HI!
I am one of the people who switched to KoW the second the rules (v2) came out. To me the game have everything WHFB did not have: real strategy instead of list building meta, quicker play, terrain have a purpose, multi basing etc.
In my town we have at the moment two communities, one (where I play) that have changed completely to KoW and in the change have drawn in new gamers to the fantasy scene, both from historical, 40k and beginners. This in turn have led to a great revival community-wise and new terrain have been built on a massive scale and tournaments are popping up way more continuously.
The second community are holding on to WHFB, this do not concern me the slightest (I sometimes bring out my WHFB myself to play a game from time to time).
However the the fact that the ones holding to WHFB refuse to try KoW do bother me as I cannot understand why, their models work in both games. Me and the rest of my community have tried in different pedagogical ways show what KoW is all about and have invited people for demo games and more, to no avail...
So my question and hopefully basis for discussion: have others experienced this, and why do people keep stay so intensely with WHFB? The game is unsupported.
Around here, several of our local groups have begun the process of switching to Kings of War - folks tried out the rules and liked them and we're all building armies towards it. I think the delay here is just that many of us didn't have fantasy armies already finished, so these things take a while to build up!
Personally, I am much more interested in Kings of War than playing WHFB 8th (since it is unsupported it is hard to get new players) or 9th Age (as I'm not really sure about the process of making that game, and I was ready for something different and more streamlined than 8th edition, anyway, which KoW is a better fit for).
It really helped here that the US fantasy circuit has embraced KoW, as that's what many of us aim for when building armies in my area. I have also heard of some people who are both playing AoS and Kings of War. The two are so different, that there's almost no conflict there. So here's hoping it continues to gain traction
Butterqwist wrote: HI! However the the fact that the ones holding to WHFB refuse to try KoW do bother me as I cannot understand why, their models work in both games. Me and the rest of my community have tried in different pedagogical ways show what KoW is all about and have invited people for demo games and more, to no avail...
So my question and hopefully basis for discussion: have others experienced this, and why do people keep stay so intensely with WHFB? The game is unsupported.
I can think of a couple of reasons.
The first is the fluff. Mantic's factions are definitely different than Warhammer's - enough so that perhaps they enjoy playing in the Old World instead of Mantica.
The second, and probably most imporant, is the rules. KoW is fast-play and element based, basically WHFB 8th's polar opposite. If you liked the ability to reform ranks with individual miniatures, the idea of unit attrition, or the granularity of equipment and magic, then you probably wouldn't like KoW's take on the concept of big fantasy battles.
And it's something I can understand. I'm getting into Wargods of Aegyptus, and another player is toying with the idea of making it an element based game. I'm not a fan of it, especially since the scale is so much smaller (a standard game might need about 50-60 models, instead of the many more that a "standard" game of 8th needed).
A lot of gamers had a lot of fun with this venerable game. Even it's not supported anymore by GW, that doesn't mean all their books and games disappeared into the void; as long as they have someone to play with, they will keep playing.
Because it has brought them a lot of fun and will certainly bring a lot more in their future games.
That said, there is no wrong opening your mind to another game system.
I too began KoW and it has renewed my desire to collect a true army of 28 mm fantasy miniatures. I have friends who are willing to play from time to time as well. So, I will have fun with KoW.
But I totally understand those who want to stay with WFB. After all, I also have fond memories with that game and the Old World. It's just that I want to play something else.
infinite_array wrote: The first is the fluff. Mantic's factions are definitely different than Warhammer's - enough so that perhaps they enjoy playing in the Old World instead of Mantica.
Honestly I'd find this excuse quite lame. Many KoW armylists have been designed with the main goals of letting veteran Fantasy gamers play with their already existing Fantasy armies. You can set the game in whatever universe you want.
From what the OP is saying, it looks like the archetypical "GW-centric" community that will simply refuse to play anything non-GW, because GW is all they know and stepping beyond such limits would be heresy.
If they are happy with the game they are currently playing, and there is a large enough community of like minded players, why should they learn a new game? What justifies the time spent (even if the cost is zero) learning a new game, when they can use the same time to play a game they already know and enjoy?
If they enjoy what they're doing, why do you care?
Fluff is honestly a big factor in collecting and playing an army for me and I'll be brutally honest, KoW fluff makes my stomach turn. I just find it to be nauseatingly bad.
Case in point. As my gaming group is looking into diggng into KoW I was considering building a Salamander army. After getting ahold of a copy of Uncharted Empires and givng their fluff a read I literaly no longer give two feths.
At least the Varaguar or however you say are it are at least entertaining. So it looks like I'll be buyimg a lot of shiny new GW chaos models! Cause feth me I'm not wasting money on Mantic sculpts.
+1 Korinov. This whole thing of 'the fluff = the models = the rules" has made me shake my head for years. Ronnie Renton isn't holding a gun to your head to use Mantic minis and Mantica fluff. I'd say KoW makes it easier to play in different settings, because there's far fewer unique special rules pretending to be fluff. You could play in Mantica, or 'Mallus', or the Sigmarite planes, or Middle-Earth, or Melniboné and the Young Kingdoms, or Hyboria, or Westeros, or even on this cockamamie world called 'Earth'.
theHandofGork wrote: What justifies the time spent (even if the cost is zero) learning a new game, when they can use the same time to play a game they already know and enjoy?
Because it's quick to learn, and quick to play, with much less rulebook flipping, hit-wound-save-casualty-rankbonus-leadership fiddling, and all the other little speedbumps in the process, that makes the time spent, time saved?
And more than that, 'cos they might like it better.
Yeah, KoW has actually really embraced folks using conversions, counts-as, and whatever model lines they like. So, that is a big draw for me since I want to run chaos dwarfs! I don't mind calling them Abyssal Dwarfs really, but the main rulebook (haven't picked up Uncharted Empires yet) is excellent and fits them extremely well
Vermis wrote: Because it's quick to learn, and quick to play, with much less rulebook flipping, hit-wound-save-casualty-rankbonus-leadership fiddling, and all the other little speedbumps in the process, that makes the time spent, time saved?
And more than that, 'cos they might like it better.
I have no issue with KOW, but why do we care what other people play so much? This is what I don't get. If a group is satisfied with a game that I don't particularly like (and post end times 8th WFB is a good example of a game that I don't really like) then I don't feel the need to convert them to a game I do. If they're dissatisfied, or curious, or want another experience then they can try KoW or SOBAH, or HOTT, or whatever else. But what's with the need to keep telling other people they're doing it wrong?
Yeah, I definitely think people should feel free to keep playing whatever they want with regard to fantasy. But for tournaments, it helps to coalesce around a single ruleset "going forward"... so I'm personally hoping that will be KoW for ranked fantasy battles, and probably AoS for skirmish (although Frostgrave is sweet, too, but much lower model count).
RiTides wrote: Yeah, I definitely think people should feel free to keep playing whatever they want with regard to fantasy. But for tournaments, it helps to coalesce around a single ruleset "going forward"... so I'm personally hoping that will be KoW for ranked fantasy battles, and probably AoS for skirmish (although Frostgrave is sweet, too, but much lower model count).
lonestarr777 wrote: Fluff is honestly a big factor in collecting and playing an army for me and I'll be brutally honest, KoW fluff makes my stomach turn. I just find it to be nauseatingly bad.
Case in point. As my gaming group is looking into diggng into KoW I was considering building a Salamander army. After getting ahold of a copy of Uncharted Empires and givng their fluff a read I literaly no longer give two feths.
LOL that's hilarious. I'm making a Twilight Kin army ... well, actually, it's a Thulsa Doom Cult of Set army, using the Twilight Kin rules. Why do you have to be so married to literalism? Or am I not allowed to field a Thulsa Doom army because there's no Robert E Howard army lists?
lonestarr777 wrote: Fluff is honestly a big factor in collecting and playing an army for me and I'll be brutally honest, KoW fluff makes my stomach turn. I just find it to be nauseatingly bad.
Case in point. As my gaming group is looking into diggng into KoW I was considering building a Salamander army. After getting ahold of a copy of Uncharted Empires and givng their fluff a read I literaly no longer give two feths.
LOL that's hilarious. I'm making a Twilight Kin army ... well, actually, it's a Thulsa Doom Cult of Set army, using the Twilight Kin rules. Why do you have to be so married to literalism? Or am I not allowed to field a Thulsa Doom army because there's no Robert E Howard army lists?
As a huge fan of fan of Conan that army sounds awesome! I am in no way presumptious enough to tell you that you can't field anything you want, specially not something that cool.
I guess the thing is I look to the source matieral for inspiration, and find Mantic's writing to be rather bland. I will freely admit its a personal hangup.
Our group makes a lot videos and batreps too so alot of Salamander unit names, which grate my nerves, would have be used a lot and I couldn't get away with refering to units with other titles.
Familiarity, and, yes - the fluff and the setting.
I know a local group that is running a KoW game set in the Warhammer setting, and having fun with it.
My own group pretty much just uses KoW, I do not think that setting has ever been a concern. (Though several are using their Warhammer armies. *EDIT* Including my own Empire/League of Rhordia army - which has its rooots in the very first edition of Warhammer... though most of those old lead models have been phased out, one or two hold on as characters.)
What I am more interested in is that as the years carried on, most people in the group cut back on the number of armies that they could filed in Warhammer.
Now that we have switched to Kings of War that trend is reversing itself. With all but two players able to field at least two armies. (Ogres seem to be a popular second choice - I think because as a Neutral army, they can ally with everyone, and involve fewer models than Kingdoms of Men.)
I find them to be detestable mary-sue's. The whole slayers of evil cause evil just makes me roll my eyes. I'm not a fan of them being a naval power either. It just really doesn't make much sense to me and I find it bothersome. I'm not saying folks can't dig it, if you do, more power to you. But it's not my cup of tea, when I imagine an army of lizardmen riding great dinosaurs into battle and bringing war to the warmbloods it's generally not to come riding to the rescue...
infinite_array wrote: The first is the fluff. Mantic's factions are definitely different than Warhammer's - enough so that perhaps they enjoy playing in the Old World instead of Mantica.
Honestly I'd find this excuse quite lame. Many KoW armylists have been designed with the main goals of letting veteran Fantasy gamers play with their already existing Fantasy armies. You can set the game in whatever universe you want.
I think it's a perfectly reasonable excuse. Games Workshop make very flavoursome rules that are intertwined with the fluff in many cases (from spell names and effects, to special rules, to named characters, to unique weapons etc etc) strip all of that away and it might not feel like you are playing in the same world you once were.
Flavoursome what? GW makes incredibly poor rules with incredibly stupid names. Both their fluff and their naming conventions seem written by 14-yeared old fanboys in recent years.
Wolfius McWolf Murderfang the Space Wolf and Bloodux Sanguis the Bloody Blood Angel are not "flavoursome", they are stupid.
I mean, each one to his/her own tastes, but seriously, someone (not you Bottle) said he/she found Mantic's fluff to be "bland", and as a result was planning to dump money on AoS? Is there anything in this world blander than AoS? Sooo here are the golden good guys armed with shields and hammers and angelic wings against the spiky blood red&black bad guys armed with scary looking axes, wow so original aren't we.
I own complete 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th editions for WHFB and currently my group is using 8th and enjoying it. So why invest in KOW? We play in our homes and don't go near tournaments and are actually glad the game ended with 8th. We all have numerous armies and enough stuff put back for years to come. So again , why should we switch? KOW offers us nothing we don't already have. Mantics products are just so uninspiring.
Kenshinzo 7 wrote: I own complete 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th editions for WHFB and currently my group is using 8th and enjoying it. So why invest in KOW? We play in our homes and don't go near tournaments and are actually glad the game ended with 8th. We all have numerous armies and enough stuff put back for years to come. So again , why should we switch? KOW offers us nothing we don't already have. Mantics products are just so uninspiring.
