Bolt Action started as a reinforced platoon level game with 40-60-ish infantry per side and maybe one armored vehicle.
Tank War lets players field much more armor than that ---- think of the walkers and that Enforcer assault flyer bouncing around the tabletop---and might be a good model for expanding WP 3.0 into the turly large scale fights we're after.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/25 15:08:23


Post by: MasterSlowPoke


 NobodyXY wrote:

Overwatch was the one thing I personally wanted to see brought over from DZ. How was the Charge Reaction in play? I can't wait to play a game but life conspires against me


Charge Reactions were very key. There was a unit of Tactical Enforcers in a fortified building, and though Blaze away actions they held back a Gen 1 for two turns. They also Shot at a full strength Zombie horde and killed half of them before they got it. This was key, as the half squad of Zombies inflicted 7 points of damage by the end of the combat - just one more and the Enforcers would have wiped. Instead the Zombies were wiped. Combat is extremely fast and brutal, I love it.

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:
 MasterSlowPoke wrote:
You guys are being really silly by overreacting to something you haven't even read yet. Multibasing is not even close to being required. (...) The other models still matter!

 NobodyXY wrote:
I'd honestly like a Quote from the rulebook stating that multi-basing is mandatory or even mentioned. Again don't multibase if you don't want to.

We all understand that multibasing isn't literally required in the rules.

But it's like your town saying "Sure you can park on this street, but first you need to get a permit from this building between the hours of 11 and 2 on a Tuesday, and then once you park there you still have to feed the parking meter every half hour". It's legal but it's discouraged.

Individually basing your models is fine and legal but it's clearly not how the game is intended to be played. The rules are set up to make the game run fast and smooth, but keeping track of team coherency within units is the opposite of smooth, especially when the individual models you're moving around are almost meaningless anyway. Furthermore, the way weapon power is worked out is by team as well, with only a loose link to what your models are armed with or how many there are. Having the individual models floating around makes that more difficult because you have to first visually figure out who is on what team, then remember what that team's stats are while ignoring the visual cues of what your individual models have. Again, the way the weapon rules are intended to work it's much faster and easier to multibase, and having individual models actually makes it counter-intuitive.

Anyway, I'll stop beating a dead horse. Multibasing isn't even a bad thing, I'm sure it would play better in a big game. It's just that I personally would not want to get involved in another 28mm game that more or less required play at such a huge scale - I'll stick with Epic: Armageddon and DzC for multibased mass battle games. But understand that while we know multibasing is not required, it's highly encouraged by the rules. I think Mantic should be more up front about that, but I suppose they're afraid of scaring off more players.


Have you actually read a single rule?


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/25 15:27:39


Post by: privateer4hire


 AegisGrimm wrote:
I dunno if they are going to convert many players when the "standard" armies are even larger than in 40K.


But Mantic's strength is their cheap minis. You can buy, for example, 20 orx marauders for $35 MSRP. And since most on-line retailers cut that by a good 10-30% I'm finding them for $28.
That's a shade over a buck a miniature! If you buy stuff from their KS campaigns you can get stuff for under a buck---sometimes signficantly under a buck.

I'm thinking Epic 40k scale battles are going to be possible with this version of the rules esp. if you do go the route of optional multi-basing to make movement easier.
There are several Armageddon level events in most of the larger venues where I've lived over the past 10 years. There's clearly a market that wants to fill the table with their collections and get to game every gun and tank and grunt they have available.

I wonder if Mantic have any plans for upscaling the Epic bases for 28mm. You could line up, say, 5 guys on such a base (two troops on either side of the hub) and then move out lickety split. Set up and take down time as well as movement get super quick that way. Plus making them that sort of rectangular base (or squares with a pattern of troops like pips on the '5' side of a 6-sider) would appeal to fans of Epic.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/25 16:11:26


Post by: Pacific


 NTRabbit wrote:
Because sci fi + mass battle + 28mm don't go together, plus there are options between skirmish and mass battle - what we argued for was just such a thing, called company level. It's about 40-60 guys plus a tank per side at most. If you look on the Mantic forum, one of the Warpath rules committee guys has just listed games of 60-100 a side as being "typical", not even maximum, so you can see how serious a disconnect there is.

Mass battle scifi belongs in smaller scales like 6mm and 10mm, or 15mm at a push, where you can actually have massive armies without overwhelimg a 6x4 table and preventing the sort of modern-plus warfare the genre demands.


I have lost count the number of times I have heard "no-one other than GW does a mass battle sci-fi game with the same number of minis on the tabletop as 40k'. There is clearly some market there and Mantic must recognise this.

I agree with you, I definitely think this mass of combatants works better with smaller scales. I find it hilarious that we have artillery in games of even 15mm scale like FoW, let alone in 28mm where you have ICMB size missiles that must literally be powered by elastic bands and land on a unit 20m away. But, that doesn't change the fact that 40k is still the biggest selling sci-fi game, and this is obviously what a lot of people want to play at that scale and troop volume.

A big problem 40k has is that it's ruleset has evolved from a smaller-scale skirmish game, when you had far fewer miniatures on the tabletop, and un-willingness to redesign the core mechanics as the model count has grown have now made the game exceedingly clunky at high points values. Mantic has the advantage of being able to start their ruleset from scratch, so it can work quickly and easily at that scale, and grab a lot of the gamers who are becoming disenchanted with 40k's rule system, pricing to play or whatever.

Once again NTRabbit, I completely agree with you about scaling. But, I can recognise that this is a potentially massive market for Mantic if they can hit it right. Ronnie Renton is an incredibly shrewd guy, they wouldn't be doing this if they thought there was not the potential for big sales out of it.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/25 16:15:03


Post by: lord_blackfang


 NobodyXY wrote:
Nothing is stopping you from kitting out your models as WYSIWYG.


The team stats prevent WYSIWYG, unless you want to have guys dual-wielding support weapons plus basic weapons.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/25 16:18:12


Post by: Wayniac


They will convert people if they make rules that correctly support the scale unlike 40k. Although honestly I find 28mm mass anything to be too large. Should have been 20mm or something. But it's meant to appeal to 40k players so 28mm+


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/25 16:20:05


Post by: Krinsath


Having now skimmed the rules, I do have to say that claiming individual models matter looks to be picking an edge case (intervening, non-adjacent terrain) and calling it the norm. In comparison to most of the platoon-level battle games, the individuals don't matter really, but in a mass-battle system that's fine. The rules are an inverse of 40k; they're awesome for a larger-scale engagement at a glance, but just a huge amount of abstraction for that middle of the road affair so I'm not certain they scale down that well. Even so, it makes for a faster game, which is good in some situations, but I worry that it will be an unfulfilling affair without the scale of models it was intended to work with. Time will tell on that count.

Taken on their own rather than as a 40k company-level replacement, they seem to be very good rules, and I can respect, if not completely agree with, the decision by Mantic to do something different. The various mechanics (or lack of, in the case of template weapons) should make for a very streamlined affair. The only thing missing is if you're going to center around fire-teams, you need to include a rule for splitting units. As an example from FoW, teams can be left behind and continue to function normally unless they want to move, in which case it must be directly back into coherence. For squads that have support teams, this is very thematic and appropriate as you can leave a heavy weapon to provide covering fire for your advancing troops, or just as a pillbox if you want. If multi-basing is going to be logically, if not physically, enforced, then they might as well leverage the benefit of being able to split up units during battle rather than before.

