Hello,

Just had a quick skim through the new Kings of War rules, and I'm liking it so far. However, I have a few questions regarding the new rules:

- Have we really got rid of musicians and banner carriers? I can't see the option to take them anywhere, and I'm surprised that this option didn't make the new edition.

- Would profiles for the previous edition be (relatively) compatible with this one? In particular, my brother just finished scratch-building a battle-driller, Herneas the Hunter, and a Steel Behemoth, and is devastated that he can't legally take these anymore! Does anyone know if including these units will unbalance the game too much? They seem compatible to me.


Thanks for any clarification you can give me. Also, what are other people's thoughts on the new edition? Good? Bad?

@Lach:
1) banners and musuicians were removed because the cancelled each other out, which lead to most people just not bothering with them and using the points to buy more units.
2) The lists on the mantic site arent complete. Afaik, battledriller, Herneas and Steel Behemoth are still in the lists, theyre just not in the starter lists. Check the beta forum for a more complete list.

Yes command groups were dropped. They are purely an aesthetic choice now. This was a frequent and popular request from the community.

None of the units you mention have been removed. If you are looking at the online lists put up on Friday, they are only samples, not the full lists. They are about 60% complete. The full lists are in the gamer's edition of the rules and the hardback book. They might eventually go up online like the v1 lists eventually did - but we don't know yet for sure.

Thanks for the clarifications guys.

Quick question for anyone who knows - are abyssals on a 20 or 25mm base? Got some 40k daemons of khorne who need a new home

Abyssals are on 20s. Salamanders are on 25s.

The lower abyssals are apparently on 25s.

It doesn't matter what base size you use as long as the frontage is correct. So if a unit is on 25mm bases in KOW a regiment will be 125mm across and fit five of your demons, if it's on 20mm bases it will be 100mm across and fit four of them. It's the unit footprint that matters more than the number of models - 12 bloodletters has approximately the same footprint as a 20 strong regiment on 20mm bases.

So Abyssals have a "standard" 100x80mm footprint? (Like Beastmen?)

Actually, does anything besides Orcs have WHFB-legacy-sized frontages now?

Salamanders are on 25mm bases

Out of interest, Matt - did base size/unit frontages for Orcs (and Salamanders) play much of a part in balancing/costing them?

Does anyone else do mutlibasing for their miniatures? I'm trying to get my spearmen on their individual bases - but that's a pain in the ass - so I'm considering picking up the GW plastic tray kit and just cutting those into the proper base sizes and gluing the minis right onto them.

 Azazelx wrote:
Out of interest, Matt - did base size/unit frontages for Orcs (and Salamanders) play much of a part in balancing/costing them?

Only if we felt it was justified where two units were almost identical. A bigger footprint is generally worse unless you are a shooting unit and then it's better (wider arc). Of course you get a wider charge arc but it's harder to move around).

I'm doing a combination of both multibasing and individual basing. For disorganized troops (like zombies for example) I base them in bigger bases that can be mounted on a much bigger base with the right footprint. The bigger bases lets me crowd more than one zombie so they look like they're swarming.

For more organized formations (like a phalanx of pikemen or polearms) I do normal WHFB style basing.

 mattjgilbert wrote:

 Azazelx wrote:
Out of interest, Matt - did base size/unit frontages for Orcs (and Salamanders) play much of a part in balancing/costing them?

Only if we felt it was justified where two units were almost identical. A bigger footprint is generally worse unless you are a shooting unit and then it's better (wider arc). Of course you get a wider charge arc but it's harder to move around).

I'm thinking of just using the standard footprint for my Orcs for friendly games. Since I base everything on 25mm rounds for flexibility between games and then blu-tac them down to Renedra HIPS unit trays for KoW. It also makes it a hell of a lot faster and easier to get painted forces on the table needing to paint 12 rather than 20.

 mattjgilbert wrote:

 Azazelx wrote:
Out of interest, Matt - did base size/unit frontages for Orcs (and Salamanders) play much of a part in balancing/costing them?

Only if we felt it was justified where two units were almost identical. A bigger footprint is generally worse unless you are a shooting unit and then it's better (wider arc). Of course you get a wider charge arc but it's harder to move around).

Sounds about right. 125mm frontage is a disadvantage because three units can charge the front (100-100-100 against 125) whereas only two 100's can charge the front of a 100, since corner-to-corner is not allowed.

 infinite_array wrote:
Does anyone else do mutlibasing for their miniatures? I'm trying to get my spearmen on their individual bases - but that's a pain in the ass - so I'm considering picking up the GW plastic tray kit and just cutting those into the proper base sizes and gluing the minis right onto them.

I multibase about 6/7 soldiers per 10 you are supposed to have. I prefer a slightly looser formation, so generally dot the soldiers about. For hordes, I use two "10 man" bases at the rear, and either use an appropriately sized defensive terrain (such as wooden shielding) to fill the front ranks, or just 4 lots of "10 man" bases.

Means I essentially get an extra unit for every 2 I base but doesnt look like I am taking the wee by having one guy representin 40.

I also use a single large model to represent several smaller ones (ie a giant to be 3 trolls).

 judgedoug wrote:

 mattjgilbert wrote:

 Azazelx wrote:
Out of interest, Matt - did base size/unit frontages for Orcs (and Salamanders) play much of a part in balancing/costing them?

Only if we felt it was justified where two units were almost identical. A bigger footprint is generally worse unless you are a shooting unit and then it's better (wider arc). Of course you get a wider charge arc but it's harder to move around).