Nothing wrong with sticking with what you love but I'd just like to suggest that KoW does offer a surprising amount to the modelers. Unit basing instead of individual basing really allows you to go wild with the mini diorama unit fillers. I'm currently looking at tying to mount 1000 points of undead inside a Garden of Mor kit and have it look like a real graveyard when ranked up.
I mean, each one to his/her own tastes, but seriously, someone (not you Bottle) said he/she found Mantic's fluff to be "bland", and as a result was planning to dump money on AoS?
No idea whether you are referring to me, I've described KOW as 'bland'. That is the game the feels bland not the fluff, it has no fluff that I've ever read and I don't choose games for fluff reasons for the most part (It has little effect on whether the game is good or bad). I'm a fan of AOS but I'm spending money on GW figures not AOS. If I was playing KOW I would be spending the same money on GW figures not KOW.
Hm, some interesting views for sure. I get all the argument about wanting to keep playing WHFB (as I said in my OP) but still the question regarding ¨why would you not want to try something outside GW¨ have been met with ¨why should I¨... To me, that question have several answers (in my point of view of course). (1) ¨The fluff¨, well as mentioned by someone earlier KoW gives you the ability to play in any setting, it generic. (2) ¨mantic models are not GW¨, well play with whatever models you like, I myself is currently building my second army composed by miniatures from 10 different companies. (3) ¨the rules are not GW¨ I will counter that with a statement, every time I log into a forum for warhammer wargamers there is always ¨that codex/race is OP¨, ¨we need to comp that¨, ¨how is this rule interpreted¨, I can go on forever. I have never seen that discussion in any form in regards to KoW, not on the internet nor in my community. (4) ¨the game seems to simple¨, KoW is actually one of the more complex games i have ever encountered. The similarities between the races and units require you to play tactically to the extreme and balanced lists are actually super good in the hands of a skilled commander.
This is something I have never seen in any GW game where if you have built a good list it plays itself.
1. Generic doesn't = good. Part of WHFB's charm is it draws you in with a rich world. It is much harder to get invested in a blank sandbox.
2. Some people would like to support the company in the game they are playing and GW has created a kinda stockholm relationship with gaming and minatures. Doesnt help that mantic needs serious quality control.
This isn't a good face for the game. "Hey check out KoW!" "Wow, those are some hideous sculpts." "Well yeah but you can use any minis you want!" "Already walked away, can't hear you."
3. Every ruleset for every game has problems. Even KoW, currently the lament is "Ogres are OP." in my group.
4. The game IS simple. This isn't a bad thing but some folks appreciate a bit more complexity. Do not confuse jockeying for position for complex. The game is primarily decided in the movement phase reguardless of what you bring to the table. The generic magic items and weak spellcasters with universal magic for EVERY army in the game is a bit dry and feels a little "Everyone shares from the same toybox so it's fair!"
5. Personal pet peeve, no hero beside monster riders feel worth it because you can't stick them in units, rendering them speed bumps and nerve boosters at best.
The game is fun, but it has problems. Enough so that some folks will look at it, shrug and go back to casting 'purple sun' without a look back.
Yeah, those are some good points lonestar! I'm looking forward to a simpler game than 8th myself, and as a rabid converter really like the freedom they endorse
I would say to the AoS fans posting in this thread, it's possible to like both, you know . One doesn't have to oppose the other, they're very different games and both can coexist well!
KoW is actually one of the more complex games i have ever encountered. The similarities between the races and units require you to play tactically to the extreme and balanced lists are actually super good in the hands of a skilled commander.
I can't say you are wrong, as I do not know what other games you have encountered, but KOW is extremely simple. Without formations it would be AOS. In fact due to AOS having different unit specific special rules rather than generic traits I'd say AOS is more complex in the literal sense.
The similarity between units/races is a downer for me, I play fantasy to a good extent for the clear asymmetry between forces. KOW reduces Ogres/Humans/Goblins/Dwarves etc to essentially the same thing with very minor differences, but pretend each block represents more or less 'men'. If that is your thing then historicals do this a lot better (everyone is human).
Not to say I dislike KOW, as RiTIdes says above I actually like both games, and would play either, but AoS 'feels' more like a fantasy game and therefore is my preference.
The similarity between units/races is a downer for me, I play fantasy to a good extent for the clear asymmetry between forces. KOW reduces Ogres/Humans/Goblins/Dwarves etc to essentially the same thing with very minor differences, but pretend each block represents more or less 'men'. If that is your thing then historicals do this a lot better (everyone is human).
Funny enough, to me it's the opposite; I like KoW's simplicity because it allows a lot more freedom for modelism. I don't have to care about if I use a hammer or a sword for my Liberators, I can use them both and take the profile for Ogres.
AoS is trying to "force you" to take this and this model in particular (with the precise set of weapons, because). KoW is made so that players can use of course miniatures from their online shop but also litterally whatever they want - some armies actually aren't intended to be sold by Mantic Games, for example. That's quite a big difference with GW.
Imagination is the first tool for fantasy games, after all. You don't need silly or special unique rules for everything if the story you tell is right. You can always interpret in many ways how a generic rule work; for example, a "fireball" throwed by a human mage can be a true fireball or some magic missiles made of pure energy, or even ice shards. But in terms of rules, it works the same - just the visual effect will change.
I can't say you are wrong, as I do not know what other games you have encountered, but KOW is extremely simple. Without formations it would be AOS. In fact due to AOS having different unit specific special rules rather than generic traits I'd say AOS is more complex in the literal sense.
I think both games are simple - but where KoW is complex (intrinsically), AoS is complicated (extrinsically).
KoW has its simple base ruleset, but units do not often break those rules, if ever, because all of the special rules for each faction is based on the universal special rules.
AoS has its simple ruleset, but the pages upon pages of individual special rules break those basic rules in a huge variety of ways.
The similarity between units/races is a downer for me, I play fantasy to a good extent for the clear asymmetry between forces. KOW reduces Ogres/Humans/Goblins/Dwarves etc to essentially the same thing with very minor differences, but pretend each block represents more or less 'men'. If that is your thing then historicals do this a lot better (everyone is human).
It's a scale thing. KoW is trying to really simulate the huge battles, where individuals become less important. Just look at KoW's unit naming structure - the smallest unit are Troops (which in the real world are around 100 soldiers). Then you have regiments, hordes, and legions. A 2,000 point KoW army with a couple hordes, a bunch of regiments, and a few troops, is actually thousands upon thousands of soldiers.
AoS should be a skirmish game focused on individuality.
It's a perennial problem with GW that they kept pushing WHFB and keep pushing 40k (basically skirmish/warband sized systems) further into territory that they don't belong in - mass battles, the territory once taken care of by Warmaster and Epic. This ended up breaking WHFB. Now we have to see if GW will do the same for AoS.
I mean, each one to his/her own tastes, but seriously, someone (not you Bottle) said he/she found Mantic's fluff to be "bland", and as a result was planning to dump money on AoS?
No idea whether you are referring to me, I've described KOW as 'bland'. That is the game the feels bland not the fluff, it has no fluff that I've ever read and I don't choose games for fluff reasons for the most part (It has little effect on whether the game is good or bad). I'm a fan of AOS but I'm spending money on GW figures not AOS. If I was playing KOW I would be spending the same money on GW figures not KOW.
KoW is pretty much setting independent, while it has a setting, that setting is pretty much an excuse to have battles. Which, can also be described as making it bland. (Or you can use your own setting - whuch is why I have been playing with the idea of updating my 1750s game.)
*EDIT* To make it clear - I liked the Warhammer setting, better than I do the Mantica setting.
But GW done blowed it up. What I liked was the setting (most especially the 3rd edition version), and they got rid of the only part of their game that I liked.
I tried to gently nudge this way before, but as a clearer note...
The OP specifically laid this thread out as a comparison between WHFB (8th edition) and Kings of War as an alternative ruleset.
So, let's please leave the rather contentious "pro/anti AoS" discussion for another thread, as it really doesn't belong in this one!
This thread is about whether folks should continue with WHFB as it was, or try another ruleset like KoW... please double check the OP before replying as we're getting a few too many threads with the same arguments seeping in, while this one is about another topic entirely.
lonestarr777 wrote: Part of WHFB's charm is it draws you in with a rich world. It is much harder to get invested in a blank sandbox.
This isn't a good face for the game. "Hey check out KoW!" "Wow, those are some hideous sculpts." "Well yeah but you can use any minis you want!" "Already walked away, can't hear you."
Minis =/= rules =/= setting. Like you say, GW have created a kind of Stockholm syndrome regarding minis and special rules. People who enjoy KoW realise that, and realise they can use different minis. They can still play in a rich world - any world they want. They've just changed up when and why they roll their dice.
People who've already walked away... I have trouble imagining the degree of conditioning they've gone through.
For an example: if you play dark elves, druchii, from Naggaroth, always raiding Ulthuan - you know the ones - using twilight kin rules, and use your lovingly painted and somewhat converted army that you built up for warhammer and developed your own personal background for... does it really break the game and the suspension of disbelief if the army's combat reroll is called vicious instead of murderous prowess? Does it matter if they don't have ASF, which they didn't have 'til recently in warhammer, anyway? Is it time for wailing and gnashing of teeth if Black Guard are 'just' an elite unit? (Think about it: in the fluff Black Guard are 'just' elite troops. Stubborn and increasing their strength by a full, even third because halberds, are just as arbitrary, abstracted and 'gamey' a way of representing that, as a 1-point-better melee stat and crushing blow) Do you need separate big stompy monster profiles for big stompy monster hydras and big stompy monster kharibdysses? Heck, do you need kharibdysses full-stop?
5. Personal pet peeve, no hero beside monster riders feel worth it because you can't stick them in units, rendering them speed bumps and nerve boosters at best.
Now there I can't argue too much, because it's one thing that put me off KoW too. But I'd say close combat beasts/magic item delivery systems with a leadership booster bubble is not a million miles from how warhammer did it, either.
But there are other ways and means. In other games commanders command, for one thing. And fair enough if you give other games a decent whirl and go back to warhammer; but when people won't even entertain the notion to look up and see there are other viable rules, let alone try them... well, it's everyone's loss.
This thread is about whether folks should continue with WHFB as it was, or try another ruleset like KoW... please double check the OP before replying as we're getting a few too many threads with the same arguments seeping in, while this one is about another topic entirely.
I guess it boils down to whether or not someone wants to play a game that simulates mass battles, where individuals and magic are less important than morale and maneuvering, or an over-taxed warband game where individuals are important.
It's something that turned me off of the 9th Age ruleset, when I saw that a single unit of Light Infantry for the Empire of Sonnstahl list starts at 10 models, and can go up to 60. And it's something that turned me on to Wargods of Aegyptus, where the apparent "sweet spot" for normal sized games are units of 12 for the regular infantry.
Sarouan wrote:
Imagination is the first tool for fantasy games, after all. You don't need silly or special unique rules for everything if the story you tell is right.
A bit of imagination. Remember when we used to have to use that in fantasy games?
You can always interpret in many ways how a generic rule work; for example, a "fireball" throwed by a human mage can be a true fireball or some magic missiles made of pure energy, or even ice shards. But in terms of rules, it works the same - just the visual effect will change.
Quite right. You will end up just as dead.