For an alpha they're fairly decent. Whether the market truly wants it will be seen, and then we'll learn if Mantic has built a nice sports car that's in demand by many, or one of the world's better unicycles where the market is somewhat limited.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/25 16:52:09


Post by: NTRabbit


In a nutshell - Mantic decided to pick a set of rules that would work at their starting point and scale up well, which is perfectly fine.

The problem is they picked a ludicrously high starting point as their 'baseline', and the rules just do not scale down well at all. They seem to be compounding this by refusing to recognise that platoon and company level games exist, and insist that anyone wanting smaller than their baseline of wall to wall multibase units actually wants a skirmish game, so should go play Deadzone instead.

Until someone drives that into their brains, things aren't going to change, and that disappoints me because I had been looking forward to this.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/25 17:01:52


Post by: MasterSlowPoke


 Krinsath wrote:
Having now skimmed the rules, I do have to say that claiming individual models matter looks to be picking an edge case (intervening, non-adjacent terrain) and calling it the norm.


Movement, shoot and assault are edge cases? You can't move within 1" of individual models. You measure from your hub to the an enemy individual model for shooting. When assaulting, you move your hub into base contact with any enemy model.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/25 17:18:50


Post by: ulgurstasta


 NTRabbit wrote:
Because sci fi + mass battle + 28mm don't go together,


The biggest wargame on the market begs to differ

I love 6-15mm stuff, but I wont deny that from what I have seen people want 28mm miniatures AND big games. As far as I know other company has delivered on that yet (most of GWs competitors seem to be either skirmish or slightly bigger) and I think there is money to be made for the company that can challenge GW on their own turf. We will have to see how it works out for Mantic.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/25 17:31:28


Post by: NTRabbit


 ulgurstasta wrote:

The biggest wargame on the market begs to differ


What? No it doesn't, it perfectly demonstrates how bad it is, and the discontent with that and other issues appears in every rumour and release thread.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/25 17:31:58


Post by: Krinsath


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

If a hub can see a single member of a unit and are in range, they can hit *all* of the members of that unit regardless of formation. If the target has to remove a team, they remove it based on the unit at the owning player's discretion. If I can see your *unit*, I can theoretically kill any team; this is a two-edged sword because while you don't have to fiddle with "who can see who" you do lose a bit of "realism" when a team 8" back (the maximal team distance with a 3 team unit) from the team barely in range gets wiped out because it'd be more advantageous to leave the targeted team on the table. Obviously you can break out the hand-wavium at that point to say it's the other teams shifting down the line and recovering the special equipment (if any) of the team that was wiped-out-but-is-still-there, but even then it's a bit thin.

To reiterate, those are mass-battle level abstractions that work well enough when you have potentially hundreds of models on the table. You don't want to get down into the weeds on some of the details with that much "stuff" going on or you'll never get through the game. However, there is the middle ground between squad (DeadZone) and company+ (WarPath alpha) that still seems under-served.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/25 18:12:12


Post by: NobodyXY


AegisGrimm wrote:I dunno if they are going to convert many players when the "standard" armies are even larger than in 40K.

Standard games for as per the aplha rules are 30 for enforcers 80 ish for plague. Explain how thats a huge army.

NTRabbit wrote:They won;t convert any at all, they're making a game people have already told them twice that they don't want

They won't convert You. You don't speak for everyone. kinda interesting that the only mention of dual rulesets comes from you, with no evidence to back it up either. I guess will just take you at your word.

MasterSlowPoke wrote:
 NobodyXY wrote:

Overwatch was the one thing I personally wanted to see brought over from DZ. How was the Charge Reaction in play? I can't wait to play a game but life conspires against me


Charge Reactions were very key. There was a unit of Tactical Enforcers in a fortified building, and though Blaze away actions they held back a Gen 1 for two turns. They also Shot at a full strength Zombie horde and killed half of them before they got it. This was key, as the half squad of Zombies inflicted 7 points of damage by the end of the combat - just one more and the Enforcers would have wiped. Instead the Zombies were wiped. Combat is extremely fast and brutal, I love it.

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:
 MasterSlowPoke wrote:
You guys are being really silly by overreacting to something you haven't even read yet. Multibasing is not even close to being required. (...) The other models still matter!

 NobodyXY wrote:
I'd honestly like a Quote from the rulebook stating that multi-basing is mandatory or even mentioned. Again don't multibase if you don't want to.

We all understand that multibasing isn't literally required in the rules.

But it's like your town saying "Sure you can park on this street, but first you need to get a permit from this building between the hours of 11 and 2 on a Tuesday, and then once you park there you still have to feed the parking meter every half hour". It's legal but it's discouraged.

Individually basing your models is fine and legal but it's clearly not how the game is intended to be played. The rules are set up to make the game run fast and smooth, but keeping track of team coherency within units is the opposite of smooth, especially when the individual models you're moving around are almost meaningless anyway. Furthermore, the way weapon power is worked out is by team as well, with only a loose link to what your models are armed with or how many there are. Having the individual models floating around makes that more difficult because you have to first visually figure out who is on what team, then remember what that team's stats are while ignoring the visual cues of what your individual models have. Again, the way the weapon rules are intended to work it's much faster and easier to multibase, and having individual models actually makes it counter-intuitive.

Anyway, I'll stop beating a dead horse. Multibasing isn't even a bad thing, I'm sure it would play better in a big game. It's just that I personally would not want to get involved in another 28mm game that more or less required play at such a huge scale - I'll stick with Epic: Armageddon and DzC for multibased mass battle games. But understand that while we know multibasing is not required, it's highly encouraged by the rules. I think Mantic should be more up front about that, but I suppose they're afraid of scaring off more players.


Have you actually read a single rule?


Its good to hear that charge reactions have the weight I imagined. Thanks for writing that out!

lord_blackfang wrote:
 NobodyXY wrote:
Nothing is stopping you from kitting out your models as WYSIWYG.


The team stats prevent WYSIWYG, unless you want to have guys dual-wielding support weapons plus basic weapons.

Becuase no model in history has carried a main weapon and a side arm.
NTRabbit wrote:In a nutshell - Mantic decided to pick a set of rules that would work at their starting point and scale up well, which is perfectly fine.

The problem is they picked a ludicrously high starting point as their 'baseline', and the rules just do not scale down well at all. They seem to be compounding this by refusing to recognise that platoon and company level games exist, and insist that anyone wanting smaller than their baseline of wall to wall multibase units actually wants a skirmish game, so should go play Deadzone instead.

Until someone drives that into their brains, things aren't going to change, and that disappoints me because I had been looking forward to this.


You're disappointed becuase mantic didn't do what you wanted. Their baseline is 30 enforcer models as per my probably too long post yesterday. that's what we have from the alpha. Again you can play it at any scale you want. It does scale down even if it shouldn't have to because of DZ. I've mentioned 1 way in which it would work. Not that you care about any of that clearly. Appologies if I come off as hostile. I too am looking forward to WP and testing it at several scales. Do you plan to play a test game? I'd like to see your thoughts after if you do. I do, heck I'll even play it at whatever scale you want and come back and be as honest as I can as to it's viability at that scale.