Sounds about right. 125mm frontage is a disadvantage because three units can charge the front (100-100-100 against 125) whereas only two 100's can charge the front of a 100, since corner-to-corner is not allowed.

Correct me if wrong, but don't units multi-charging need to share equal amounts of frontage, making three units impossible? I thought the rules specifcally said once charges were done that you slide units to share facing as equitably as possible.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 infinite_array wrote:
Does anyone else do mutlibasing for their miniatures? I'm trying to get my spearmen on their individual bases - but that's a pain in the ass - so I'm considering picking up the GW plastic tray kit and just cutting those into the proper base sizes and gluing the minis right onto them.

I multibase about 6/7 soldiers per 10 you are supposed to have. I prefer a slightly looser formation, so generally dot the soldiers about. For hordes, I use two "10 man" bases at the rear, and either use an appropriately sized defensive terrain (such as wooden shielding) to fill the front ranks, or just 4 lots of "10 man" bases.

Means I essentially get an extra unit for every 2 I base but doesnt look like I am taking the wee by having one guy representin 40.

I also use a single large model to represent several smaller ones (ie a giant to be 3 trolls).

That's actually a smart idea. I'll use the same thing, but instead I'll use 8 instead of 10. And that does make it so I can use, say, the 8 empire Knights I got as a regiment instead of having three sit out.

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:

 mattjgilbert wrote:

 Azazelx wrote:
Out of interest, Matt - did base size/unit frontages for Orcs (and Salamanders) play much of a part in balancing/costing them?

Only if we felt it was justified where two units were almost identical. A bigger footprint is generally worse unless you are a shooting unit and then it's better (wider arc). Of course you get a wider charge arc but it's harder to move around).

Sounds about right. 125mm frontage is a disadvantage because three units can charge the front (100-100-100 against 125) whereas only two 100's can charge the front of a 100, since corner-to-corner is not allowed.

Correct me if wrong, but don't units multi-charging need to share equal amounts of frontage, making three units impossible? I thought the rules specifcally said once charges were done that you slide units to share facing as equitably as possible.

That is correct. But three 100mm frontage units charging a 125 allows three to contact it. one 100mm in the middle, leaving 12.5mm on each side for two other units to fit in the front. It is why 125mm frontage units are every so slightly worse in Kings of War.

Examples of my inspiration of swarming zombies on bigger bases. It gives a better feeling than when they're arranged neatly in boxes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 infinite_array wrote:
Does anyone else do mutlibasing for their miniatures? I'm trying to get my spearmen on their individual bases - but that's a pain in the ass - so I'm considering picking up the GW plastic tray kit and just cutting those into the proper base sizes and gluing the minis right onto them.

Forgot to quote you. But anyway, Renedra sells big bases for big formations!

Do they? I've only ever seen their 80x100 unit trays.

And your Zombies are always a lovely sight to behold.

No, they're not mine. As I've said they're my inspiration.

Yeah, they have 80x100 unit trays. You can always combine them with smaller unit trays to get the configuration you want. I got a lot of different-sized bases when I bought my Perry stuff so I've been using those.

Warbases are the only company that I have found that does appropriately sized movement trays for Mantic.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:
Warbases are the only company that I have found that does appropriately sized movement trays for Mantic.

Back2base-ix also does, but they're here in Australia.

They do everything bar a legion tray for Ogre warriors, but I should be able to request that

Oddly, it's still cheaper to buy from Warbases than Back2base-ix. Even with our shrinking dollar.

Well so it is.

Up to a point anyway, once you go over more than a few trays the british postage jumps 4 pounds at a time, whereas domestic shipping here is $9 all the way up to who even needs 20kg of MDF movement trays?

Just depends how many you need really!

I'm trying to organize my WHFB armies into KoW armies and I have another basing question for you guys.

I always thought that as long as the movement tray/unite base was the correct size for the formation that the number of models didn't matter. The 2.0 rulebook calls out model counts for formations, how tightly policed is that?

My armies are Bretonnians and WoC so I have big blocks of infantry and I'm trying to sort out just how many models I want to use if I multibase a formation. I want to do some multibasing for dynamism but the number of models I have versus the official number of models per formation I want to use isn't an exact match.

Since the main metric of units is base sizes, you can change the actual numbers of the minis on the base.

My cavalry have 4 minis per troop base. My spearmen have 8 on a troops base, and my foot guard have 7.

Prestor Jon wrote:
The 2.0 rulebook calls out model counts for formations, how tightly policed is that?

It's not. The unit footprint is still what matters. Just don't, you know, try to pass off one dude as a Horde.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
The 2.0 rulebook calls out model counts for formations, how tightly policed is that?

It's not. The unit footprint is still what matters. Just don't, you know, try to pass off one dude as a Horde.

Gamer :This is Bob - he's my Horde!
Bob: 'Sup?

The Auld Grump, in Gamer's defense, Bob is pretty big, and fills up a base all by himself....

There'll be tighter official guidelines released with the first FAQ. The rules regarding multibasing in the rulebook say:

You might even end up with a little more or
less than the correct number of models on
the multibase – this is fine, but it must be
reasonably close to the correct amount, so
that there is no chance of misleading your
opponents in regards to the real size of the
unit.

We've seen a few examples crop up lately that have some members of the community scratching their heads over, so Mantic will be issuing their official guidelines for events. People are free to do what they want in friendly games, but for events there'll be a minimum basing standard in just the same way as a minimum painting standard. The debate is just how to word it so that those taking large counts-as models aren't excluded.

infinite_array has nothing to worry about with his unit sizes.

Thoughts on the basing of my undead regiments? I have 6 per base, more than that just looks too crowded...