Think about it in terms of 40K and lasguns, for example. The imperium of man is obviously much further-reaching, and by implication much more diverse than the modern world with modern countries and their modern armies that use modern assault rifles. So with all those untold numbers of human worlds separated by vast, intragalactic distances and thousands of years, not to mention warp storms, warp interference, and the vagaries of warp travel, don't you think that IG regiments should have much more difference between the patterns and workings of their lasguns? Even despite Mechanicus inertia and reliance on poorly understood STCs? It seems to be the case with cultures and battle doctrines, anyway. Does it bother you that it's all lumped under the generic rule termed 'lasgun'?
(Heck, if I remember 40K and Necromunda correctly, autoguns - 40K's actual assault rifles - had practically the same stats as a lasgun. Generic abstraction is everywhere. It's already here! It's coming to get you, Barbara!)
infinite_array wrote:
I think both games are simple - but where KoW is complex (intrinsically), AoS is complicated (extrinsically).
KoW has its simple base ruleset, but units do not often break those rules, if ever, because all of the special rules for each faction is based on the universal special rules.
AoS has its simple ruleset, but the pages upon pages of individual special rules break those basic rules in a huge variety of ways.
Well said! I've heard the complex/complicated thing before, and agree with it. To add a bit (and veer it back on topic to WFB) complexity comes from the way seemingly simple basic and universal rules interplay. WFB had some of that, but it was almost drowned under the complications of hundreds of special rules to remember and keep track of. And I'll argue that WFB's basic rules - like 8th's horde and steadfast, pushed in just to give infantry some kind of chance, a symptom of special rules bloat - weren't entirely simple and elegant, either.
It's a perennial problem with GW that they kept pushing WHFB and keep pushing 40k (basically skirmish/warband sized systems) further into territory that they don't belong in - mass battles, the territory once taken care of by Warmaster and Epic. This ended up breaking WHFB. Now we have to see if GW will do the same for AoS.
Two-hundred-model bundles for a single warscroll battalion... yeah. It is the same thing that happened with WFB. GW can't seem to understand or accept that skirmish-type rules can only go so far.
Hence, people flocking to KoW for a mass battle fix, and actually liking it.
First I hate posting on my phone, it makes it very impossible to multi-quote and get back to multiple people.
Sarouan, the arguement that things in this game are generic because the power of imagnation is a terrible arguement.
No one is going to sit at the table and announce "So my wizard trained in the dark arts of necromancy hurls a flaming skull into your unit, as the cold fire burns and it explodes in a whail of the damned you take... *rolls* 5 wounds to their nerve."
Everyone will however "I'm chucking a fireball at your spearmen."
The fact there is zero variation on magic beyond what you picture in your head is just kind of sad. What does every Mantic wizard attend some third rate Hogwarts, thus why they all know the exact same kinds of spells?
I understand why they do it, its easier to balance. But that is the only fashion that is a selling point. Telling me I need to write the flavor for an army for a company that wants my money is akin to buying a book and finding its only half written and I have to finish it myself.
Vermis, there comes a point where things are just too generic. The fact so many monsters, units, and heroes can be swapped out and you'd never know that technically thats an orc unit and not an elf strikes me as rather lazy.
Why am I playing X army when I can just play Y and use X models?
You know I honestly feel bad coming down on this game with these critcisms. Its genuinely entertaining, quick and fun to play. But it doesn't feel like a complete game. They have tried so hard to give people freedom to play how they want that it comes across as unfinished.
I'm not sitting down at the table to be Tolkien for an afternoon, I'm sitti.g down to push toy soldiers in circles.
For an example: if you play dark elves, druchii, from Naggaroth, always raiding Ulthuan - you know the ones - using twilight kin rules, and use your lovingly painted and somewhat converted army that you built up for warhammer and developed your own personal background for... does it really break the game and the suspension of disbelief if the army's combat reroll is called vicious instead of murderous prowess? Does it matter if they don't have ASF, which they didn't have 'til recently in warhammer, anyway? Is it time for wailing and gnashing of teeth if Black Guard are 'just' an elite unit? (Think about it: in the fluff Black Guard are 'just' elite troops. Stubborn and increasing their strength by a full, even third because halberds, are just as arbitrary, abstracted and 'gamey' a way of representing that, as a 1-point-better melee stat and crushing blow) Do you need separate big stompy monster profiles for big stompy monster hydras and big stompy monster kharibdysses? Heck, do you need kharibdysses full-stop?
Completely OT, but if you ever come to Portugal, we must murder each other's armies
On topic, it should be noted that you can play both games if you fancy them both. The % of people who have that point of view, however, is quite small. A lot of people keep to 8th because they had fun with it and prefer to keep to it even if it becomes unsupported - I think the answer really is that simple.
Those are some great points lonestar, and I do really wish they would have alternate magic tracks! Maybe they'll add it in the future?
But some slimming down / simplifying of gameplay is I think a really good thing. The stacking magic effects in fantasy had gotten to be a bit insane by the end, and were a major part of what had turned me off to the game by the start of 8th.
But I did really love configuring my wizards and generating different spells, so maybe that's something worth mentioning to Mantic - I think they are open to feedback and the rules committee has done a very good job so far in balancing things from what I've seen!
These include 6 "Lores" that Wizards can access depending on their original spell selection (so a Wizard that knows Lightning Bolt has access to the Astromancy Lore, Surge to Necromancy, etc.). Each Lore then has five different spells. Each race's wizards can also select a varying number of spells.
These include 6 "Lores" that Wizards can access depending on their original spell selection (so a Wizard that knows Lightning Bolt has access to the Astromancy Lore, Surge to Necromancy, etc.). Each Lore then has five different spells. Each race's wizards can also select a varying number of spells.
Well that's just perfect . Cheers, infinite array, you were way ahead of me!! I will totally be suggesting to my group that we use those rules
How old is KoW's fluff? What was the state of WHFB's fluff at the same age?
In all honestly I'm not exactly impressed with Mantica, but it's barely a newborn, and should evolve with the years. Of course Fantasy had (has?) a richer universe, they had like 30 years to develop it from the initial Tolkien + Moorcock + D&D mix.
Well feth yeah Infinite Array that's awesome to learn. I'm gonna have to dig into that when I get home. Fingers crossed it adds some bite to magic.
That's a good point Korinov, KoW fluff doesn't have the age of WHFB for sure. It does still feel like a weak start out the gate though. Maybe with some time under their belt I'll be singing a different tune.
I have to say, for shear variety in magic and armies, the best fantasy wargame rules I have ever played goes back to 1989 and TSR's AD&D 2nd Edition Battlesystem rules. The variety of the AD&D rules brought to fantasy wargames meant each wizard was unique, and the same could be said of every hero on the tabletop.
The background fluff, however, could be as premade as using one of the existing settings or as intensely player created as using a home made campaign setting.
lonestarr777 wrote: Well feth yeah Infinite Array that's awesome to learn. I'm gonna have to dig into that when I get home. Fingers crossed it adds some bite to magic.
I hope it does!
Looking at it, I also realized that you keep the basic spells you get when buying the Wizard. So, a elven wizard with the Master Wizard upgrade can purchase up to 5 different spells and can use two of them in a turn!
That can magic a little more interesting in KoW, right?
Now if only they could fix the 'hero speedbump' issue I have.
Not sure how many games you have played, but after a while you begin to work out how to defeat heroes who try annoy you or flyers etc.
Its common for a lot of new people to find:
Shooting OP Flying OP Heroes OP (especially flying heroes)
Ultimately all just require a bit of experience and then they aren't a huge problem. I think you will find heores eventually end up as anti ranged unit harasser later on... if that.
Korinov wrote: I mean, each one to his/her own tastes, but seriously, someone (not you Bottle) said he/she found Mantic's fluff to be "bland", and as a result was planning to dump money on AoS? Is there anything in this world blander than AoS? Sooo here are the golden good guys armed with shields and hammers and angelic wings against the spiky blood red&black bad guys armed with scary looking axes, wow so original aren't we.
I think you're referring to Manchu saying the Mantica fluff is bland, over in that AoS thread. He owns Kings of War, btw. But he also owns AoS. Same as me. I personally love the AoS fluff.
Korinov wrote: How old is KoW's fluff? What was the state of WHFB's fluff at the same age?
In all honestly I'm not exactly impressed with Mantica, but it's barely a newborn, and should evolve with the years. Of course Fantasy had (has?) a richer universe, they had like 30 years to develop it from the initial Tolkien + Moorcock + D&D mix.
It is fair to say that the fluff in Warhammer at this same age, was largely different than the fluff used in 4th edition onwards.
The setting used to be a lot closer to 14th and 17th century Europe being invaded by Moorcock's Chaos.
Among other differences, the Emperor was largely a figurehead - Elected by the Counts because he could be easily manipulated. Think The Holy Roman Empire at the time of the Thirty Years War.
Brettonia was far from the honorable Arthurian influenced nation that is now. More along the lines of 14th France with the 18th Century French nobility in charge.
Every area was drowning in decadence and decay - Chaos was eating away at the world from within, with the nations applying a thin veneer civility and gaiety as the world trundled to the end times.
It was, in many ways, a much more believable setting - without the Emperor fluttering around on his Thunderchicken. (I hate the most recent figure for the Emperor.) The Old World was a place that smelled of old sewage, while the nobility held scented kerchiefs to their face, in order to avoid the stench
lonestarr777 wrote: [As a huge fan of fan of Conan that army sounds awesome! I am in no way presumptious enough to tell you that you can't field anything you want, specially not something that cool.
I guess the thing is I look to the source matieral for inspiration, and find Mantic's writing to be rather bland. I will freely admit its a personal hangup.
So just ignore it dude! I'm 100% ignoring any Twilight Kin background for my Thulsa Doom force. Just using the statlines. Nary an elf in sight.
Xyxox wrote: I have to say, for shear variety in magic and armies, the best fantasy wargame rules I have ever played goes back to 1989 and TSR's AD&D 2nd Edition Battlesystem rules. The variety of the AD&D rules brought to fantasy wargames meant each wizard was unique, and the same could be said of every hero on the tabletop.
The background fluff, however, could be as premade as using one of the existing settings or as intensely player created as using a home made campaign setting.
There is a local group that still meets up every week to play that game - and it remains one of my favorite fantasy wargames. (About tied with Warhammer 3rd edition. Kings of War is next, followed by Warhammer 4 through 6. With 7th, Warhammer dropped below my desire to play.
Also, I have to mention that the second edition of Battlesystem was a heck of a lot better than first - in first edition a liche was less than a quarter of the cost of a wizard or cleric with the same spellcasting ability, but fewer extras.... (Heroes were measured in the number of XP needed to get to that level, monsters were measured by how many XP you would get from killing one....)
I still remember playing a game in a school gym, where the game filled the gym.... (Why, no... we didn't actually finish the game, why do you ask? )
My 15mm Kings of War games with the buddy and wife are set in a world that is stereotypically D&D (one I created as a rpg setting based around the DnD Nerath world). Black-skinned "Drow" twilight Kin, etc.
Now if only they could fix the 'hero speedbump' issue I have.
Not sure how many games you have played, but after a while you begin to work out how to defeat heroes who try annoy you or flyers etc.
Its common for a lot of new people to find:
Shooting OP Flying OP Heroes OP (especially flying heroes)
Ultimately all just require a bit of experience and then they aren't a huge problem. I think you will find heores eventually end up as anti ranged unit harasser later on... if that.
That's kind of why I find hero's to be bothersome. They aren't really worth it in the grand scheme of things. Even though say like the Troll King is really neat in theory. In concept he's just waiting for a big block of something bad to run him over.
Which kills the point of a hero for me. Now if say I could attach said Troll King to a unit of Cave Trolls I would find him to be less of a liability.
As it stands beyond providing an inspire bubble the heroes don't do much beside require babysitting.
Now if only they could fix the 'hero speedbump' issue I have.