After reading through my posts I do have the sound of a Huge fanboy who couldn't see fault even if it exists. I'd like to point out my opinion on deadzone to counter the overly positive nature of my posts.
Spoiler for sort of off topic.
Spoiler:
Deadzone is first and formost counter heavy. Many times while playing I wished I had a better way to organize the various conditions and variables a model has and in my opinion that should have been rectified before the first KS shipped. Restic is pretty bad for standard troops but works well for elites or models with low counts. The campaign section wasn't even half as fleshed out as it should have been and was clearly rushed.. The rebels balance is bad from a gameplay perspective even if it makes sense from a fluff perspective. The amount of terrain needed is fine for large buildings and the like, but scatter terrain needs are almost to much of a choir during clean up. Builiding multi-level buildings
with accessable interiors is near impossible unless you like the ruin set and I don't.

Let's move on to the DZI stuff. First and foremost I think mantic was wrong to listen to those who wished restic gone. Duties and other shipping related costs could go up for what I see as an inferior material for the purpose at hand. The enforcers really shouldn't have been the highlight of this kickstarter in my opinion. The alien races are far more interesting from a skirmish prospective. The rebel offering was pretty bad and I'm not sure what their future is. The jetbike is pretty clearly meant of WP even if I can be used for DZ. Finally backers should see any new DZ:I model before any other groups (BOW/ Open day folks). So thats my thoughts on deadzone to better help those who followed my down into the spoiler understand my perspective.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/25 18:27:38


Post by: edlowe


Managed to get a copy of the alpha rules off 4chan, been reading through them and they have confirmed all my fears.

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

It really does feel like they are trying to replicate the success of kow, however what works in fantasy does not translaate into a scifi setting.

I had high hopes for warpath but I'm definitely considering my future options now. I'm so glad I only went in on dz:i for a dollar.

If these rules had been released (as was the original plan) during that ks it would have been a disaster.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/25 18:30:49


Post by: MasterSlowPoke


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


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

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


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

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


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/25 18:31:49


Post by: Daedleh


 NobodyXY wrote:
AegisGrimm wrote:I dunno if they are going to convert many players when the "standard" armies are even larger than in 40K.

Standard games for as per the aplha rules are 30 for enforcers 80 ish for plague. Explain how thats a huge army.

NTRabbit wrote:They won;t convert any at all, they're making a game people have already told them twice that they don't want

They won't convert You. You don't speak for everyone. kinda interesting that the only mention of dual rulesets comes from you, with no evidence to back it up either. I guess will just take you at your word.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghmqLdygFkw

3:20 onwards.

Also, they can say that the standard games are for 30 enforcers, that doesn't make it so. Equally they could claim that Deadzone handles mass battles - doesn't make it so. 30 enforcers with only a total of 6 teams is a laughably small force for the WP3 ruleset. That's only what - 3 units? Each of which can only ever take 1 casualty before being wiped out.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/25 18:35:59


Post by: MasterSlowPoke


 Daedleh wrote:
Also, they can say that the standard games are for 30 enforcers, that doesn't make it so. Equally they could claim that Deadzone handles mass battles - doesn't make it so. 30 enforcers with only a total of 6 teams is a laughably small force for the WP3 ruleset. That's only what - 3 units? Each of which can only ever take 1 casualty before being wiped out.


The test army list has 25 enforcers in it, and after playing a game on a 4x6 with I'd say this is probably feels like 3/4 of a "full" sized 40k game, so 35-40 enforcers is probably 2000 point equivalent. 30 isn't far off if that's the target.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/25 18:48:47


Post by: NobodyXY


 Daedleh wrote:
 NobodyXY wrote:
AegisGrimm wrote:I dunno if they are going to convert many players when the "standard" armies are even larger than in 40K.

Standard games for as per the aplha rules are 30 for enforcers 80 ish for plague. Explain how thats a huge army.

NTRabbit wrote:They won;t convert any at all, they're making a game people have already told them twice that they don't want

They won't convert You. You don't speak for everyone. kinda interesting that the only mention of dual rulesets comes from you, with no evidence to back it up either. I guess will just take you at your word.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghmqLdygFkw

3:20 onwards.

Also, they can say that the standard games are for 30 enforcers, that doesn't make it so. Equally they could claim that Deadzone handles mass battles - doesn't make it so. 30 enforcers with only a total of 6 teams is a laughably small force for the WP3 ruleset. That's only what - 3 units? Each of which can only ever take 1 casualty before being wiped out.


Thanks for verifying what NTRabbit has said! Has ronnie mentioned it since? Has he said that they're dropping the single model removal version? Did they explain it as it being rolled into 1 game?

30 enforcers can be up to 6 units if you wish. Generally it seems to be 1-2 as preference for enforcers. I would only field them that way to capitalize on suppression but it would be more risky.
giving you 3 units of enforcers + 1 unit of peacekeepers plus a walker seems a reasonable scale that I'll aim for unless I want to go really big.

a standard game is whatever the players decide isn't it? I mean if me and a friend decided to play at WP last ed 500pts that would be our standard. I assume that's why 40ks standard is 1500pts because that's what people like to play it at. What would be standard a tourneys would be up to the games organizers. I think personally doing a dual ruleset wouldn't be justifiable just from a development cost perspective. I do think that a clarification is needed but fear that It won't end the way you two(you and NTRabbit) want. It would be cool to have the option though!

Appologies NTRabbit if I seemed overly hostile or pushy.

To those who would see WP easier to scale down what would you do within the current rules, with the design goals in mind, to make WP more small scale friendly? That's where I'd like to see peoples thoughts are because that's how I'd probably approach it If I was dissatisfied with this ruleset approach.

EDIT: for clarification of standard game. oops!


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/25 19:06:22


Post by: edlowe


 MasterSlowPoke wrote:
 Daedleh wrote:
Also, they can say that the standard games are for 30 enforcers, that doesn't make it so. Equally they could claim that Deadzone handles mass battles - doesn't make it so. 30 enforcers with only a total of 6 teams is a laughably small force for the WP3 ruleset. That's only what - 3 units? Each of which can only ever take 1 casualty before being wiped out.


The test army list has 25 enforcers in it, and after playing a game on a 4x6 with I'd say this is probably feels like 3/4 of a "full" sized 40k game, so 35-40 enforcers is probably 2000 point equivalent. 30 isn't far off if that's the target.


The design aims for the game from the Alpha rules states that the game is aimed for between 30 and 150 models, so average would be 75 a side for an average force.

Also noted in the document it states that the main body of these rules has been finished for a year and has already been playtested with more worked needed on the advanced rules and armylists but the main rules completed :(


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/25 19:10:39


Post by: Bolognesus


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

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


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/25 19:12:21


Post by: Krinsath


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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/25 19:18:21


Post by: Daedleh


The next thing I heard since that video was a couple of months later where I was asked for my thoughts on the WP3 rules (albeit a bit earlier in development than those that have been released). I raised the same disappointed that NTRabbit and several others are doing, the same concerns that while the ruleset covers (urgh) *~MASS BATTLES~*, it doesn't cover platoon level engagements since it doesn't have the depth or the grit necessary for an interesting game.