That's not a unit, that's spare bitz on a base.

Silver - looks cool. I wouldnt want to face a whole army done in that style but a single regiment as a 'just coming out of the ground' theme is cool

Reminds me of the genestealers in a blender video.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Thoughts on the basing of my undead regiments? I have 6 per base, more than that just looks too crowded...

Just, no.

6 in place of 20? No. Does not qualify as "a little more or less than the correct number of models on the multibase"

Sorry, I meant troop rather than regiment. But very glad everyone is so positive; really picked me up!...

It's not so much negative, but we don't really want to encourage just gluing spare bits to bases and calling it a unit. Like a couples dude emerging from the ground in the back/sides of the unit would be awesome. It could even be like a tidal wave. But that looks more like debris than a fighting force.

For another vastly undercounted regiment, here's what I'm going to use as a Regiment of Sylvan Kin/Guardians of the Wild:



I'm using them as swamp creatures called forth to protect the jungle. One half is only 5 models and the other is 7. 12 models instead of 20, but they have enough presence that it doesn't really detract from how they look.

Yeah, that fills up the base nice and proper.

Yeah, it doesn't look filled up. Maybe if you've added more skeletons popping off the ground, some halfway out while maybe one or two completely off the ground, or if there were some crawling skellies. Or bones.

If not more skeletons, then maybe tombstones to give it fill and character without looking skelly-crowded? Otherwise I wouldn't have a problem with 6 in place of 10, and I like what you've done

 NTRabbit wrote:
If not more skeletons, then maybe tombstones to give it fill and character without looking skelly-crowded? Otherwise I wouldn't have a problem with 6 in place of 10, and I like what you've done

this is a good idea. or even a big centerpiece statue/tomb. Make it look like a graveyard with skellies popping out of a few graves.

Yeah, the bases wouldn't look so bare-bones - heh - if they had a little more going for them. Add some tombstones, a statue, maybe a spooky tree with a crow in it or something.

The bases are currently bare just for model sticking on; the gaps will be filled with tundra themed scatter, stuck in arrows, additional piles of bones/skulls/weapons etc. I am not planning on leaving them just bare wood

My query was more to do with whether the work in progress was heading in the right direction and whether they would look too sparsely populated when completely based.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
The bases are currently bare just for model sticking on; the gaps will be filled with tundra themed scatter, stuck in arrows, additional piles of bones/skulls/weapons etc. I am not planning on leaving them just bare wood

My query was more to do with whether the work in progress was heading in the right direction and whether they would look too sparsely populated when completely based.

You're heading in the right direction then

I think the troop/regiment confusion contributed to the negative response more than anything else

One of my favorite 'underpopulated' unit of skellies has a graveyard and five skeletons - with two of the skeletons with shovels, and another helping a fourth out of a grave.

The fifth is sitting on a tombstone, shovel propped against a tree, eating a sandwich.

All are either the old GW skellies or Wargames Factory.

But there are also about twenty graves on the base.

His technique for the graves is worth copying - on top of the movement tray is three layers of sheet of cork, with the graves cut into the uppermost layer of cork - the whole then sanded, painted and flocked - so it looks like a lot of sunken graves.

The deepest ones are empty, or have that fourth skeleton clambering out of it.

The Auld Grump

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
One of my favorite 'underpopulated' unit of skellies has a graveyard and five skeletons - with two of the skeletons with shovels, and another helping a fourth out of a grave.

The fifth is sitting on a tombstone, shovel propped against a tree, eating a sandwich.

All are either the old GW skellies or Wargames Factory.

But there are also about twenty graves on the base.

His technique for the graves is worth copying - on top of the movement tray is three layers of sheet of cork, with the graves cut into the uppermost layer of cork - the whole then sanded, painted and flocked - so it looks like a lot of sunken graves.

The deepest ones are empty, or have that fourth skeleton clambering out of it.

The Auld Grump

Any chance you could find a picture of that? Having a hard time visualizing it exactly, but am interested in seeing it!

 Daedleh wrote:
There'll be tighter official guidelines released with the first FAQ. The rules regarding multibasing in the rulebook say:

You might even end up with a little more or
less than the correct number of models on
the multibase – this is fine, but it must be
reasonably close to the correct amount, so
that there is no chance of misleading your
opponents in regards to the real size of the
unit.

We've seen a few examples crop up lately that have some members of the community scratching their heads over, so Mantic will be issuing their official guidelines for events. People are free to do what they want in friendly games, but for events there'll be a minimum basing standard in just the same way as a minimum painting standard. The debate is just how to word it so that those taking large counts-as models aren't excluded.

infinite_array has nothing to worry about with his unit sizes.

What about Regiments/Hordes that look like this? - Which is my preferred style of basing: 25mm rounds filling a correctly-sized movement tray (as much as possible). It's not "75&" or "80%" It's 3/5 = 60%

Officially Mantic has said they would LIKE to see at lest 2/3rds.

But they also understand that many figs are on 25mm bases or other companies figures are just too big to look good squashed together.

Also sometimes money is a factor, and that can be compensated for by dioramas.

Often the 25mm based units are 4 across x 2 deep for a Troop(50mm deep vs 40mm deep), 4 across by 3 deep for a Regiment (75mm vs 80mm deep) and 5 deep for Legions (125mm deep vs 120mm)

4 across vs 5 across cav is pretty normal because you just can't fit most cav 5 across.

And the gaming community being who they are has found there is nothing to argue about in the rules, so they become shocked and shaken that a Heroquest Goblin on a piece of cardboard the right size doesn't count as a horde. I am exaggerating as any gamer would. Everyone knows you need at least 2 goblins to make a horde.