Not sure how many games you have played, but after a while you begin to work out how to defeat heroes who try annoy you or flyers etc.
Its common for a lot of new people to find:
Shooting OP Flying OP Heroes OP (especially flying heroes)
Ultimately all just require a bit of experience and then they aren't a huge problem. I think you will find heores eventually end up as anti ranged unit harasser later on... if that.
That's kind of why I find hero's to be bothersome. They aren't really worth it in the grand scheme of things. Even though say like the Troll King is really neat in theory. In concept he's just waiting for a big block of something bad to run him over.
Which kills the point of a hero for me. Now if say I could attach said Troll King to a unit of Cave Trolls I would find him to be less of a liability.
As it stands beyond providing an inspire bubble the heroes don't do much beside require babysitting.
Which is good, as in real life a small group of heroes should not take on hordes of people and do so well. But they can harass and disrupt. KOW is a game of units over individuals, individuals are there to aid units. If you want a game of beat sticks then I wouldn't even bother looking at KOW really. This is a game of units in a big way.
Regardless heroes still have a place. They are harder to be shot at, among the most mobile units in the game (they wont get attacked by anything unless you let them get attacked) and they go hand in hand with other units of combo charges too. Heroes also benefit from a huge selection of special rules that increase their power greatly such as blade of the beast slayer or wings of the honey maze. In mobility alone a hero will never need baby sitting, only a foolish opponent will try catch a hero that does not want to be caught. But only a foolish player will try use a hero to slay many on the field.
Heroes have their place but it's nothing like warhammer where they slaughter many foes or conjure huge storms of magic that can win games. They are there to aid the units who win the games.
Some heroes stand around (banners for example) but well what else do you expect a banner to do? Unless you give him hand grenades then he becomes a individual hunter or harasser as well as a banner.
Again, how many games have you played out of interest? I think after a few games with competent players you will find things arent as simple as they look in the book. Especially when you realize the power of mobility for example (a heroes most powerful weapon).
Also have you seen someones face when you hero has free reign to slaughter their war machines? Its very satisfying. Or when a hero valiantly gives his life to delay an enemy force winning you the game? Also very nice to see. Or when that hero finishes of a very badly damaged unit freeing up your other unit to do something useful? Heroes are well worth their points if you know how to use them and have space in your list for them.
I personally think heroes are just right in KoW. If you want to see more focus on heroes, you need to play skirmish-level games. It's what I do when I want my 'hero' to have greater characterization. But KoW for me is about how all the pieces fit into a larger force.
TheAuldGrump wrote: It is fair to say that the fluff in Warhammer at this same age, was largely different than the fluff used in 4th edition onwards.
The setting used to be a lot closer to 14th and 17th century Europe being invaded by Moorcock's Chaos.
Among other differences, the Emperor was largely a figurehead - Elected by the Counts because he could be easily manipulated. Think The Holy Roman Empire at the time of the Thirty Years War.
Brettonia was far from the honorable Arthurian influenced nation that is now. More along the lines of 14th France with the 18th Century French nobility in charge.
Every area was drowning in decadence and decay - Chaos was eating away at the world from within, with the nations applying a thin veneer civility and gaiety as the world trundled to the end times.
It was, in many ways, a much more believable setting - without the Emperor fluttering around on his Thunderchicken. (I hate the most recent figure for the Emperor.) The Old World was a place that smelled of old sewage, while the nobility held scented kerchiefs to their face, in order to avoid the stench
The Auld Grump
Ah, I know that. My question was mostly rhetorical. I wanted to point out KoW's fluff is a very, very recent development, and since it needs to make enough room for many traditional WHFB factions (at least, for now) then it's normal for it to feel bland and not very inspired. It needs time to grow and expand on its own.
As far as I remember the golden "Arthurian" days of Bretonnia were 5th edition, in 6th edition they toned it down a bit, although not to the levels of "corrupt and decadent medieval feudalism" from 4th and before. My issue with the Warhammer Fantasy fluff is that when GW really made an effort to expand it (4th edition forwards) they came up with many good ideas but also a bunch of quite poor ones. One of them would be Nagash, whom I personally loathe as a character, they wanted so badly to have a Big Bad in the setting and they just tried too damn hard.
Butterqwist wrote: HI!
I am one of the people who switched to KoW the second the rules (v2) came out. To me the game have everything WHFB did not have: real strategy instead of list building meta, quicker play, terrain have a purpose, multi basing etc.
In my town we have at the moment two communities, one (where I play) that have changed completely to KoW and in the change have drawn in new gamers to the fantasy scene, both from historical, 40k and beginners. This in turn have led to a great revival community-wise and new terrain have been built on a massive scale and tournaments are popping up way more continuously.
The second community are holding on to WHFB, this do not concern me the slightest (I sometimes bring out my WHFB myself to play a game from time to time).
However the the fact that the ones holding to WHFB refuse to try KoW do bother me as I cannot understand why, their models work in both games. Me and the rest of my community have tried in different pedagogical ways show what KoW is all about and have invited people for demo games and more, to no avail...
So my question and hopefully basis for discussion: have others experienced this, and why do people keep stay so intensely with WHFB? The game is unsupported.
I suspect you have several things going on...
I've meet *many* gamers who have fully bought into the "GW Hobby" and have absolutely no interest in gaming outside of the GW bubble.
I also suspeect that many ex-WHFB players are just too used to GW mechanics. As an example, one of the most common criticisms of KoW that I've heard is that you don't remove models. I remember when I first started playing WHFB back in the day, and watching historical players playing WRG Ancients, Johnny Reb, or what not I was put off by the facf that they didn't remove models. As I played WFHB over the years, though, I completely changed my take and now find removing individual models a) a hassle, b) aesthetically unappealing (both because half or less filled movment trays are ugly and because I spent time painting those models, why do I want them off the table?), and c) ahistorical (units didn't "dissolve" like WHFB units do). But I've also seen (and hear talking face-to-face) many WHFB players say they don't like KoW because you don't remove models...
Another piece is, I'll admit, Mantic's fluff and design ethos. Both are, I'd argue, are well behind GW's quality (although the gap is closing IMNSHO). Some people just don't want to make that jump. Obviously, it's more than possible to use GW figures and WHFB fluff for your games (and that is absoltuely my approach!) but the inital perception puts some folks off.
Related to that is the, somewhat defensible, arguement that the rules are "generic". Mantic might have done themselves a favor by putting a bit more effort into the "chrome". Everyone can have the "Fireball (n)" spell, but give it some different names. I know they were going for clean, simple, core rules (and I totally applaud that) but it came at a bit of a perception cost. It doesn't matter, mechanics-wise if you call a spell "Fireball (6)" or "Mithor's Pyroclasm" but the perception is not the same.
Finally, I'd argue that Mantic just isn't "there" yet with the network effect. Mantic just hasn't hit the critical mass they need to make KoW the "go to" mass fantasy game.
To tack a bit from the OP question, I was a WHFB player since v1 back in the early '80's. After around v6, though, I think GW lost the bubble on a good game. Too anchored to a very archaic core set of rules mechanics, too focused on the "next big thing", and with too many kludged rules to try to keep interest up. They needed a clean restart for the game, but IMHO the KoW rules core is much more the way they should have gone. KoW absolutely has me excited to play mass fantasy battles again.
A lot of the time proponents of KoW talk about how it's generic as a positive thing.... but I think that's what turns a lot of people off
I will admit I haven't really looked in to KoW all that much because no one I know plays it and I'm too old and cranky to push a new game on people (and frankly all my WHFB buddies moved on to other systems years ago anyway, well, when 8th rolled around).
But when I hear "generic" it really doesn't excite me. Does KoW create the nuanced differences between, say, a Night Goblin and a Common Goblin? Or an Empire Spearman and a Bretonnian Man-at-Arms? A Bretonnian Bowman and an Empire Bowman? Or a Knight Errant and a Knight of the Realm? Or even an Empire Knight vs a Bretonnian Knight? Orc Boyz vs Big Uns vs Savage Orcs vs Savage Orc Big Uns vs Black Orcs, all with Bosses, Big Bosses and Warbosses?
WHFB had become cumbersome and I can see the point in simplifying the core rules. BUT the nuances in the actual units and equipment is a large part of the heart and soul of WHFB.
While I think WHFB could have done with a great deal of simplification, the army books is not where I wanted to see that simplification, I wanted to see it in the core rulebook.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: A lot of the time proponents of KoW talk about how it's generic as a positive thing.... but I think that's what turns a lot of people off
I will admit I haven't really looked in to KoW all that much because no one I know plays it and I'm too old and cranky to push a new game on people (and frankly all my WHFB buddies moved on to other systems years ago anyway).
But when I hear "generic" it really doesn't excite me. Does KoW create the nuanced differences between, say, a Night Goblin and a Common Goblin? Or an Empire Spearman and a Bretonnian Man-at-Arms? A Bretonnian Bowman and an Empire Bowman? Or a Knight Errant and a Knight of the Realm? Or even an Empire Knight vs a Bretonnian Knight? Orc Boyz vs Big Uns vs Savage Orcs vs Savage Orc Big Uns vs Black Orcs, all with Bosses, Big Bosses and Warbosses?
WHFB had become cumbersome and I can see the point in simplifying the core rules. BUT the nuances in the actual units and equipment is a large part of the heart and soul of WHFB.
While I think WHFB could have done with a great deal of simplification, the army books is not where I wanted to see that simplification, I wanted to see it in the core rulebook.
Yea it does actually. "Bretonian" spearmen get inspired by knights etc, while basileans regain health by not wavering/routing, while kingdoms of men have multiple types of spearmen, while empire haflings have their own rules etc. Elf spearmen are generic but can reroll 1s to hit and have move 6, dark elf spear men reroll 1s to wound and are faster. Not all races have spearmen specifically either. Sea people spearmen have ensnare and pathfinder AND regen but have lower moral and weaker defence. There are A LOT of different spearmen too. Thats before you look at pikes, and all the other myriad of units.
Its just not over the top stuff, subtle differences. You will be surprised how different each race is and how their troops play. At first it all looked same/similar but then when you start to get a feel for things all these differences start to show big time. Of course some factions have similar troops in some areas but differ wildly in other areas.
I have not played all the races yet in my 200 or so games yet to know all the differences. But having played Trident realms, Abysalls, Elves, The Herd, Kingdoms of Man and Basileans plus played against many factions I can confidently say that armies play differently as well as individual units etc.
I'd like people to try KoW because unlike wfb it tends to be quicker so you can get more games in, and compared to list building I actually enjoy the moving of my men round the table having such a dramatic effect. These are personal views and to those posting saying KoW is boring and simple on the table or somesuch I will have to agree to disagree and say fair enough.
As to the OP post. Yes. When I started playing KoW the WFB players in my old circle went ballistic. I wasn't trying to get them to play as I had a few other old school fantasy players playing. They would literally lose their minds that someone was playing something not WFB. Vile, nasty and obnoxious. However I don't think the sentiment is unique to GM games...it's just they were muppets with no social skills and mono-focused. Not that they played WFB you get it with anything that people are invested heavily in.
Many other players since the death of the old world have joined and enjoy it. I've given demo game that have resulted in converison to KoW and demo games that result in us realising that the player would be better off with WFB players edition or armies of arcana ect because they really didn't enjoy it. Didn't happen that often though! To the people you know who refuse to even try the game leave them be. Eventually they may have a game, they may even admit they enjoy it. But if not no loss.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: A lot of the time proponents of KoW talk about how it's generic as a positive thing.... but I think that's what turns a lot of people off
I will admit I haven't really looked in to KoW all that much because no one I know plays it and I'm too old and cranky to push a new game on people (and frankly all my WHFB buddies moved on to other systems years ago anyway).