The game might *technically* cover engagements between 30 models, but it has the same level of depth as a KoW game involving 30 models (3 troops). None.

It's not just me and NTRabbit. I've only met one person, other than Matt Gilbert, who will even try a multibasing sci-fi system. And they tried it with me and hated it just as much.

Ideally the rules would cover platoon level engagements at their core, with an amended rules section (maybe 2 pages, max) for mega battles which covered the hubs aspect of it. Like deciding on a points limit, players would say whether they want to play with the platoon or escalated rules. I did intend to write that following the feedback session with Mantic, but their stance made it perfectly clear that they weren't interested in any negative feedback. Their response to my concerns was that anyone who didn't want hundreds of infantry, flyers and titans in 28mm on a 6x4 table "just doesn't like fun".


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/25 19:23:02


Post by: lord_blackfang


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

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


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


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/25 19:27:25


Post by: scarletsquig


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

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

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

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

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

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


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/25 19:30:48


Post by: NobodyXY


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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/25 19:32:00


Post by: Daedleh


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


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/25 19:34:06


Post by: edlowe


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

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


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


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

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



Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/25 19:35:30


Post by: Mymearan


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


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/25 19:43:40


Post by: NobodyXY


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


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

from the alpha

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


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/25 19:44:47


Post by: NTRabbit


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


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/25 19:48:08


Post by: edlowe


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


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


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/25 19:48:41


Post by: Mymearan


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


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/25 19:49:23


Post by: MasterSlowPoke


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

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

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


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/25 19:53:12


Post by: Mymearan


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

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

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


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


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/25 19:58:00


Post by: MasterSlowPoke


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


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/25 20:01:47


Post by: NobodyXY


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

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

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


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


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/25 20:06:32


Post by: edlowe


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

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

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

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

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

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


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


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/25 20:21:40


Post by: Bolognesus


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


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/25 20:27:22


Post by: BobtheInquisitor


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

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


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

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


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/25 20:33:32


Post by: scarletsquig


 edlowe wrote:


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

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

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

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


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/25 20:54:37


Post by: Krinsath


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


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

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

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


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

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


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/25 20:58:18


Post by: adamsouza


 judgedoug wrote:

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

Warpath V1 = mutlibase like KOW.

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

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



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


Do you have a better name for it ?

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



Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/25 21:31:43


Post by: MaxT


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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/25 21:46:08


Post by: Mymearan


That sounds like a complete mess, MaxT.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/25 21:51:53


Post by: NTRabbit


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


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


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/25 21:53:51


Post by: OrlandotheTechnicoloured


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

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


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/25 21:59:54


Post by: edlowe


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

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


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

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

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


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/25 22:41:54


Post by: lord_blackfang


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


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


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/26 00:07:34


Post by: sukura636


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


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/26 02:38:33


Post by: OnePageAnon


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

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

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


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/26 02:39:24


Post by: AlexHolker


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

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


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/26 03:11:15


Post by: darkPrince010


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

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

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

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

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

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


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/26 08:25:22


Post by: Pacific


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

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

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


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/26 10:41:33


Post by: Polonius


I'm cautiously optimistic about these rules. I haven't read them yet, as I don't have access and I'll respect the paywall for now, but I think I understand what they're trying for.

The rules are a bit wonky, but it is because they are trying to serve two nearly opposed masters: the desire for large scale, mass combat, and the need for games to resolve quickly. Nobody thinks that 40k is a great set of rules, but on of its biggest flaws was a complete lack of consideration for speed of play. The problem is, I don't think 40k artificially created the market for huge games. I think a lot of gamers like the idea of putting down a full company of space marines, or a 200+ model horde of orks, and really slog it out. Apocolypse was a success, while similar iniatives like Cityfight and Planetstrike were not, because those are the games people like to play.

In a way, the multi-basing/team elements of Warpath solve one of the great dilemmas for industrial/modern/sci-fi gaming: how to handle damage. It's generally understood that since WWII, squad support weapons, such as machine guns, provide the real firepower of units. Games have replicated that, although generally toned down. Even in armies like Imperial Guard, lasgunners are more effective, compared to the heavy/special, than say a typical WWII rifle squad. Even so, unless you have complex wound allocation rules to prevent it, the last three models in an IG (or SM) squad will be the sarge, the plasma gun, and the lascannon.

In this regard, what Warpath does is sort of elegant. Instead of fiddling about with wound allocation rules, or complex army constructions rules such as "for every 10 boys, one may be armed with a Big Shoota or Rokkit," and instead focuses on teams. I heard the word "quantum" earlier in the thread, and that's not a bad way to think of it. So a 10 man squad is either at full strength, half strength, or destroyed, and a half strength squad is not going to have both heavy weapons plus the sarge.

The cost of that, of course, is that it reduces the non-hub models (I'm assuming that much of the time, heavy weapon troopers will be the hub) to window dressing, in a very tangible sense. And if the rules favor hiding grunts, that will lead to silliness.

The other factor to consider is that in a far future sci-fi game, which adds a lot of fantasy/space opera elements, the reality of squad heavy weapons doing the real work can often be reduced. Look at 40k: sure, IG are very much built around heavy/special weapons, and SM/CSM to an extent, but Orks don't cry too much if they loose their big shootas, and Nids/tau/eldar don't use them much or at all! In those armies, the basic troopers have more effective weapons, and either don't carry support weapons, or they are more of a bonus than the star of the show.

So, I like the idea, I think the implementation might be a bit wonky, especially with cascading coherency issues, but its a reasonably good solution to the problem of tracking damage/effectiveness without getting too much into bookkeeping.

My one suggestion, as a complete outsider, would be to get rid of the concept of specific teams and coherency. Build squads up from teams, but allow them to be deployed, moved, and shot all mix together. When a squad takes enough damage to lose a team, than the player must still remove a full team. This will make things simpler, although it does in theory allow an understrength squad to cover as much area as a full strength.

Anyways, to sum up: I like where they are going, and I think they can get there. It might not be the game that everybody wants, but I think there is a market for crazy big games that don't take all day to play.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/26 11:49:45


Post by: CptJake


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

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


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


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

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

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


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/26 11:51:56


Post by: edlowe


From the comments possed by mantic on the mantic forum it appears that there will be another set of rules for smaller indepth engagements, somewhere between deadzone and warpath mass battles. It will be interesting how it turns out.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/26 12:44:39


Post by: GrimDork


I'm down for the hard plastic goodies, I rarely get to play anyway. I think I *could* be ok with unit/element bases, but I'd have to find something clear that I could slot my bases into to...


So if you have 3-4 hubs with models that have to stay in coherency of the hubs, and the hubs have to stay in coherency to eachother like a larger abstracted unit... does the 3-4 hub... "thing" all shoot at the same target? If not, why keep them together, but then it sounds like playing 40k with 20-model units with extra rules.

Just been skimming though, so don't mind me if it was a dumb question


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/26 13:07:21


Post by: warboss


Sounds like some interesting developments. I like the idea of the squads at least superficially but I'll have to check out the more detailed rules when I get a chance.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/26 13:31:51


Post by: Krinsath


 GrimDork wrote:
I'm down for the hard plastic goodies, I rarely get to play anyway. I think I *could* be ok with unit/element bases, but I'd have to find something clear that I could slot my bases into to...