Debates have raged about "well my (x number of ) figures on a (Troop/Regiment/Horde/Legion) base OBVIOUSLY is a (Troop/ Regiment/Horde/Legion) because it is on the correct base for a (Troop/ Regiment/Horde/Legion) and nobody should argue.

A nice diorama means less figs, and less painted figs win out over the "legions of primer" but no one is going to throw you out of a tournament if you are within the spirit.

My opinion is I like to see the front rank up tight unless it is an irregular type unit like rangers, and then the quantities can decrease the deeper you get (or blend into a diorama).

But the positive of Manic is the expression of creativity. Go nuts, have fun, and don't get engaged in arguments about how many Orcs should be based on the head of a pin.

I myself am scratch building some coffin-lid mantlets for my Skeleton Archers which cuts down on the figs I can mount. I don't expect anyone to complain as the rank of archers behind will be in a tight formation across the base.

Not worth the time to argue when Alessio has given us a great, fair and competitive game that has no "have to have" units and the chance usually to play twice in an evening to avenge a crushing defeat.

Respectfully,
That Lee Guy


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Those figs look fine. There are also companies out there making trays with circles cut out so you can drop the 25bases right in.

Warbases in the UK does it if you like the look. Base as a group, pull out to use separately.

One of my mates is using those exact figs for KoM.

Respectfully,
That Lee Guy

lees_shadow wrote:
Officially Mantic has said they would LIKE to see at lest 2/3rds.
...
And the gaming community being who they are has found there is nothing to argue about in the rules, so they become shocked and shaken that a Heroquest Goblin on a piece of cardboard the right size doesn't count as a horde. I am exaggerating as any gamer would. Everyone knows you need at least 2 goblins to make a horde.

Debates have raged about "well my (x number of ) figures on a (Troop/Regiment/Horde/Legion) base OBVIOUSLY is a (Troop/ Regiment/Horde/Legion) because it is on the correct base for a (Troop/ Regiment/Horde/Legion) and nobody should argue.
...
Not worth the time to argue when Alessio has given us a great, fair and competitive game that has no "have to have" units and the chance usually to play twice in an evening to avenge a crushing defeat.
....
Those figs look fine. There are also companies out there making trays with circles cut out so you can drop the 25bases right in.
Warbases in the UK does it if you like the look. Base as a group, pull out to use separately.
One of my mates is using those exact figs for KoM.

Yeah, these are my figures, and I don't have any complaints in friendly games with friends - and obviously people like yourself would be nothing but cool to play against, but then if I were to go to a tournament... the last thing I want is to argue with someone deciding to be TFG because it's a slightly more competitive atmosphere. Because I'd probably just tell them to feth right off (with those words, to their face) and leave.

One of the big problems is that recent quote from Alessio stating that figures are required to be based 1-1 and on the bases the figures came with. Wording straight out of GW's playbook, and something that contrasts directly with even Ronnie's recently-blogged Dwarf army. Good to see the RC looking into it. I have a single Bone Giant that was going to stand in for a regiment of Obsidian Golems (until the new TK list that has one in it) but as Matt said, I have other cool large monsters that will be proxied in for other various regiments and such.

Where did Alessio say that?


Also, isn't he a freelancer? Why would he care more than Ronnie Remton if KoW players use Mantic minis on Mantic bases?

^^ I'd be interested in seeing where that quote was too.

 Azazelx wrote:

 Daedleh wrote:
There'll be tighter official guidelines released with the first FAQ. The rules regarding multibasing in the rulebook say:

You might even end up with a little more or
less than the correct number of models on
the multibase – this is fine, but it must be
reasonably close to the correct amount, so
that there is no chance of misleading your
opponents in regards to the real size of the
unit.

We've seen a few examples crop up lately that have some members of the community scratching their heads over, so Mantic will be issuing their official guidelines for events. People are free to do what they want in friendly games, but for events there'll be a minimum basing standard in just the same way as a minimum painting standard. The debate is just how to word it so that those taking large counts-as models aren't excluded.

infinite_array has nothing to worry about with his unit sizes.

What about Regiments/Hordes that look like this? - Which is my preferred style of basing: 25mm rounds filling a correctly-sized movement tray (as much as possible). It's not "75&" or "80%" It's 3/5 = 60%

They're fine.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Where did Alessio say that?
Also, isn't he a freelancer? Why would he care more than Ronnie Remton if KoW players use Mantic minis on Mantic bases?

I can't find it (I looked yesterday), but I read it very recently while the 2.0 armies were in playtesting. And yes, Alessio is a freelancer, but he's also the main rules writer for the game, so you can see where his word could be used as the correct interpretation if we don't have the RC to officially override it.

And thanks, Daedle.

Shrug, if it was a quote from a random interview, it doesn't have much bearing on the printed official rules let alone how I choose to play the game

He was being asked specifically about basing, so it read as more of a FAQ. It wasn't a random chat with the bloke from BoW or anything like that. I'm pissed off now that I can't find it.

I mean, you know that I'm more than happy to ignore it, but you wouldn't want it causing issues in a tournament when someone decides to be TFG.

Alessio isn't involved in the official tournament rules and at least one of the Rules Committee is, so there won't be an issue with 1-2-1 basing. Whether or not there is a minimum basing standard or not is another matter.

While we're throwing up questions..

The Dwarf Character J'Zik-Gearlund, where are the rules for him?
Have I gone blind? Can't see them in the Dwarf list at all.