But when I hear "generic" it really doesn't excite me. Does KoW create the nuanced differences between, say, a Night Goblin and a Common Goblin? Or an Empire Spearman and a Bretonnian Man-at-Arms? A Bretonnian Bowman and an Empire Bowman? Or a Knight Errant and a Knight of the Realm? Or even an Empire Knight vs a Bretonnian Knight? Orc Boyz vs Big Uns vs Savage Orcs vs Savage Orc Big Uns vs Black Orcs, all with Bosses, Big Bosses and Warbosses?
WHFB had become cumbersome and I can see the point in simplifying the core rules. BUT the nuances in the actual units and equipment is a large part of the heart and soul of WHFB.
While I think WHFB could have done with a great deal of simplification, the army books is not where I wanted to see that simplification, I wanted to see it in the core rulebook.
Yea it does actually. "Bretonian" spearmen get inspired by knights etc, while basileans regain health by not wavering/routing, while kingdoms of men have multiple types of spearmen, while empire haflings have their own rules etc. Elf spearmen are generic but can reroll 1s to hit and have move 6, dark elf spear men reroll 1s to wound and are faster. Not all races have spearmen specifically either. Sea people spearmen have ensnare and pathfinder AND regen but have lower moral and weaker defence. There are A LOT of different spearmen too. Thats before you look at pikes, and all the other myriad of units.
Its just not over the top stuff, subtle differences. You will be surprised how different each race is and how their troops play. At first it all looked same/similar but then when you start to get a feel for things all these differences start to show big time. Of course some factions have similar troops in some areas but differ wildly in other areas.
I have not played all the races yet in my 200 or so games yet to know all the differences. But having played Trident realms, Abysalls, Elves, The Herd, Kingdoms of Man and Basileans plus played against many factions I can confidently say that armies play differently as well as individual units etc.
Maybe I'm missing something, is there more to it than those free lists on the site? Because they don't look to have anywhere near the nuance that WHFB had.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hyglar's Hellraiser wrote: I'd like people to try KoW because unlike wfb it tends to be quicker so you can get more games in, and compared to list building I actually enjoy the moving of my men round the table having such a dramatic effect. These are personal views and to those posting saying KoW is boring and simple on the table or somesuch I will have to agree to disagree and say fair enough.
I like list building because I inevitably spend vastly more time painting an army than I do playing with it, list building gives me something to do before I get my models to the point where I'm happy to put them on the table top.
The ones on the site are missing some things... but its mostly there I think.
It's not as crazy as warhammer, but since everything is toned down the differences are very noticeable.
If you like painting and modeling this game is awesome. All my units are dioramas which where a blast to make. I would say this is definitely a game for you if you enjoy models and even list building. I have made a lot of lists just to see what I can do.
Have a look around on there, the pdf shows you all the rules and you can compare units and armies. It contains every mantic list to date. A lot of newer players love the night stalkers list because its very different from all the others in ways we have yet to see from mantic.
Sarouan, the arguement that things in this game are generic because the power of imagnation is a terrible arguement.
Without imagination, fantasy worlds would never exist. So it's never a "terrible arguement". It may be something you're not sensitive to, however, and I would understand that.
No one is going to sit at the table and announce "So my wizard trained in the dark arts of necromancy hurls a flaming skull into your unit, as the cold fire burns and it explodes in a whail of the damned you take... *rolls* 5 wounds to their nerve."
Everyone will however "I'm chucking a fireball at your spearmen."
Depends with who you're playing.
In a tournament, time is important so I usually keep it simple.
With my friends, we usually take our time and thus like to fool a bit around. So I totally do that kind of thing when I play Lady Alessia de Sombrefosse as my main necromancer. Sure, she's "healing" her units in the end, but I like to describe her "raising the dead" when I use that generic spell. The effect in the end would be the same, anyway.
The fact there is zero variation on magic beyond what you picture in your head is just kind of sad. What does every Mantic wizard attend some third rate Hogwarts, thus why they all know the exact same kinds of spells?
Well, most spells usually fall in categories in terms of effect; damage dealing spells, buff spells, healing spells, curse spells, and so on. In the rulebook, you have the "main generic ones"; two damage spells, one short range and one "long range", one healing spell, one "buff" spell, one affecting movement of specific allied units and one who can "push" units around. Sure, they may add more, but I believe most of the difference, given the simplicity of KoW rules, wouldn't need so many spells to add actually.
The main difference between a damage spell using ice or fire, in terms of KoW rules, would ultimately be just about the visual effect. Like troops using axes, swords or maces, who care - it's all the same for KoW rules.
I understand why they do it, its easier to balance. But that is the only fashion that is a selling point. Telling me I need to write the flavor for an army for a company that wants my money is akin to buying a book and finding its only half written and I have to finish it myself.
You'd rather want a company telling you to buy character X with specific weapons and clothes or another saying "take the miniature you like most, as long as it is somewhat a mage, that's good in terms of rules"? The difference is that you have more place for imagination and creativity for the second than the first.
You can see it in Warmachine/Horde; all armies are looking the same, because rules say specifically what the miniatures must look like (and since there are a lot of named characters, you tend to see always the same miniatures). Sure, there are some nice conversions, but overall...well, it's just a difference in paint.
That's why I like KoW; it's generic, and thus my creativity has never been so stimulated for a very long time. I want to play a unit of She-werewolves with a necromancer and an arabian alchemist who is using his potions to make dead alive again? No problem, in terms of rules, it's the same. Just play the miniatures you like, use the adapted profiles and go!
Last but not least, if you want more details, nothing's preventing you to use fan rules - or others showed in magazines. As long as everyone is finding their pleasure, where's the evil?
Swastakowey wrote: The ones on the site are missing some things... but its mostly there I think.
It's not as crazy as warhammer, but since everything is toned down the differences are very noticeable.
If you like painting and modeling this game is awesome. All my units are dioramas which where a blast to make. I would say this is definitely a game for you if you enjoy models and even list building. I have made a lot of lists just to see what I can do.
Have a look around on there, the pdf shows you all the rules and you can compare units and armies. It contains every mantic list to date. A lot of newer players love the night stalkers list because its very different from all the others in ways we have yet to see from mantic.
While I do enjoy painting and modelling... unit filler dioramas have never really been my thing. I actually like the aesthetic of a bunch of models ranked up marching in to battle (it's just WHFB in the most recent iteration became stupid with the sheer number of models you needed to play a typical game).
I love the way my hundred or so Night Goblins look ranked up in big blocks, even if they are only worth a few hundred points
The fact there is zero variation on magic beyond what you picture in your head is just kind of sad. What does every Mantic wizard attend some third rate Hogwarts, thus why they all know the exact same kinds of spells?
Well, most spells usually fall in categories in terms of effect; damage dealing spells, buff spells, healing spells, curse spells, and so on. In the rulebook, you have the "main generic ones"; two damage spells, one short range and one "long range", one healing spell, one "buff" spell, one affecting movement of specific allied units and one who can "push" units around. Sure, they may add more, but I believe most of the difference, given the simplicity of KoW rules, wouldn't need so many spells to add actually.
The main difference between a damage spell using ice or fire, in terms of KoW rules, would ultimately be just about the visual effect. Like troops using axes, swords or maces, who care - it's all the same for KoW rules
Check out the online fan-magazine Ironwatch. The issue below has fan-made expanded spell lists which add a lot more variety to spellcasting. I really like them.
Swastakowey wrote: The ones on the site are missing some things... but its mostly there I think.
It's not as crazy as warhammer, but since everything is toned down the differences are very noticeable.
If you like painting and modeling this game is awesome. All my units are dioramas which where a blast to make. I would say this is definitely a game for you if you enjoy models and even list building. I have made a lot of lists just to see what I can do.
Have a look around on there, the pdf shows you all the rules and you can compare units and armies. It contains every mantic list to date. A lot of newer players love the night stalkers list because its very different from all the others in ways we have yet to see from mantic.
While I do enjoy painting and modelling... unit filler dioramas have never really been my thing. I actually like the aesthetic of a bunch of models ranked up marching in to battle (it's just WHFB in the most recent iteration became stupid with the sheer number of models you needed to play a typical game).
I love the way my hundred or so Night Goblins look ranked up in big blocks, even if they are only worth a few hundred points
Sometimes being ranked up in neat little lines don't make sense, though. For example, zombies. Or berserkers. Or any unorganized soldiers (like skirmishers). In KoW I can put 100 swarming zombies in one giant base to represent a horde of zombies, like this:
Or I can model my pikemen in actual pike formations like the one below:
A unit diorama doesn't necessarily mean unit fillers.
Personally I love the idea of being able to have terrain carry over from one rank of troops to the next, so that your battle line looks like a continuous line of natural terrain that isn't perfectly flat and featureless and doesn't require you to have very specific, almost OCD, orders to the men you have to rank up.
So my question and hopefully basis for discussion: have others experienced this, and why do people keep stay so intensely with WHFB? The game is unsupported.
Pesonal preference.
Kings of War is a bad game to me. It highlights all of the things that I really didn't like about 7th edition WHFB and additionally adds things that I also really don't like, such as the way "nerve" is handled, models not leaving the table, and magic and wizards being very very generic and vanilla (note that doesn't mean I want broken magic, I just want something more than a glorified archer/buff machine that has some character)
If I had to choose between 8th and K.O.W the answer would be immediate that I'd rather play 8th 100x over Kings of War because I enjoy it more. It being "dead" is a non issue for me, and if it ever came down to there was only Kings of War to choose from I would exit the hobby.
In terms of creativity, at least in my group is that everyone (yes everyone) playing KoW have painted armies or at least aspire to have it intensely. This is something that I have not witnessed in WHFB or 40k where the ¨great grey¨ is very common. Why this is can have many reasons but as one of our (previously) reluctant painter explained it ¨in KoW I complete regiments that I can bring to the table (he multibases), I do not have regiments anymore where 1/3 is grey that gave me a constant feeling of never being finished¨.
I see that many point here concerns the need/wish for more complex magic, items, skills etc. in KoW. To me (perspective) that was one of the main reasons why WHFB went ¨meh¨. My HE mage annihilated my friends Gutstar one to many times by a lucky purple sun. One roll and the game was over, no skill required and no bounce back effect what so ever. In KoW I have experienced that you can loose 50% of your army and still bounce back, the game stays interesting until the end.
You also have to take into account old WFB gamers were used to the same game system (well, at least the core stayed pretty much the same) for quite a long time. It's always difficult to adapt yourself to another game mechanic, especially when you didn't play anything else at all.
Passion doesn't care about logic or rationality, after all. You're passioned or you're not, that's all.
People from WFB also have habits that are hard to forget. You can see when they post their battle reports with KoW that some of their tactics/moves are clearly coming from that GW game. It's always funny to see "rule lawyers" assuming things from KOW rules that actually come from their WFB old habits.
One of the questions that often pop up about KoW is indeed the way units are removed. They actually don't have HP like in others games, everything is about testing their morale. Thus, when they are removed, it doesn't mean they are always "destroyed"; the unit may have been routed, taken prisonner or effectively killed to the last. This is why you don't see models leaving the table because they're fleeing; it's actually handled in the way units are removed from the game.
Like in everything for KoW, details are to be interpreted by the players if they care about them.
About magic, yes, I know there are "fan rules" for more detailed spells. And they are indeed good...but I'm satisfied with the core right now. May be proposing them to my opponents in the future (because you always need your opponent's approval for that kind of things, of course ).
Now if only they could fix the 'hero speedbump' issue I have.
Not sure how many games you have played, but after a while you begin to work out how to defeat heroes who try annoy you or flyers etc.