So if you have 3-4 hubs with models that have to stay in coherency of the hubs, and the hubs have to stay in coherency to eachother like a larger abstracted unit... does the 3-4 hub... "thing" all shoot at the same target? If not, why keep them together, but then it sounds like playing 40k with 20-model units with extra rules.

Just been skimming though, so don't mind me if it was a dumb question


All teams in a unit must shoot at the same target. Range is measured from the hub, not from the individual models so hub placement is key (i.e - they'll always be at the front of a unit; which is fine IMO).


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/26 14:00:42


Post by: lord_blackfang


Yes, moving a Warpath unit is indeed more complex than moving a 40k unit, which is why a lot of us are saying that multi-basing will be required for smooth play, even if not strictly mandatory by the rules.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/26 14:20:32


Post by: timetowaste85


It sounds somewhere between 40k and WM. Instead of the full unit (or combat squad) shooting at a single target of each individual making a separate shot, it sounds like it's being chunked up in small groups. I haven't read it: that's just what I've surmised from this thread. No opinion yet, since I haven't played yet. But it seems a bummer that so many people are disliking these rules so far. Is this a rules strike out for them? Would be a serious bummer if it is.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/26 14:31:41


Post by: lord_blackfang


After all the "you hate Warpath because you've never played anything other than 40k" flak that was going on here a few days ago, I have to say that, ironically, it seems to me that Warpath3 was compiled by some Mantic intern whose entire wargaming experience consists of Warpath1, Deadzone and 40k. Warpath3 is a mish-mash of these 3 systems and clearly uninformed of anything else in the industry.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/26 15:24:36


Post by: judgedoug


 Daedleh wrote:
Come off it. You know that people are using multibasing to refer to the whole-fireteams-removal mechanics. Being deliberately obtuse is doing wonders for your image.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
I am mostly just stating my opinion that having a unit in any game be represented by a single large base with several models on it makes interactions with that unit and nearly any sort of detailed terrain horribly clunky


No, Daedleh, but I wish that was the case.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mort wrote:
Could you go ahead and play with single-minis without the large bases, and just keep them close together as if they were on the large base, and proceed? This would allow you to position them on differen elevations (which might be clunky with big bases/trays...


The requirement that you have large bases full of models is entirely a fiction. Nowhere do the rules say that. It was invented and then repeated. In fact, the rules specifically state that for multi-model movement trays: These are entirely optional (rules alpha pdf page 4)


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/26 15:32:53


Post by: Tyr13


Movement trays are also completely optional for KoW. Doesnt mean using them isnt vastly easier than trying to keep the models seperate.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/26 15:34:47


Post by: judgedoug


 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:
It's just money spent to make your game look cool, and time spent moving around models that aren't even wound markers; they literally may as well not be there. The teams are functionally identical to individual models within a unit and you may as well save yourself the money and play them using single models.


This has been the case within wargaming since the late 1800's and is one of the direct reasons of the rise of popularity of hex and counter wargames including modern warfare such as Squad Leader. One chit represents one functional unit (squad or fireteam). Most 1/72 and smaller games use element basing, where you can discard all miniatures and use a piece of paper.

Much like how many of us used to play 40k with cardboard circles and coke cans back in our early teens when we couldn't afford to buy a lot of models.

They're toy soldiers, action figures without kung fu grip.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Tyr13 wrote:
Movement trays are also completely optional for KoW. Doesnt mean using them isnt vastly easier than trying to keep the models seperate.


What is this argument? Units have a footprint size in Kings of War - that is part of the rules. A Regiment is 100mm x 80mm. Of course movement trays are optional in Kings of War - however each individual player wishes to achieve the 100mm x 80mm footprint for that regiment is entirely up to that player. Using brownies is also optional in Kings of War - as long as that brownie is 100mm x 80mm then it can certainly be a regiment.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/26 15:48:56


Post by: MasterSlowPoke


 lord_blackfang wrote:
Yes, moving a Warpath unit is indeed more complex than moving a 40k unit, which is why a lot of us are saying that multi-basing will be required for smooth play, even if not strictly mandatory by the rules.


How people (usually) move units in 40k:

Measure and place the front rank and rear rank of models. Kind of put the rest of models wherever, or measure each if it's really going to matter.

How you move in Warpath:

Measure and place the hubs. Kind of put the rest of models wherever.

How is it more complex?


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/26 15:49:26


Post by: judgedoug


 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:

We all understand that multibasing isn't literally required in the rules.

But it's like your town saying "Sure you can park on this street, but first you need to get a permit from this building between the hours of 11 and 2 on a Tuesday, and then once you park there you still have to feed the parking meter every half hour". It's legal but it's discouraged.

Individually basing your models is fine and legal but it's clearly not how the game is intended to be played.


That is 100% incorrect.

The only part of the entire alpha rules that even mentions multi-basing is this line on page 4.

Mantic Unit Stands - For
convenience during gameplay,
Mantic make a range of unit stands
designed to hold the correct
number of miniatures for each type
of unit available – each one holds
a single team. These are entirely
optional
, but they can make for
a quicker game as you can move
entire units in one go, and more
clearly see what each of your units
is made up of.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 MasterSlowPoke wrote:
 lord_blackfang wrote:
Yes, moving a Warpath unit is indeed more complex than moving a 40k unit, which is why a lot of us are saying that multi-basing will be required for smooth play, even if not strictly mandatory by the rules.


How people (usually) move units in 40k:

Measure and place the front rank and rear rank of models. Kind of put the rest of models wherever, or measure each if it's really going to matter.

How you move in Warpath:

Measure and place the hubs. Kind of put the rest of models wherever.

How is it more complex?


You have it correct. Cloud measurement is quicker.

range/shooting -
Cloud: measure from one model.
Individual: measure from Z models.
result: Individual takes Z times as long.

movement -
Cloud: measure from one model. Move Z models.
Individual: measure from each model, move that model, repeat Z times.
result: Cloud takes measurement * Z + movement * Z length of time. Individual takes measurement * 1 + movement * Z length of time.

Cloud-based is demonstrably faster.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/26 16:06:34


Post by: edlowe


Basic cloud movement is faster, however moving your groups within a unit then checking each groups individual models are in coherency with the correct hub will take longer. You cant just move all the hubs then place any old figures from the units around them due to the team structure. Of course it would be quicker if the groups were all on one base, so you didint have to worry about keeping your groups together within the units.Hence why it appears that mutibasing is going to be pretty much mandatory for fast gameplay.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/26 16:06:39


Post by: timetowaste85


Multibases (movement trays) were entirely unnecessary in KoW. But I use them because they're much easier. It really sounds like that's the setup here with the bases too. And honestly...who cares how many models you put on the bases? It's your game: do what you want. That extends to most games, really. I could play X-Wing without the ships, Warhammer without the marines (or elves or skaven, etc), Warmachine without anything other than a marked circular piece of paper. How basing becomes an argument in the Mantic thread when every other game could handle having the exact same thing done just seems like an opportunity for another dig: "you guys didn't make the improvements I wanted that other companies didn't do! Mantic Almost!!"