Not all the Living Legends have survived through to the new edition - don't ask me why, that was done by the Studio.

Ah fair enough. Cheers.
Grabbed the model anyway, as I thought he'd make a good Stone Priest.

A shame. It's a decent looking model. I hope they keep it available.

 Azazelx wrote:

 Daedleh wrote:
There'll be tighter official guidelines released with the first FAQ. The rules regarding multibasing in the rulebook say:

You might even end up with a little more or
less than the correct number of models on
the multibase – this is fine, but it must be
reasonably close to the correct amount, so
that there is no chance of misleading your
opponents in regards to the real size of the
unit.

We've seen a few examples crop up lately that have some members of the community scratching their heads over, so Mantic will be issuing their official guidelines for events. People are free to do what they want in friendly games, but for events there'll be a minimum basing standard in just the same way as a minimum painting standard. The debate is just how to word it so that those taking large counts-as models aren't excluded.

infinite_array has nothing to worry about with his unit sizes.

What about Regiments/Hordes that look like this? - Which is my preferred style of basing: 25mm rounds filling a correctly-sized movement tray (as much as possible). It's not "75&" or "80%" It's 3/5 = 60%

Looks full to me which i figure is what they want. Personally im gonna use a Varghulf and two "handlers" with chains for a Werewolf proxy. I mean i have it laying about so i feel i need to use it. Also what is the basing footprint on the Zombie Dragon? cuz i wanna know if my Terrorgheist will work.

Zombie Dragon is a Monster, so at least 50x50. The Dungeon Saga Dragon is on a 75x75 base, so I'd assume that the eventual Zombie Dragon will be on a similar base.

 MasterSlowPoke wrote:
Zombie Dragon is a Monster, so at least 50x50. The Dungeon Saga Dragon is on a 75x75 base, so I'd assume that the eventual Zombie Dragon will be on a similar base.

Whelp, my Terrorgheist is on about 100x150 so its kinda big.

They're fine with monsters being on larger bases as needed, though.

 Azazelx wrote:
They're fine with monsters being on larger bases as needed, though.

Oh thank god, i have two of those and i totally wanted to use them

All good. They even specifically state the following:

Exceptional Base Sizes
You may need a wider or deeper base for exceptionally large heroes, monsters or war engines – in such rare cases, use the smallest base that you can fit your model on.

What about models based on 30mm round bases? They have a rather inconvenient size for being ranked up.

What fantasy game uses 30mm rounds?

No idea about fantasy but several historical games are quite relaxed about based and those 30mm lipped bases are popular for appearance. Since it's mostly historicals here, KoM look like my best chance at an opponent.

 durecellrabbit wrote:
What about models based on 30mm round bases? They have a rather inconvenient size for being ranked up.

You could place them on unit trays like the LotR models shown earlier in the thread (preferably filling and basing the tray around where the bases will be).
It would be pretty few models in the small units though perhaps too few to look good if they represent models normally on 20mm square bases.
3 models instead of 10 on a 100x40mm tray, 8 models instead of 20 on a 100x80mm

 infinite_array wrote:
Since the main metric of units is base sizes, you can change the actual numbers of the minis on the base.

My cavalry have 4 minis per troop base. My spearmen have 8 on a troops base, and my foot guard have 7.

A rather vocal minority demanded that Mantic make a statement on "acceptable miniature count" for units.

Mantic's "suggestion" was at least 2/3rd but that was not good enough.

Message boards filled up, there was wailing and gnashing of teeth and demands for answers. So Mantic made a statement.

For Mantic tournaments (and only Mantic tournaments, and not even for this years Clash of Kings) the MINIMUM model count will be 1 less than the next unit size down (rounded up) or 1/2 +1 for all units except Legions (again rounded up)

So for Mantic sponsored events (they care not what you do within the privacy of your own home or FLGS)

The count shall be:
Suggested
models
1 - Minimum models 1 (doh!)
3 - Minimum models 2
5 - Minimum models 3
10 - Minimum models 6
20 - Minimum models 11
40 - Minimum models 21
60 - Minimum models 41
120 Minimum models (just kidding, nothing is 120 models)

Respectfully,
That Lee guy

I don't disagree with their ruling, but that it needed to be made is why we can't have nice things.

KoW does seem to attract more than its fair share of cheapskates.

lees_shadow wrote:
120 Minimum models (just kidding, nothing is 120 models)

Yet.........

 lord_blackfang wrote:
KoW does seem to attract more than its fair share of cheapskates.

Heh - some of the people that I know that have been doing dioramic bases have actually spent more in spite of having fewer miniatures. (And certainly spent more time on it.)

The Auld Grump

Well. Damn. Guess I have no legal skeleton archer units anymore, then. Still, it's not unreasonable and with this sort of scenic base there was always the risk.

 Bolognesus wrote:

Well. Damn. Guess I have no legal skeleton archer units anymore, then. Still, it's not unreasonable and with this sort of scenic base there was always the risk.

I'd just add a couple of dead skellies slumped over the stakes. Nothing says they have to be 'alive' models.

Oh right, one of those 'rising out of the ground' skellies on each sprue out of the water in front. Thanks!

And if they'd had to be 'alive' models I'm pretty sure most of my undead army would have been well and truly fethed, but let's not go there

I speak only for myself here but I think the intent is to set a boundary where organisers can take action against people they feel are taking the mickey, rather than have people go round and count the based models on each unit a drag people off for waterboarding.

I believe the main aim from Mantics perspective (this was being discussed before the meltdowns started occurring) was preserving the look and feel of mass battle regimental warfare.