Its common for a lot of new people to find:
Shooting OP Flying OP Heroes OP (especially flying heroes)
Ultimately all just require a bit of experience and then they aren't a huge problem. I think you will find heores eventually end up as anti ranged unit harasser later on... if that.
That's kind of why I find hero's to be bothersome. They aren't really worth it in the grand scheme of things. Even though say like the Troll King is really neat in theory. In concept he's just waiting for a big block of something bad to run him over.
Which kills the point of a hero for me. Now if say I could attach said Troll King to a unit of Cave Trolls I would find him to be less of a liability.
As it stands beyond providing an inspire bubble the heroes don't do much beside require babysitting.
Which is good, as in real life a small group of heroes should not take on hordes of people and do so well. But they can harass and disrupt. KOW is a game of units over individuals, individuals are there to aid units. If you want a game of beat sticks then I wouldn't even bother looking at KOW really. This is a game of units in a big way.
Regardless heroes still have a place. They are harder to be shot at, among the most mobile units in the game (they wont get attacked by anything unless you let them get attacked) and they go hand in hand with other units of combo charges too. Heroes also benefit from a huge selection of special rules that increase their power greatly such as blade of the beast slayer or wings of the honey maze. In mobility alone a hero will never need baby sitting, only a foolish opponent will try catch a hero that does not want to be caught. But only a foolish player will try use a hero to slay many on the field.
Heroes have their place but it's nothing like warhammer where they slaughter many foes or conjure huge storms of magic that can win games. They are there to aid the units who win the games.
Some heroes stand around (banners for example) but well what else do you expect a banner to do? Unless you give him hand grenades then he becomes a individual hunter or harasser as well as a banner.
Again, how many games have you played out of interest? I think after a few games with competent players you will find things arent as simple as they look in the book. Especially when you realize the power of mobility for example (a heroes most powerful weapon).
Also have you seen someones face when you hero has free reign to slaughter their war machines? Its very satisfying. Or when a hero valiantly gives his life to delay an enemy force winning you the game? Also very nice to see. Or when that hero finishes of a very badly damaged unit freeing up your other unit to do something useful? Heroes are well worth their points if you know how to use them and have space in your list for them.
This is coming down to personal taste in all honesty. If a hero is nothing but gorified skirmisher with an inspire bubble why don't I just take an actual unit of skirmishers?
A hero isn't a hero to me when he's skulking around the back looking for easy targets. The fact there are melee focused heros if their ment to be assasians and cheerleaders is just kind of eye rolling. "Look at this beatstick I paid points for! ... better hide him behind a block."
This is again, personal preference. I know how they function in game, buffers and assasains. But thats not something I dig.
I view heroes as an extenstion of me on the battlefeild and a chance to add personal character. The fact so many are just 'Meh, light cavalry does that too.' Is just not a selling point.
I've played about four games, and watched a few more, all with very competant and enthusiastic players who introduced our group to the game, as we borrowed their armies to play.
Swastakowey wrote: The ones on the site are missing some things... but its mostly there I think.
It's not as crazy as warhammer, but since everything is toned down the differences are very noticeable.
If you like painting and modeling this game is awesome. All my units are dioramas which where a blast to make. I would say this is definitely a game for you if you enjoy models and even list building. I have made a lot of lists just to see what I can do.
Have a look around on there, the pdf shows you all the rules and you can compare units and armies. It contains every mantic list to date. A lot of newer players love the night stalkers list because its very different from all the others in ways we have yet to see from mantic.
While I do enjoy painting and modelling... unit filler dioramas have never really been my thing. I actually like the aesthetic of a bunch of models ranked up marching in to battle (it's just WHFB in the most recent iteration became stupid with the sheer number of models you needed to play a typical game).
I love the way my hundred or so Night Goblins look ranked up in big blocks, even if they are only worth a few hundred points
If you like the look of massed blocks of troops, what's the special appeal of a game where you pull handfuls of those models off as a part of the game?
That's not intended as a dig, but an honest question.
Part of what I really like about the aesthetic of how KoW plays is that you have the massed blocks intact until they get wiped off the board. To me the look/feel of what started the game as massed unit being reduced to a rank or two of models on a movement tray by the end of the game doesn't work. It looks bad, it doesn't comport with historical accounts of how units behaved in combat, and it means you're pulling models you took the time to paint off the table. That you can model a whole unit en toto, perhaps to include a unit filler or other modeling choice, is just an added plus to me.
jonolikespie wrote:doesn't require you to have very specific, almost OCD, orders to the men you have to rank up.
Dewd, Gripping Beast saxons; long horizontal spears; WAB Shieldwall; mixed saxon units (i.e. removing casualties from middle and shuffling up) - that alone convinced me that multibasing is the only thing for mass battles.
Seems to me that KoW requires models to be removed as well, its just that its all at once. Why would it be an issue if it was some or all? A silly argument it would seem.
I would suggest that you chaps consider Warmaster. If you want massed battles, manoeuvre, a massive mix of troop types, warmachines and magic having noticeable but not over powering influence then this should cover all your needs. Heroes are about leadership with some combat influence too.
It also has both massed bases and partial unit removal, so a good compromise for the all or none brigade!
Now if only they could fix the 'hero speedbump' issue I have.
Not sure how many games you have played, but after a while you begin to work out how to defeat heroes who try annoy you or flyers etc.
Its common for a lot of new people to find:
Shooting OP Flying OP Heroes OP (especially flying heroes)
Ultimately all just require a bit of experience and then they aren't a huge problem. I think you will find heores eventually end up as anti ranged unit harasser later on... if that.
That's kind of why I find hero's to be bothersome. They aren't really worth it in the grand scheme of things. Even though say like the Troll King is really neat in theory. In concept he's just waiting for a big block of something bad to run him over.
Which kills the point of a hero for me. Now if say I could attach said Troll King to a unit of Cave Trolls I would find him to be less of a liability.
As it stands beyond providing an inspire bubble the heroes don't do much beside require babysitting.
Which is good, as in real life a small group of heroes should not take on hordes of people and do so well. But they can harass and disrupt. KOW is a game of units over individuals, individuals are there to aid units. If you want a game of beat sticks then I wouldn't even bother looking at KOW really. This is a game of units in a big way.
Regardless heroes still have a place. They are harder to be shot at, among the most mobile units in the game (they wont get attacked by anything unless you let them get attacked) and they go hand in hand with other units of combo charges too. Heroes also benefit from a huge selection of special rules that increase their power greatly such as blade of the beast slayer or wings of the honey maze. In mobility alone a hero will never need baby sitting, only a foolish opponent will try catch a hero that does not want to be caught. But only a foolish player will try use a hero to slay many on the field.
Heroes have their place but it's nothing like warhammer where they slaughter many foes or conjure huge storms of magic that can win games. They are there to aid the units who win the games.
Some heroes stand around (banners for example) but well what else do you expect a banner to do? Unless you give him hand grenades then he becomes a individual hunter or harasser as well as a banner.
Again, how many games have you played out of interest? I think after a few games with competent players you will find things arent as simple as they look in the book. Especially when you realize the power of mobility for example (a heroes most powerful weapon).
Also have you seen someones face when you hero has free reign to slaughter their war machines? Its very satisfying. Or when a hero valiantly gives his life to delay an enemy force winning you the game? Also very nice to see. Or when that hero finishes of a very badly damaged unit freeing up your other unit to do something useful? Heroes are well worth their points if you know how to use them and have space in your list for them.
This is coming down to personal taste in all honesty. If a hero is nothing but gorified skirmisher with an inspire bubble why don't I just take an actual unit of skirmishers?
A hero isn't a hero to me when he's skulking around the back looking for easy targets. The fact there are melee focused heros if their ment to be assasians and cheerleaders is just kind of eye rolling. "Look at this beatstick I paid points for! ... better hide him behind a block."
This is again, personal preference. I know how they function in game, buffers and assasains. But thats not something I dig.
I view heroes as an extenstion of me on the battlefeild and a chance to add personal character. The fact so many are just 'Meh, light cavalry does that too.' Is just not a selling point.
I've played about four games, and watched a few more, all with very competant and enthusiastic players who introduced our group to the game, as we borrowed their armies to play.
One individual is far more mobile than a skirmish unit, one man on a horse is even more mobile than a cavalry skirmish unit.
What should then heroes do? In this game they buff, support and harass? What more should they do on top of this?
Also skirmishers and cavalry do not keep your men in line, without heroes of some kind you will suffer. After All you need leaders for these huge armies to not fall apart and get disorganized (in this route faster).
AllSeeingSkink wrote: While I do enjoy painting and modelling... unit filler dioramas have never really been my thing. I actually like the aesthetic of a bunch of models ranked up marching in to battle (it's just WHFB in the most recent iteration became stupid with the sheer number of models you needed to play a typical game).
I love the way my hundred or so Night Goblins look ranked up in big blocks, even if they are only worth a few hundred points
You can still base them like that... it's just on one single base they are easier to move and manage. You can also make it more realistic by having terrain break the formation (or have them maraculiously perfect in rank) it's up to you. In terms of modeling this game gives you more options than Warhammer ever could.
Want your goblins in perfect formation? Awesome you can. You dont even have to multibase (although its a vastly better way both gameplay wise and transport/ease of play wise). Really the only thing that matters is base size. When the limit is how much space the unit can take up, the options are almost endless.
notprop wrote: Seems to me that KoW requires models to be removed as well, its just that its all at once. Why would it be an issue if it was some or all? A silly argument it would seem.
I would suggest that you chaps consider Warmaster. If you want massed battles, manoeuvre, a massive mix of troop types, warmachines and magic having noticeable but not over powering influence then this should cover all your needs. Heroes are about leadership with some combat influence too.
It also has both massed bases and partial unit removal, so a good compromise for the all or none brigade!
+ 10mm = easy to paint.
As a side note, you can play KoW with 10mm models, or 15mm, or 6mm, if you want to. It's one of the advantages of games based on regiments and not individual models.
Swatakowey, I dunno, lead by example? Take command of a unit and lend their prowess and skill to a block of warriors?
If youre going to make the arguement that individual heroes being speed bumps is realistic then I'll counter with that no general or individual of importance took the field without a retinue.
This is a game about monsters and wizards, yet it's considered silly to think a hero can't carve a swath through regular mortal men?
I get the mechanics, yes I can't go hero-less without consequences. At the same time I don't see a reason to take more than a few cheap cheerleaders and that ultimately dissapoints me.
notprop wrote: Seems to me that KoW requires models to be removed as well, its just that its all at once. Why would it be an issue if it was some or all? A silly argument it would seem.
I would suggest that you chaps consider Warmaster. If you want massed battles, manoeuvre, a massive mix of troop types, warmachines and magic having noticeable but not over powering influence then this should cover all your needs. Heroes are about leadership with some combat influence too.
It also has both massed bases and partial unit removal, so a good compromise for the all or none brigade!
+ 10mm = easy to paint.
As a side note, you can play KoW with 10mm models, or 15mm, or 6mm, if you want to. It's one of the advantages of games based on regiments and not individual models.
That of course is true of almost any Wargame hardly a USP or KoW.
lonestarr777 wrote: Swatakowey, I dunno, lead by example? Take command of a unit and lend their prowess and skill to a block of warriors?
If youre going to make the arguement that individual heroes being speed bumps is realistic then I'll counter with that no general or individual of importance took the field without a retinue.
This is a game about monsters and wizards, yet it's considered silly to think a hero can't carve a swath through regular mortal men?
I get the mechanics, yes I can't go hero-less without consequences. At the same time I don't see a reason to take a few cheap cheerleaders and that ultimately dissapoints me.