If the rules stink for play and are overly fiddly and complicated to the point of being difficult to play, then they screwed up. But if the problem is their idea on basing when other companies get a free pass, that's BS.

Again, I haven't read the rules yet: I'm only commenting on people getting pissy over something you can do in LITERALLY every other minis game out there with a piece of paper, empty movement trays with dice for wounds and coke cans.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/26 16:07:06


Post by: Daedleh


Do you know what else is quicker?

Player A rolls 1 dice.
Player B rolls 1 dice.

The person with the highest score wins the game.

That is demonstrably quicker than cloud based measurements. Therefore it's better right?

Quicker != better, and Bigger != better.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/26 16:08:48


Post by: judgedoug


 Daedleh wrote:
To be fair, it is a game that some people want. Some people do look at 40k and wish it could be even bigger. I'm not convinced that it's the majority of people, but if Mantic want to go after a niche audience then they're of course free to do so. I'll certainly be looking at other 28mm Sci-Fi games instead, and look to a reasonable scale for "mass battles".


Personally, I like the look of 1500 to 2000 point 40k games, I just want it to be _playable_.

It is the same reason I abandoned Warhammer Fantasy for Kings of War - games done in a manageable amount of time (and effectively, to KoW's credit, games double the size of WHFB done in half the time)

40k is just an awful, awful ruleset for anything above skirmish - zero elegance and every individual model having it's own stats, weapons, and special rules (and special rules for those weapons). It is eminently playable at Kill-Team and Necromunda levels, as that is how Rogue Trader was designed. It is impossible to scale up from a skirmish game to platoon or larger without massive slowdowns.

Being able to play a normal 40k sized game or larger, in half the time, without the "Warhammer fatigue" headache afterwards, is an entirely admirable design goal.

Using cloud-based units has been the norm in most platoon and higher games for the last ten to twenty years that has done the same thing. How does one do platoon, company, and larger level games? Abstraction. What is the real reason that individual members of a squad in 40k have to move and shoot individually? How often has it really and truly mattered? In the few instances that it did matter, was it worth it versus the time spend measuring and moving and shooting each model individually? Abstraction says NO. It's not. Move X models and shoot X models all with a single measurement. Only the leader model matters for that purpose. The silhouette of the "cloud" absolutely does matter in terms of cover, and such, (which is why Warpath is most decidedly NOT a multibase game, btw), but in order for games to be played in a reasonable amount of time, MEASURE ONCE.

I expect any modern platoon-level or higher ruleset to use it, as has most of them in the past decade. AT-43 was a previously mentioned example (and a fantastic ruleset).

The only reason Bolt Action works on a per-model basis is because each model has one stat - it's experience level. But it also doesn't work at higher levels (greater than 1500 points - or about 2 reinforced infantry platoons - for infantry battles).

Establishing point/cloud-based measurement immediately allows the game to operate much, much faster than 40k and other individual-measurement games, and has the added benefit of allowing larger games in the same length of time as a smaller 40k-style game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Daedleh wrote:
Do you know what else is quicker?

Player A rolls 1 dice.
Player B rolls 1 dice.

The person with the highest score wins the game.

That is demonstrably quicker than cloud based measurements. Therefore it's better right?

Quicker != better, and Bigger != better.


By that logic, you guys should discard all of your Kings of War 2 rules for the above system as well.

Just as individual casualty removal was garbage for Warhammer (as much as I loved the six glorious years of Warhammer 6's reign), individual model measurement/etc has been garbage for anything above Infinity/WMH level skirmish since since Andy Chambers and Jervis Johnson included 80 models in the 40k 2nd edition box set.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/26 16:14:57


Post by: Daedleh


I'm struggling to understand whether you're deliberately misunderstanding people or not.

No-one at any point ever in this thread has praised 40k. No-one has said that they want the game to be 40k mk2. No-one has said that they want a game as big as, if not larger, than 40k while being as complicated as 40k. Your entire last post was arguing against a strawman.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/26 16:17:15


Post by: judgedoug


 Daedleh wrote:
I'm struggling to understand whether you're deliberately misunderstanding people or not.

No-one at any point ever in this thread has praised 40k. No-one has said that they want the game to be 40k mk2. No-one has said that they want a game as big as, if not larger, than 40k while being as complicated as 40k. Your entire last post was arguing against a strawman.


I am using 40k as a baseline as it is the system most people are familiar with. I'm not arguing with anyone about 40k.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/26 16:20:36


Post by: Daedleh


You spent an entire post arguing to no-one about how much 40k sucks.

Do you realise that when people are referring to multibasing that they're referring to the cloud based mechanics that you're so valiantly defending? That maybe not everyone wants that level of abstraction and do want the "grit" of individual casualty removal?


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/26 16:20:45


Post by: lord_blackfang


Cloud movement is all fine and dandy when it's actually cloud movement, which Warpath 3 isn't. Warpath 3 is some sort of Venn Diagram movement where you have to manage up to 6 (in the alpha army list) subgroups, making sure that each of the 24 mooks is in coherency with his hub, which must be in coherency with other hubs. Hence the implicit requirement for multibasing, which you continue to willfully ignore just because it isn't spelled out for you.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/26 16:29:10


Post by: Paradigm


 Daedleh wrote:
You spent an entire post arguing to no-one about how much 40k sucks.

Do you realise that when people are referring to multibasing that they're referring to the cloud based mechanics that you're so valiantly defending? That maybe not everyone wants that level of abstraction and do want the "grit" of individual casualty removal?


Indeed! The level of detail and the feeling that every model matters that I love about 40k, and one of the biggest reasons I'm not a fan of this level of abstraction in WP3 (and also WP1. WP2_hit the balance best, but still doesn't beat 40k). If it were 15mm or smaller, it would make perfect sense, but 28mm minis as literally nothing more than an indication of how much space the unit takes up seems like a complete waste. Add to that the seemingly pointless team/hub mechanics and I just can't find anything appealing about these rules. They represent, to me, a huge step back from the really quite good WP2.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/26 16:33:39


Post by: judgedoug


 NTRabbit wrote:
In a nutshell - Mantic decided to pick a set of rules that would work at their starting point and scale up well, which is perfectly fine.

The problem is they picked a ludicrously high starting point as their 'baseline', and the rules just do not scale down well at all. They seem to be compounding this by refusing to recognise that platoon and company level games exist, and insist that anyone wanting smaller than their baseline of wall to wall multibase units actually wants a skirmish game, so should go play Deadzone instead.


I cannot imagine the hell that a game must be in individually measuring figures in a company level game. Three 30-40 man platoons plus a headquarters element and company level support options would mean over 120 figures per side, each with their own stats/special rules/movement. Well, actually, I can, as three weeks ago I ran the Battle of Berlin which pitted 80 Soviets (that recycled, so probably around 160 by the end of the game) against approx 60 Germans, plus tanks on each side, and it took 7 hours. In Bolt Action. Which is perhaps the quickest to play 28mm ruleset on the market.