What made me laugh was the people decrying that we had to have rules in the first place and why people can't just be reasonable, then when the rules first came out they were the ones looking for loopholes ("oh I can just put 10 gravestones on my base to count as models").

 Daedleh wrote:
I believe the main aim from Mantics perspective (this was being discussed before the meltdowns started occurring) was preserving the look and feel of mass battle regimental warfare.

What made me laugh was the people decrying that we had to have rules in the first place and why people can't just be reasonable, then when the rules first came out they were the ones looking for loopholes ("oh I can just put 10 gravestones on my base to count as models").

Hey, done right, that can actually look good. (One of my favorite dioramic bases has skeletal gravediggers, a bunch of stones and sunken graves, one skeleton crawling out of a freshly opened grave, and another skeleton eating a sandwich while seated on a stone.)

The Auld Grump - they must be union skellies.

It can look good on display, but it rarely makes sense as something that moves around a battlefield and fights stuff.

Please remember this is for Mantic tournaments only!!!

With no "winning" item combinations or incorrectly pointed "must have" models it seems the need to bitch is being expressed in demanding a "ruling"

My skeleton archers will not be legal either as I have made coffin-lid pavises for them to be behind like you have done with the stakes. But they look good, fill out the base, and I don't expect to ever get questioned about them.

At the end of the day it is all about enjoying a well written and tight rule set with people who also made the effort to meet you halfway with their painting and figures.

Mantic gets beat up for copying GW, then gets beat up because the guys coming over from WHFB don't have a 1:1 direct army list conversion for some of the more esoteric GW figures (Where is my cauldron of blood? Gyrocopter? Corpse cart?)

We are still waiting for the complaint that the Mantica world is not "dark enough" since the world is not on the brink of disaster (and not enough skulls)

Respectfully,
That Lee guy

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
KoW does seem to attract more than its fair share of cheapskates.

Heh - some of the people that I know that have been doing dioramic bases have actually spent more in spite of having fewer miniatures. (And certainly spent more time on it.)

The Auld Grump

Tell me about it... my Dark Elf army uses Gamezone Dark Elves with Mierce Kthones Gorgonares as unit fillers!

lees_shadow wrote:
We are still waiting for the complaint that the Mantica world is not "dark enough" since the world is not on the brink of disaster (and not enough skulls)

I complained that a unit name was "too comedy" today, does that count?

lees_shadow wrote:
Please remember this is for Mantic tournaments only!!!

With no "winning" item combinations or incorrectly pointed "must have" models it seems the need to bitch is being expressed in demanding a "ruling"

My skeleton archers will not be legal either as I have made coffin-lid pavises for them to be behind like you have done with the stakes. But they look good, fill out the base, and I don't expect to ever get questioned about them.

At the end of the day it is all about enjoying a well written and tight rule set with people who also made the effort to meet you halfway with their painting and figures.

Mantic gets beat up for copying GW, then gets beat up because the guys coming over from WHFB don't have a 1:1 direct army list conversion for some of the more esoteric GW figures (Where is my cauldron of blood? Gyrocopter? Corpse cart?)

We are still waiting for the complaint that the Mantica world is not "dark enough" since the world is not on the brink of disaster (and not enough skulls)

Respectfully,
That Lee guy

While i wasnt expecting a 1:1 army conversion, i would like a Corpse Cart thing Though thats mostly cuz i think it looks sweet and pretty much EVERY VC player has a few. Im just glad my Terroghiests are gonna get some use, i was worried for a bit, then isaw Zombie Dragons and Winged Wyrms and i felt better.

 Grimmor wrote:

lees_shadow wrote:
Please remember this is for Mantic tournaments only!!!

With no "winning" item combinations or incorrectly pointed "must have" models it seems the need to bitch is being expressed in demanding a "ruling"

My skeleton archers will not be legal either as I have made coffin-lid pavises for them to be behind like you have done with the stakes. But they look good, fill out the base, and I don't expect to ever get questioned about them.

At the end of the day it is all about enjoying a well written and tight rule set with people who also made the effort to meet you halfway with their painting and figures.

Mantic gets beat up for copying GW, then gets beat up because the guys coming over from WHFB don't have a 1:1 direct army list conversion for some of the more esoteric GW figures (Where is my cauldron of blood? Gyrocopter? Corpse cart?)

We are still waiting for the complaint that the Mantica world is not "dark enough" since the world is not on the brink of disaster (and not enough skulls)

Respectfully,
That Lee guy

While i wasnt expecting a 1:1 army conversion, i would like a Corpse Cart thing Though thats mostly cuz i think it looks sweet and pretty much EVERY VC player has a few. Im just glad my Terroghiests are gonna get some use, i was worried for a bit, then isaw Zombie Dragons and Winged Wyrms and i felt better.

Come up with rules for the Corpse Cart and send them in to Iron Watch! (Keep it simple - a Monster or Hero that gives Regeneration (X) to units within 6 inches, but only in turns that it does not move, or something like that. Balancing the points will be the hard part.)

The Auld Grump

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 Grimmor wrote:

lees_shadow wrote:
Please remember this is for Mantic tournaments only!!!

With no "winning" item combinations or incorrectly pointed "must have" models it seems the need to bitch is being expressed in demanding a "ruling"

My skeleton archers will not be legal either as I have made coffin-lid pavises for them to be behind like you have done with the stakes. But they look good, fill out the base, and I don't expect to ever get questioned about them.

At the end of the day it is all about enjoying a well written and tight rule set with people who also made the effort to meet you halfway with their painting and figures.