It's supoosed to be a HERO, not a skirmisher.
Yes, but a hero is a leader first. When needed the hero can lend a hand to a unit or perhaps you have champions who skirmish and are not leaders? You Can use them as speed bumps (perhaps local hero was promoted by king, then tasked with a suicide mission as a speed bump) OR you can have them inspire/back up units in an attack. Units themselves already have their own leaders.
I do think its very dumb when heroes cut through men, its very silly indeed. In real life a hero no matter the "power" would get walked over with ease.
You don't see a reason because of a lack of experience. They have a huge amount of use. They just arent supermen... nothing in this game is though.
This is a game about units and formations not monsters and wizards. They come as an after thought.
My captain can be a skirmisher if I want, or he can lead. Why should he be restricted? It seems like heroes in this do MORE than in warhammer, they just dont slaughter a rank of men or more a turn like in warhammer.
If you see this as a bad thing for cinematic reasons then I cant convince you other wise, if you think it makes them useless in the game well I can definitely say this is incredibly incorrect.
notprop wrote: Seems to me that KoW requires models to be removed as well, its just that its all at once. Why would it be an issue if it was some or all? A silly argument it would seem.
I would suggest that you chaps consider Warmaster. If you want massed battles, manoeuvre, a massive mix of troop types, warmachines and magic having noticeable but not over powering influence then this should cover all your needs. Heroes are about leadership with some combat influence too.
It also has both massed bases and partial unit removal, so a good compromise for the all or none brigade!
+ 10mm = easy to paint.
I actually rather liked Warmaster quite a bit. Unfortunately, it never really seemed to catch on in my local gaming area. As a set of rules, I found the Warmaster rules to be quite good. Ironically enough, in terms of rules mechanics and philosophy Warmaster has a lot more in common with KoW than it does with Warhammer. But, hey, it has the immeasurable advantage of being a games workshop a product which means it is inherently acceptable to a certain segment of the gaming community to whom only GW products are worthy of being played.
It is a fair point to note that in KoW you are removing models, just all at one time. That said, however, it does avoid the problem of just a few models being left from a unit. In KoW, it is all or nothing which, in my opinion, has a much better aesthetic appeal. and as an aside, for those folks who are completely locked onto the idea of removing models, you could quite easily play KoW and track hits to a unit by removing models from the regiment. As long as you keep the unit on a movement tray with the correct size, there would be no problem taking models off to mark hits.
It is a fair point to note that in KoW you are removing models, just all at one time. That said, however, it does avoid the problem of just a few models being left from a unit. In KoW, it is all or nothing which, in my opinion, has a much better aesthetic appeal. and as an aside, for those folks who are completely locked onto the idea of removing models, you could quite easily play KoW and track hits to a unit by removing models from the regiment. As long as you keep the unit on a movement tray with the correct size, there would be no problem taking models off to mark hits.
I never understood why people who argue about model removal don't see this. If you are so completely locked into the weird idea that the lack of model removal is a huge flaw in KoW (which is a whole type of weird gripe I can't wrap my head around), then it's so stupidly easy to remove models instead of counting "up" the wounds sustained by a unit- only units like Ogres where there are multiples of threes are things made moderately more difficult to remove models. Then it's just off to single monsters, heroes, and warmachines which in WHFB would accumulate wounds just like KoW anyway, they just have more than smaller numbers like two or three.
Model removal and the methods therin seems like such a strange roadblock to have with a game. I much prefer to have the figures that I spent lots of time painting stay on display on the table for as long as possible.
lonestarr777 wrote: Swatakowey, I dunno, lead by example? Take command of a unit and lend their prowess and skill to a block of warriors?
If youre going to make the arguement that individual heroes being speed bumps is realistic then I'll counter with that no general or individual of importance took the field without a retinue.
This is a game about monsters and wizards, yet it's considered silly to think a hero can't carve a swath through regular mortal men?
I get the mechanics, yes I can't go hero-less without consequences. At the same time I don't see a reason to take a few cheap cheerleaders and that ultimately dissapoints me.
It's supoosed to be a HERO, not a skirmisher.
Yes, but a hero is a leader first. When needed the hero can lend a hand to a unit or perhaps you have champions who skirmish and are not leaders? You Can use them as speed bumps (perhaps local hero was promoted by king, then tasked with a suicide mission as a speed bump) OR you can have them inspire/back up units in an attack. Units themselves already have their own leaders.
I do think its very dumb when heroes cut through men, its very silly indeed. In real life a hero no matter the "power" would get walked over with ease.
You don't see a reason because of a lack of experience. They have a huge amount of use. They just arent supermen... nothing in this game is though.
This is a game about units and formations not monsters and wizards. They come as an after thought.
My captain can be a skirmisher if I want, or he can lead. Why should he be restricted? It seems like heroes in this do MORE than in warhammer, they just dont slaughter a rank of men or more a turn like in warhammer.
If you see this as a bad thing for cinematic reasons then I cant convince you other wise, if you think it makes them useless in the game well I can definitely say this is incredibly incorrect.
This really is boiling down to personal cinematic reasons. I'm a fan of Conan the Barbarian, Gotrek and Felix, and the Romance of the Three Kingdoms. Where mighty individuals stand fast against scores of foes and cut their way to victory against the odds through might, skill and a touch of dumb luck.
I give no feths about real life when it comes to my gaming. I do not care that in reality about eight guys with spears would just surround Conan and walk towards him in a circle with the pointy ends aimed inwards. The wizard's and monster's of this game are far from an afterthought for me. Without them why am I even playing a 'FANTASY' game, I might as well break open some boring historical and recreate some battle between countless faceless and nameless roman legionaries and Hannibal's armies.
I just fail to understand why if blocks and units are so important that they even include individual heroes? Why not just put them in retinues of elite guard or some such? This is really just me nitpicking about one detail I don't like. I'm planning on fielding a king on a chimera to give me that Hero who gets gak done by himself in my army of Varangur. As well as a couple of Skald's to keep the line from breaking.
lonestarr777 wrote: Swatakowey, I dunno, lead by example? Take command of a unit and lend their prowess and skill to a block of warriors?
If youre going to make the arguement that individual heroes being speed bumps is realistic then I'll counter with that no general or individual of importance took the field without a retinue.
This is a game about monsters and wizards, yet it's considered silly to think a hero can't carve a swath through regular mortal men?
I get the mechanics, yes I can't go hero-less without consequences. At the same time I don't see a reason to take a few cheap cheerleaders and that ultimately dissapoints me.
It's supoosed to be a HERO, not a skirmisher.
Yes, but a hero is a leader first. When needed the hero can lend a hand to a unit or perhaps you have champions who skirmish and are not leaders? You Can use them as speed bumps (perhaps local hero was promoted by king, then tasked with a suicide mission as a speed bump) OR you can have them inspire/back up units in an attack. Units themselves already have their own leaders.
I do think its very dumb when heroes cut through men, its very silly indeed. In real life a hero no matter the "power" would get walked over with ease.
You don't see a reason because of a lack of experience. They have a huge amount of use. They just arent supermen... nothing in this game is though.
This is a game about units and formations not monsters and wizards. They come as an after thought.
My captain can be a skirmisher if I want, or he can lead. Why should he be restricted? It seems like heroes in this do MORE than in warhammer, they just dont slaughter a rank of men or more a turn like in warhammer.
If you see this as a bad thing for cinematic reasons then I cant convince you other wise, if you think it makes them useless in the game well I can definitely say this is incredibly incorrect.
This really is boiling down to personal cinematic reasons. I'm a fan of Conan the Barbarian, Gotrek and Felix, and the Romance of the Three Kingdoms. Where mighty individuals stand fast against scores of foes and cut their way to victory against the odds through might, skill and a touch of dumb luck.
I give no feths about real life when it comes to my gaming. I do not care that in reality about eight guys with spears would just surround Conan and walk towards him in a circle with the pointy ends aimed inwards. The wizard's and monster's of this game are far from an afterthought for me. Without them why am I even playing a 'FANTASY' game, I might as well break open some boring historical and recreate some battle between countless faceless and nameless roman legionaries and Hannibal's armies.
I just fail to understand why if blocks and units are so important that they even include individual heroes? Why not just put them in retinues of elite guard or some such? This is really just me nitpicking about one detail I don't like. I'm planning on fielding a king on a chimera to give me that Hero who gets gak done by himself in my army of Varangur. As well as a couple of Skald's to keep the line from breaking.
Because in real life leaders often rode/ran around the field directing and inspiring troops over the battle field. I think this game reflects that well.
Your method of 2 banners + dragon is what I used to win my last tournament. I personally do this and pretend my leaders are running around directing things as they should but dont have them represented on the field. The dragon cannot take on units on his own despite his power, so he flanks and rear charges/threatens units big time while shrugging off damage.
I have another list that has 3 heroes + a monster hero and it does really well as well. Just the heroes do not slaughter everyone. Whats the point in playing when all your men are just wound soakers to heroes?
Again its all up to personal taste. If you want cinematic heroes then I wouldn't bother with the game and stick to warhammer. But I do assure you heroes in this are not useless.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Maybe I'm missing something, is there more to it than those free lists on the site? Because they don't look to have anywhere near the nuance that WHFB had.
Those are starter army lists based on Mantic's army boxes, so you can buy an army box, download the free rules and free starter list, and start playing, without having to purchase the rulebook.
For a better example of the breadth and depth of a normal army, the Twilight Kin free list is complete. It's at the very bottom and is just a hyperlink, because it's not in the main rulebook or Uncharted Empires.
Lonestarr, you do know that you can multicharge units and that your hero can run in alongside your unit to pack some extra punch without getting slaughtered in retaliation because he's trying to fight 40 guys alone right?
jonolikespie wrote: Lonestarr, you do know that you can multicharge units and that your hero can run in alongside your unit to pack some extra punch without getting slaughtered in retaliation because he's trying to fight 40 guys alone right?
jonolikespie wrote: Lonestarr, you do know that you can multicharge units and that your hero can run in alongside your unit to pack some extra punch without getting slaughtered in retaliation because he's trying to fight 40 guys alone right?
... well I do now.
I don't want to sound rude but surely after playing 4 games and watching a few you witnessed a multi charge?
Heroes still inspire after fighting a combat so it suits their support role to help their troops fight.
jonolikespie wrote: Lonestarr, you do know that you can multicharge units and that your hero can run in alongside your unit to pack some extra punch without getting slaughtered in retaliation because he's trying to fight 40 guys alone right?
... well I do now.
Ha
It basically works the same as having the character in the unit for the purposes of actually attacking, and it means your character's don't have to be skirmishers or stand behind the battle line, but when the counter charge comes they are standing next to your unit not a part of it.
lonestarr777 wrote: Swatakowey, I dunno, lead by example? Take command of a unit and lend their prowess and skill to a block of warriors?
If youre going to make the arguement that individual heroes being speed bumps is realistic then I'll counter with that no general or individual of importance took the field without a retinue.
This is a game about monsters and wizards, yet it's considered silly to think a hero can't carve a swath through regular mortal men?
I get the mechanics, yes I can't go hero-less without consequences. At the same time I don't see a reason to take a few cheap cheerleaders and that ultimately dissapoints me.
It's supoosed to be a HERO, not a skirmisher.
Yes, but a hero is a leader first. When needed the hero can lend a hand to a unit or perhaps you have champions who skirmish and are not leaders? You Can use them as speed bumps (perhaps local hero was promoted by king, then tasked with a suicide mission as a speed bump) OR you can have them inspire/back up units in an attack. Units themselves already have their own leaders.
I do think its very dumb when heroes cut through men, its very silly indeed. In real life a hero no matter the "power" would get walked over with ease.