As has been pointed out by other users on this same thread, point/cloud based games can be played with a single model - or chit, for hex and counter point-based games, such as Squad Leader - which makes point/cloud games actually far easier to scale down (the stats are given to a single representation model or chit or what-have-you) versus a traditional 40k-style game (again, used for comparison purposes, and in this case, I mean: games where individual models are measured independently, have their own stat lines, and a host of special rules) - which cannot scale up _without_ abstraction.

Let me put it this way. When you start a ruleset design philosophy with the idea that a set of stats is representational for an element - whatever that element means - no matter how many models, etc - you can abstract that up or down with ease. The "element" has these characteristics... whether than element is a fireteam of 4 models at 1/72 or an entire platoon at 3mm pico-scale.

When you start a ruleset design philosphy with the idea that a set of stats is representational 1:1 for a single model - so individual characteristics and such - it is much harder to apply the same stats at a higher level. Again, using 40k as an example as it's most recognizable, not as an attack on 40k, Since each warrior within a Space Marine Squad can have individual equipment, how can one easily abstract the squad as a single element within the current framework of 40k's rules?


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/26 16:38:04


Post by: carlos13th


If its cloud movement with teams of 5 guys then I am all for that. If that team of five guys is part of a larger team of 15-20 guys who all have to stick within x distance of one another I am not a fan.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/26 16:39:03


Post by: edlowe


 judgedoug wrote:
 NTRabbit wrote:
In a nutshell - Mantic decided to pick a set of rules that would work at their starting point and scale up well, which is perfectly fine.

The problem is they picked a ludicrously high starting point as their 'baseline', and the rules just do not scale down well at all. They seem to be compounding this by refusing to recognise that platoon and company level games exist, and insist that anyone wanting smaller than their baseline of wall to wall multibase units actually wants a skirmish game, so should go play Deadzone instead.


I cannot imagine the hell that a game must be in individually measuring figures in a company level game. Three 30-40 man platoons plus a headquarters element and company level support options would mean over 120 figures per side, each with their own stats/special rules/movement. Well, actually, I can, as three weeks ago I ran the Battle of Berlin which pitted 80 Soviets (that recycled, so probably around 160 by the end of the game) against approx 60 Germans, plus tanks on each side, and it took 7 hours. In Bolt Action. Which is perhaps the quickest to play 28mm ruleset on the market.

As has been pointed out by other users on this same thread, point/cloud based games can be played with a single model - or chit, for hex and counter point-based games, such as Squad Leader - which makes point/cloud games actually far easier to scale down (the stats are given to a single representation model or chit or what-have-you) versus a traditional 40k-style game (again, used for comparison purposes, and in this case, I mean: games where individual models are measured independently, have their own stat lines, and a host of special rules) - which cannot scale up _without_ abstraction.

Let me put it this way. When you start a ruleset design philosophy with the idea that a set of stats is representational for an element - whatever that element means - no matter how many models, etc - you can abstract that up or down with ease. The "element" has these characteristics... whether than element is a fireteam of 4 models at 1/72 or an entire platoon at 3mm pico-scale.

When you start a ruleset design philosphy with the idea that a set of stats is representational 1:1 for a single model - so individual characteristics and such - it is much harder to apply the same stats at a higher level. Again, using 40k as an example as it's most recognizable, not as an attack on 40k, Since each warrior within a Space Marine Squad can have individual equipment, how can one easily abstract the squad as a single element within the current framework of 40k's rules?


Judgedog, what were your thoughts on wp 2.0 then, with its individual stat lines and weapons, and individual figure removal. Considering it had cloud movement and played pretty fast. It seemed to me a vast improvement on wp 1.0 and I wish 3.0 had followed its lead.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/26 16:39:27


Post by: Paradigm


 judgedoug wrote:
Since each warrior within a Space Marine Squad can have individual equipment, how can one easily abstract the squad as a single element within the current framework of 40k's rules?


You don't, but why do you need to? Those rules are designed for 28mm minis on a 1:1 basis, so expecting them to work for, say, 1/72 minis on a 1:5 basis is somewhat pointless. Yes, some rulesets can handle it, but there's nothing wrong with designing a game with a single scale and scope in mind, especially when that game is largely a vehicle to sell minis of that kind.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/26 16:53:31


Post by: judgedoug


 lord_blackfang wrote:
Cloud movement is all fine and dandy when it's actually cloud movement, which Warpath 3 isn't. Warpath 3 is some sort of Venn Diagram movement where you have to manage up to 6 (in the alpha army list) subgroups, making sure that each of the 24 mooks is in coherency with his hub, which must be in coherency with other hubs. Hence the implicit requirement for multibasing, which you continue to willfully ignore just because it isn't spelled out for you.


I also think the sub-units is not ideal - but I have not argued for them (I mentioned a few days ago I am intrigued or excited or something about a ruleset which represents actual fireteams within units, which most platoon/company games ignore). I argue for abstraction and element-based gaming - "cloud" and point-based units... not because I "think" it may be better, but because I've been playing rulesets at the 28mm level for years that use it and it is superior for anything larger than skirmish. I'm basing my opinion of experience and rules elegance versus "I don't think this will work because I have never played anything like it" which is where most of the dislike for clouds seems to be coming from.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/26 17:02:17


Post by: Daedleh


Really? You're still pushing that angle?


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/26 17:03:02


Post by: judgedoug


 Daedleh wrote:
You spent an entire post arguing to no-one about how much 40k sucks.


Okay, rewritten with no reference to 40k:


Personally, I like the look of company sized games in 28mm, I just want them to be _playable_.

It is the same reason I abandoned Warhammer Fantasy for Kings of War - games done in a manageable amount of time (and effectively, to KoW's credit, games double the size of WHFB done in half the time)

However, platoon to company sized games that use individual stats and measurements tends to be unplayable for anything above skirmish - with every individual model having it's own stats, weapons, and special rules (and special rules for those weapons). Those systems are impossible to scale up from a skirmish game to platoon or larger without massive slowdowns. There's really no "scaling" - by adding X number of units, the length of a game increases linearly to X. The only way to get playable platoon level games is by simplifying individual stats - this is what Bolt Action does, allowing players to get a game with 50 models per side done in an hour.

Using variations of cloud-based rules elements has been the norm in most platoon and higher games for the last ten to twenty years - the basic way to answer the question of "How does one do platoon, company, and larger level games?" is via Abstraction. What is the real reason that individual members of a squad in most platoon level games have to move and shoot individually? How often has it really and truly mattered? In the few instances that it did matter, was it worth it versus the time spend measuring and moving and shooting each model individually? Abstraction says NO. It's not. Move X models and shoot X models all with a single measurement. Only the leader model matters for that purpose. The silhouette of the "cloud" absolutely does matter in terms of cover, and such, (which is why Warpath is most decidedly NOT a multibase game, btw), but in order for games to be played in a reasonable amount of time, MEASURE ONCE.

I expect any modern platoon-level or higher ruleset to use it, as has most of them in the past decade. AT-43 was a previously mentioned example (and a fantastic ruleset).