Mantic gets beat up for copying GW, then gets beat up because the guys coming over from WHFB don't have a 1:1 direct army list conversion for some of the more esoteric GW figures (Where is my cauldron of blood? Gyrocopter? Corpse cart?)

We are still waiting for the complaint that the Mantica world is not "dark enough" since the world is not on the brink of disaster (and not enough skulls)

Respectfully,
That Lee guy

While i wasnt expecting a 1:1 army conversion, i would like a Corpse Cart thing Though thats mostly cuz i think it looks sweet and pretty much EVERY VC player has a few. Im just glad my Terroghiests are gonna get some use, i was worried for a bit, then isaw Zombie Dragons and Winged Wyrms and i felt better.

Come up with rules for the Corpse Cart and send them in to Iron Watch! (Keep it simple - a Monster or Hero that gives Regeneration (X) to units within 6 inches, but only in turns that it does not move, or something like that. Balancing the points will be the hard part.)

The Auld Grump

Or ally yourself with the Empire of Dust and take it as a soul snare.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 Grimmor wrote:

lees_shadow wrote:
Please remember this is for Mantic tournaments only!!!

With no "winning" item combinations or incorrectly pointed "must have" models it seems the need to bitch is being expressed in demanding a "ruling"

My skeleton archers will not be legal either as I have made coffin-lid pavises for them to be behind like you have done with the stakes. But they look good, fill out the base, and I don't expect to ever get questioned about them.

At the end of the day it is all about enjoying a well written and tight rule set with people who also made the effort to meet you halfway with their painting and figures.

Mantic gets beat up for copying GW, then gets beat up because the guys coming over from WHFB don't have a 1:1 direct army list conversion for some of the more esoteric GW figures (Where is my cauldron of blood? Gyrocopter? Corpse cart?)

We are still waiting for the complaint that the Mantica world is not "dark enough" since the world is not on the brink of disaster (and not enough skulls)

Respectfully,
That Lee guy

While i wasnt expecting a 1:1 army conversion, i would like a Corpse Cart thing Though thats mostly cuz i think it looks sweet and pretty much EVERY VC player has a few. Im just glad my Terroghiests are gonna get some use, i was worried for a bit, then isaw Zombie Dragons and Winged Wyrms and i felt better.

Come up with rules for the Corpse Cart and send them in to Iron Watch! (Keep it simple - a Monster or Hero that gives Regeneration (X) to units within 6 inches, but only in turns that it does not move, or something like that. Balancing the points will be the hard part.)

The Auld Grump

They...they take homebrew suggestions?? I LOVE MANTIC!!!! Also a Regen cart sounds incredibly useful, or it could just cast Heal i guess..... I need to think on this.

 Grimmor wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 Grimmor wrote:

lees_shadow wrote:
Please remember this is for Mantic tournaments only!!!

With no "winning" item combinations or incorrectly pointed "must have" models it seems the need to bitch is being expressed in demanding a "ruling"

My skeleton archers will not be legal either as I have made coffin-lid pavises for them to be behind like you have done with the stakes. But they look good, fill out the base, and I don't expect to ever get questioned about them.

At the end of the day it is all about enjoying a well written and tight rule set with people who also made the effort to meet you halfway with their painting and figures.

Mantic gets beat up for copying GW, then gets beat up because the guys coming over from WHFB don't have a 1:1 direct army list conversion for some of the more esoteric GW figures (Where is my cauldron of blood? Gyrocopter? Corpse cart?)

We are still waiting for the complaint that the Mantica world is not "dark enough" since the world is not on the brink of disaster (and not enough skulls)

Respectfully,
That Lee guy

While i wasnt expecting a 1:1 army conversion, i would like a Corpse Cart thing Though thats mostly cuz i think it looks sweet and pretty much EVERY VC player has a few. Im just glad my Terroghiests are gonna get some use, i was worried for a bit, then isaw Zombie Dragons and Winged Wyrms and i felt better.

Come up with rules for the Corpse Cart and send them in to Iron Watch! (Keep it simple - a Monster or Hero that gives Regeneration (X) to units within 6 inches, but only in turns that it does not move, or something like that. Balancing the points will be the hard part.)

The Auld Grump

They...they take homebrew suggestions?? I LOVE MANTIC!!!! Also a Regen cart sounds incredibly useful, or it could just cast Heal i guess..... I need to think on this.

Iron Watch is a fanzine - and they do indeed take submissions. (Unlike GW, mantic supports their fan efforts.) Currently up to issue 36.

Let me dig up the link - IronWatch. Submissions should be suggested at ironwatchmagazine@gmail.com

I have some that I have been sitting on until I have a chance to test them on an unsuspecting populace with willing playtesters.

The Auld Grump - once upon a time, GW games were likewise supported by fan efforts....

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

The Auld Grump - once upon a time, GW games were likewise supported by fan efforts....

Once upon a time I bought my Ral Partha minis and TSR & Chaosium RPG books from GW stores...

I think Iron Watch magazine is an entirely fan-made project. The editors did say they are going big into publishing homebrews soon.

I reiterate. I. Love. Mantic. And Ironwatch sound like cool people, so ya, gonna have to do that.

Yes Ironwatch isn't produced by Mantic at all, it's entirely fan-based. Mantic are fully aware of it and support it's publication though. If you are signed up for the Mantic newsletter or FB feed, you'll see they advertise new issues as they come out.

 Grimmor wrote:

lees_shadow wrote:
Please remember this is for Mantic tournaments only!!!

With no "winning" item combinations or incorrectly pointed "must have" models it seems the need to bitch is being expressed in demanding a "ruling"

My skeleton archers will not be legal either as I have made coffin-lid pavises for them to be behind like you have done with the stakes. But they look good, fill out the base, and I don't expect to ever get questioned about them.

At the end of the day it is all about enjoying a well written and tight rule set with people who also made the effort to meet you halfway with their painting and figures.

Mantic gets beat up for copying GW, then gets beat up because the guys coming over from WHFB don't have a 1:1 direct army list conversion for some of the more esoteric GW figures (Where is my cauldron of blood? Gyrocopter? Corpse cart?)

We are still waiting for the complaint that the Mantica world is not "dark enough" since the world is not on the brink of disaster (and not enough skulls)

Respectfully,
That Lee guy

While i wasnt expecting a 1:1 army conversion, i would like a Corpse Cart thing Though thats mostly cuz i think it looks sweet and pretty much EVERY VC player has a few. Im just glad my Terroghiests are gonna get some use, i was worried for a bit, then isaw Zombie Dragons and Winged Wyrms and i felt better.

I was planning to stick a corpse cart as a unit filler in a horde of zombies, very charcterfull and would look great.

How about this situation: I just recently bought a really big Reaper Bones spider and am planning on using it as a Twilight Kin Abyssal Riders horde. I haven't made the base yet, but it honestly looks like the thing is going to fill most of it. How likely are people going to complain about this?

As long as it can't be easily confused with another entry in the list it will be fine.

I've got some other spider-related stuff in this army plan but they're like a tenth the size so I don't think that's a problem. If I get another spider that big, I would be using it as the same kind of horde.

 TheWaspinator wrote:
How about this situation: I just recently bought a really big Reaper Bones spider and am planning on using it as a Twilight Kin Abyssal Riders horde. I haven't made the base yet, but it honestly looks like the thing is going to fill most of it. How likely are people going to complain about this?

A single model representing a Horde does seem weird to me. I would be likely to confuse it with a monster for the first half of the game, until constant reminding finally drove home that yes, that big spider... is a horde of cavalry...

I might add lots of smaller spiders to the base perhaps?

You'll be fine

Proxy models or “counts-as” models must be appropriate alternatives to the models they are representing (no Treemen representing orclings!). They should follow the same guidelines for minimum model counts as above or should occupy the equivalent volume (or as close as possible) as the models they are representing. For example, 2 heavy chariots taking up roughly the same space as the regiment of 10 knights they are representing is acceptable. AT ALL TIMES, it must be clear to your opponent what the unit actually represents. Inform them clearly before the game begins what is what in your army if you have any such units and remind them during the game too. You should avoid any confusing imagery (models with wings that don’t actually have the Fly special rule for example).

 TheWaspinator wrote:
How about this situation: I just recently bought a really big Reaper Bones spider and am planning on using it as a Twilight Kin Abyssal Riders horde. I haven't made the base yet, but it honestly looks like the thing is going to fill most of it. How likely are people going to complain about this?

Stick some Twilight Kin on its back, makes confusing it for a Monster less likely. Persoanlly i think it would be sweet

Rihgu wrote:

 TheWaspinator wrote:
How about this situation: I just recently bought a really big Reaper Bones spider and am planning on using it as a Twilight Kin Abyssal Riders horde. I haven't made the base yet, but it honestly looks like the thing is going to fill most of it. How likely are people going to complain about this?

A single model representing a Horde does seem weird to me. I would be likely to confuse it with a monster for the first half of the game, until constant reminding finally drove home that yes, that big spider... is a horde of cavalry...

A better way to put it is that "this Spideris using the statline for a Horde of Cavalry". But it is actually a giant spider. Phear her.

Until the Not-TK list came out, I had a Reaper Bone Giant that I'd planned to use with the statline of a unit of Obsidian Golems. Because the rules fit the model.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 Grimmor wrote:

lees_shadow wrote:
Please remember this is for Mantic tournaments only!!!

With no "winning" item combinations or incorrectly pointed "must have" models it seems the need to bitch is being expressed in demanding a "ruling"

My skeleton archers will not be legal either as I have made coffin-lid pavises for them to be behind like you have done with the stakes. But they look good, fill out the base, and I don't expect to ever get questioned about them.

At the end of the day it is all about enjoying a well written and tight rule set with people who also made the effort to meet you halfway with their painting and figures.

Mantic gets beat up for copying GW, then gets beat up because the guys coming over from WHFB don't have a 1:1 direct army list conversion for some of the more esoteric GW figures (Where is my cauldron of blood? Gyrocopter? Corpse cart?)

We are still waiting for the complaint that the Mantica world is not "dark enough" since the world is not on the brink of disaster (and not enough skulls)

Respectfully,
That Lee guy

While i wasnt expecting a 1:1 army conversion, i would like a Corpse Cart thing Though thats mostly cuz i think it looks sweet and pretty much EVERY VC player has a few. Im just glad my Terroghiests are gonna get some use, i was worried for a bit, then isaw Zombie Dragons and Winged Wyrms and i felt better.

Come up with rules for the Corpse Cart and send them in to Iron Watch! (Keep it simple - a Monster or Hero that gives Regeneration (X) to units within 6 inches, but only in turns that it does not move, or something like that. Balancing the points will be the hard part.)

The Auld Grump

I have seen several Zombie multibases where the Corpse cart is the model centerpiece and the zombies are on either side/on it, impaled with it, riding along, being crushed under it, etc.

It is great filler to stretch a zombie horde box of 40 figs into a Legion (normally 60 models)

It looks very good and trust me, it will stay on the table long enough to be appreciated (just protect its flanks!)

Respectfully,
That Lee Guy