The only reason Bolt Action works, compared to several other rulesets, on a per-model basis, at comparable or larger sized games, is because each model has one stat - it's experience level. But it also doesn't work at higher levels (greater than 1500 points - or about 2 reinforced infantry platoons - for infantry battles). I would love it if the forthcoming Bolt Action WW1 ruleset uses per-unit stats, as it will, almost by it's very definition, have to be a larger-scale game (in terms of model count)

Establishing point/cloud-based measurement immediately allows the game to operate much, much faster than traditional platoon to company sized games that use individual stats and measurements and other individual-measurement games, and has the added benefit of allowing larger games in the same length of time.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 edlowe wrote:
Judgedog, what were your thoughts on wp 2.0 then, with its individual stat lines and weapons, and individual figure removal. Considering it had cloud movement and played pretty fast. It seemed to me a vast improvement on wp 1.0 and I wish 3.0 had followed its lead.


I played it a few times, and it was fun. However, the movement and shooting were all from individual models, so it was still a little bogged down, though the small stat line made it certainly quicker.

Actually, I would be very interested in WP2 with point/cloud base measurements for movement and shooting. However, honestly, WP2's nerve system really needed to be redone entirely and a better pinning/suppression system put into place.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Paradigm wrote:
 judgedoug wrote:
Since each warrior within a Space Marine Squad can have individual equipment, how can one easily abstract the squad as a single element within the current framework of 40k's rules?


You don't, but why do you need to? Those rules are designed for 28mm minis on a 1:1 basis, so expecting them to work for, say, 1/72 minis on a 1:5 basis is somewhat pointless. Yes, some rulesets can handle it, but there's nothing wrong with designing a game with a single scale and scope in mind, especially when that game is largely a vehicle to sell minis of that kind.


That's kind of my point. A system that assigns attributes to a defined element (IE, per individual model) cannot be scaled up easily - hence the awkwardness and game-length of Apocalypse rulesets. Rogue Trader was designed as a skirmish game, and it's core design elements haven't changed since then. The larger style games that GW has been pushing reveal the incompatibilities with the ruleset to accomodate the desire. This is not specifically an attack on 40k, it's just what it is. Many games are like this - Infinity is designed as individual figures acting with their own stats, and the ruleset does that job admirably. My original argument as stated is that " When you start a ruleset design philosophy with the idea that a set of stats is representational for an element - whatever that element means - no matter how many models, etc - you can abstract that up or down with ease." as a counter to NTRabbit's assertion that a system that assigns attributes to an element (element being a a unit of any size) does not scale down, but my argument was that it does (and can scale up as well).


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/26 17:38:54


Post by: MasterSlowPoke


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



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

One of my units was organized like this:

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

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

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

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

I had a second squad, organized like:

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

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

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


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/26 17:41:10


Post by: Daedleh


E: To Judgdoug

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

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

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

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


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/26 17:50:23


Post by: edlowe


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



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

One of my units was organized like this:

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

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

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

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

I had a second squad, organized like:

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

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

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


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

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




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Daedleh wrote:
E: To Judgdoug

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

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

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

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


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


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/26 18:24:23


Post by: MasterSlowPoke


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


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

Say you have a unit with the three teams:

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

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


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/26 18:36:22


Post by: edlowe


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


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

Say you have a unit with the three teams:

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

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


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

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

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

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


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/26 18:40:31


Post by: MasterSlowPoke


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


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/26 18:56:04


Post by: privateer4hire


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

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


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

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


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

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


I was joking actually.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 CptJake wrote:
 lord_blackfang wrote:
 Bolognesus wrote:
Well, damn. That's no warpath for me, then.

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


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


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

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

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


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


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/26 18:59:44


Post by: edlowe


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Any thoughts?


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/26 19:27:00


Post by: MLaw


people argue about what made 40k unfun..

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

guess where this is headed..


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/26 19:53:11


Post by: Prestor Jon


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

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

guess where this is headed..


Agreed.

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


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/26 20:28:25


Post by: judgedoug


 Daedleh wrote:
E: To Judgdoug Do you understand that these things are subjective? Some players do want more depth to their games and don't like everything abstracted. I do want individual casualties. I do want (personally) to check the range from each model (I know some people aren't fussed about that, but hey I'm willing to compromise if it's absolutely necessary).
Oh, of course - your list of games you play is remarkably similar to mine (and I still believe SST is the finest ruleset ever crafted by mankind). And I play and enjoy Bolt Action on a weekly basis which of course uses individual measurements.

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

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

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


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

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


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/26 20:54:21


Post by: Daedleh


Ok, so can we boil it down to this:

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

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

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

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

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


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/26 21:41:25


Post by: kodos


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

team/unit/hub:

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

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

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



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

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

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

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



measering:

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

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



High

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

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



actions:

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

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

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

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



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

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

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



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



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

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



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



vehicles

why are they always units on their own.

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



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

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



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



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

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



Maybe something like:

Instant Death: every successful damage role inflicts 2 wounds,

or Multihit: every hit adds an additional damge dice


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/26 21:50:24


Post by: MLaw


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

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

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

(I promise there is a point)

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

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

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


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/27 07:04:48


Post by: ORicK


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

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


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/27 07:54:17


Post by: NobodyXY


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

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

MANTIC: Sorry to hear that you're not a fan. This is a very subjective issue - some people really like the idea. I do understand the issues with it though. A few months back Ronnie floated the idea of making two games - one mass battle for those who wanted it that way, and one for the smaller engagements between "mass-battle" and Deadzone. This plan hasn't changed. However, we wanted to put this one out first and gauge the reaction. Some people feel that this version actually covers both bases and that we don't need the "platoon-level" game, and we wanted to see whether that opinion was more widespread. It seems in the end that opinion is a bit more divided on the matter, so we will revisit the smaller game again. We have a plan, and we'll see how it goes.


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


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/27 13:17:27


Post by: judgedoug


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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/27 16:47:33


Post by: sukura636


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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/27 17:26:27


Post by: warboss


 judgedoug wrote:

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

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

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


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


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/28 05:11:44


Post by: Mort


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

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

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


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

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


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/28 12:56:12


Post by: judgedoug


 warboss wrote:
 judgedoug wrote:

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

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


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


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


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 sukura636 wrote:
 judgedoug wrote:
For example: If I tell you an particular element has a speed of X inches, rolls Y dice and hits you on a Z... what am I talking about when I say "element"? Am I talking about a model? Or a squad? Maybe a whole infantry division, because I'm pointing at a copy of The World At War? I could be talking about all of them. That's what abstraction in game design allows you to do - it's scalable between any size of a unit without any "amendments" bolted on.

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


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


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


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/29 17:30:28


Post by: DaveC


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



Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/29 17:33:15


Post by: RobertsMinis


That is a bit lovely.


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/29 18:01:35


Post by: highlord tamburlaine


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

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


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/29 18:01:58


Post by: Nostromodamus


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

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

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


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/05/29 18:12:01


Post by: DaveC


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

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


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


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/06/02 22:38:53


Post by: DaveC


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




Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/06/02 23:06:26


Post by: Pacific


That Iron Ancestor looks like an absolute beaut.

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


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/06/08 19:17:47


Post by: edlowe


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

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

From the Mantic blog.

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

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


Mantic Games - Sci-Fi News and Rumour thread - New Battlezone sets pg 129 @ 2015/06/08 19:20:14


Post by: MasterSlowPoke


I think the outrage was more important than any playtesting.