You don't see a reason because of a lack of experience. They have a huge amount of use. They just arent supermen... nothing in this game is though.
This is a game about units and formations not monsters and wizards. They come as an after thought.
My captain can be a skirmisher if I want, or he can lead. Why should he be restricted? It seems like heroes in this do MORE than in warhammer, they just dont slaughter a rank of men or more a turn like in warhammer.
If you see this as a bad thing for cinematic reasons then I cant convince you other wise, if you think it makes them useless in the game well I can definitely say this is incredibly incorrect.
This really is boiling down to personal cinematic reasons. I'm a fan of Conan the Barbarian, Gotrek and Felix, and the Romance of the Three Kingdoms. Where mighty individuals stand fast against scores of foes and cut their way to victory against the odds through might, skill and a touch of dumb luck.
I give no feths about real life when it comes to my gaming. I do not care that in reality about eight guys with spears would just surround Conan and walk towards him in a circle with the pointy ends aimed inwards. The wizard's and monster's of this game are far from an afterthought for me. Without them why am I even playing a 'FANTASY' game, I might as well break open some boring historical and recreate some battle between countless faceless and nameless roman legionaries and Hannibal's armies.
I just fail to understand why if blocks and units are so important that they even include individual heroes? Why not just put them in retinues of elite guard or some such? This is really just me nitpicking about one detail I don't like. I'm planning on fielding a king on a chimera to give me that Hero who gets gak done by himself in my army of Varangur. As well as a couple of Skald's to keep the line from breaking.
Lonestar, I just model those "hero" dudes into my units. Sure they don't get any special stats or anything, but my black orc champion is still leading his unit. My Orc General is doing what a General is supposed to do, command the army. And in those critical moments he can still charge in and get some.
The game is trying to have a sense of scale to your army. Your general and his little command group just fades a bit into the background next to his horde of orcs and goblins. Of course its totally fair not to like that too. Maybe warband sized games are just your thing, in which case you might want to check out Saga. It looks pretty cool and aims for handling small warbands.
jonolikespie wrote: Lonestarr, you do know that you can multicharge units and that your hero can run in alongside your unit to pack some extra punch without getting slaughtered in retaliation because he's trying to fight 40 guys alone right?
... well I do now.
I don't want to sound rude but surely after playing 4 games and watching a few you witnessed a multi charge?
Heroes still inspire after fighting a combat so it suits their support role to help their troops fight.
The guys who got us interested and who have been allowing us to play their armies as a demo for KoW play Undead, with a zombie dragon and necromancer, Herd, with some shaman, and Twlight Kin with some heroes I can't remember. In all the games I've gotten to play I was never aware I could just have a hero move right with another unit and charge with them. Multi-charge's have come up but not like that. Most heroes hung out in the back playing cheerleader, or speed bump. ><
All good points by the way Argonak, and I do intend to model some captains into a block. I'll have to take a look at Saga and see what it's about.
Swastakowey wrote: Want your goblins in perfect formation? Awesome you can. You dont even have to multibase (although its a vastly better way both gameplay wise and transport/ease of play wise). Really the only thing that matters is base size. When the limit is how much space the unit can take up, the options are almost endless.
Yeah I'm aware of that but I was talking specifically why *I* struggle to find reasons to try KoW.
Personally I'm 50/50 on whether I prefer individual models or entire units anyway. In some ways I like each dude that I paint to represent something, even if it is only a wound counter. I know some people don't like the idea of models as wound counters, but for me it's kind of like why even bother painting models if they actually serve no purpose in the game. I might as well put a tissue box down and call it a unit of Orcs. Basically I'd rather have single models being wound counters than a large base of multiple models being a unit counter. But then I understand why some people prefer that as well and I don't really have strong feelings one way or the other.
I mean, it's not hard to house rule WHFB to act as units rather than individual models. A few mates of mine did that, we didn't really like it though so went back to the individual model method. Even if you do follow WHFB core rules for unit construction it's usually not hard to make your unit a diorama. You can base multiple models together if you like, have successive ranks lowering their spears. Have one rank offset to the left and the next rank offset to the right so the formation is staggered. Or you can mount models more loosely or even have bare bases/terrain to create that look. I've seen lots of variations over the years with multiple model basing used for WHFB.
But the main thing that turns me off KoW is it does feel too much like generic fantasy to me. WHFB is specific, it's nuanced to the fluff (maybe not always accurately, but things like Knights Errant being unique from Knights of the Realm or Night Goblins being unique from Common Goblins, I *like* that).
That and lack of opponents If AoS had of come out after 7th instead of after 8th and KoW had of been on its feet at that point, I probably would have been more inclined to pick it up. Unfortunately 8th killed my WHFB group and I'm too old and cranky to try and organise a new group for KoW now, lol.
In the original WRG Ancients rules, a singe figure represented 20 men. Casualties were read off a chart as numbers of incapacitated. Once you reached 20, you removed a model from the target unit.
WHFB can be read exactly the same way. One figure representes 20 men. One hit represents 20 incapacitated. Remove a figure.
The idea of whole element removal is based on several points.
1. Morale and exhaustion are far more likely to deplate a unit's fighting power than actual losses.
2. Units don't really get depleted man by man. Rear rank men fill up the front ranks, maintaining the fighting power.
3. It is much easier to move units as blocks. Even in WHFB, people use movement trays to remove the disadvantage of individual figures.
Kilkrazy wrote: In the original WRG Ancients rules, a singe figure represented 20 men. Casualties were read off a chart as numbers of incapacitated. Once you reached 20, you removed a model from the target unit.
WHFB can be read exactly the same way. One figure representes 20 men. One hit represents 20 incapacitated. Remove a figure.
That theory dies as soon as anyone asks what the hero on the dragon (as big as an entire 400-men regiment) is supposed to represent.
Heroes with retinues featured both in the Hellfire & Stone campaign book for 1st Ed and in the Brotherhood army list that just came out in Uncharted Empires. That second one was a proof of concept after I discussed the idea with Ronnie last year.
I did propose it for 2nd Ed, but Alessio kaiboshed it, and after the RC took control of the development we were too busy making existing stuff work to concentrate on new stuff. The idea will hopefully be expanded in future.
Kilkrazy wrote: The idea of whole element removal is based on several points.
1. Morale and exhaustion are far more likely to deplate a unit's fighting power than actual losses.
2. Units don't really get depleted man by man. Rear rank men fill up the front ranks, maintaining the fighting power.
3. It is much easier to move units as blocks. Even in WHFB, people use movement trays to remove the disadvantage of individual figures.
I'm aware of that and... I don't really care
It's all just abstraction anyway. I've always seen removal of models to represent more of a breakdown of unit cohesion as the battle progresses more than "Fred, Bob and John died, we must now take a leadership test!". Having archers knock off a few models to reduce the rank bonus of a unit, I never really pictured it as an actual person dying and thus the unit being incapable of making full ranks of 4 or 5, I just see it as the unit being peppered by arrows was enough to disrupt unit cohesion to reduce the bonus it gets in close combat.
So I see individual models in WHFB as both wound counters and a representation of how well the unit can put up a fight after being depleted, and that's kind of the way I like it.
Personally I'm 50/50 on whether I prefer individual models or entire units anyway. In some ways I like each dude that I paint to represent something, even if it is only a wound counter. I know some people don't like the idea of models as wound counters, but for me it's kind of like why even bother painting models if they actually serve no purpose in the game. I might as well put a tissue box down and call it a unit of Orcs. Basically I'd rather have single models being wound counters than a large base of multiple models being a unit counter. But then I understand why some people prefer that as well and I don't really have strong feelings one way or the other.
And you can play WHFB with individual models represented by cardboard squares. I know from personal experience because back in my "poor starving college student" days before I could afford to buy sufficient models (even back at '80's prices!), we did just that...
This type of objection seems to me, like many objections people seem to have with the KoW mechanics and design philosophy, to be as much a rationalization to dislike the game for not being WHFB as anything else.
If you want to play KoW more like Warhammer in that way, you can.
Have the number of models you have removed from the unit = the damage the unit has taken. Nothing wrong with doing it this way from a rules perspective, and most opponents will be fine with it as the movement try can remain.
Some people have started out by playing KoW this way, but then switched to damage counters after realizing how much it slows the game down, other have stuck with it.
It can be a good way to play it if you've spent 2 decades playing warhammer fantasy and need some time to adjust to a change.
I'm almost convinced about the role of heroes in KoW - almost. I still prefer order/action point phases. But I wouldn't be opposed...
AllSeeingSkink wrote:I know some people don't like the idea of models as wound counters, but for me it's kind of like why even bother painting models if they actually serve no purpose in the game. I might as well put a tissue box down and call it a unit of Orcs.
But the main thing that turns me off KoW is it does feel too much like generic fantasy to me. WHFB is specific, it's nuanced to the fluff (maybe not always accurately, but things like Knights Errant being unique from Knights of the Realm or Night Goblins being unique from Common Goblins, I *like* that).
Blimey. I've been looking at Bretonnians recently for a skirmish warband, and wondering how they can justify so many types of knights in the game. Or how much difference there'd really be if you assembled a wedge of a few dozen to a couple of hundred of them and charged them at a gaggle of peasants.
Korinov wrote:That theory dies as soon as anyone asks what the hero on the dragon (as big as an entire 400-men regiment) is supposed to represent.
A mage also represents 20 mages?
This is where the Individual rule comes in. (1st ed's, anyway) Greater mobility, harder to target, can't bring a unit's full attacks to bear on it - all represents the fact it's just one guy or small retinue, compared to a full unit, regardless of the size of base.
And even if they're plonked on a dragon and lose Individual, that's not to say they go on a full 100x80mm regiment base.
Other games go further. In Warmaster, Hail Caesar and Mayhem, heroes and characters can't be targeted or charged at all, even if mounted on a monster, unless they join a unit. They can be killed if an enemy unit contacts them, and they can't escape to a friendly unit, but I think that well represents the idea that a unit of a few hundred or thousand warriors isn't 'engaging' a lone character or small retinue in combat, it's rolling right over them.
AllSeeingSkink wrote:
It's all just abstraction anyway. I've always seen removal of models to represent more of a breakdown of unit cohesion as the battle progresses more than "Fred, Bob and John died, we must now take a leadership test!".
But isn't that what happens when the other guy only loses Tom and Dick from his back rank, all other things being equal?
Kilkrazy wrote: The idea of whole element removal is based on several points.
1. Morale and exhaustion are far more likely to deplate a unit's fighting power than actual losses.
2. Units don't really get depleted man by man. Rear rank men fill up the front ranks, maintaining the fighting power.
3. It is much easier to move units as blocks. Even in WHFB, people use movement trays to remove the disadvantage of individual figures.
I'm aware of that and... I don't really care
It's all just abstraction anyway. I've always seen removal of models to represent more of a breakdown of unit cohesion as the battle progresses more than "Fred, Bob and John died, we must now take a leadership test!". Having archers knock off a few models to reduce the rank bonus of a unit, I never really pictured it as an actual person dying and thus the unit being incapable of making full ranks of 4 or 5, I just see it as the unit being peppered by arrows was enough to disrupt unit cohesion to reduce the bonus it gets in close combat.
So I see individual models in WHFB as both wound counters and a representation of how well the unit can put up a fight after being depleted, and that's kind of the way I like it.
Well, that's fine and it's a good thing we have a variety of rules available to depict battles in different ways.
Super good points concerning: ascetics, single vs multi
base, what are individuals to you etc. Yet I want to follow up on one question, the one concerning generics. In WHFB you can build real thematically, fluff wise armys that have special rules that fit them yet there is a downside (in my experience). In WHFB you need (and in some cases must have) ¨comp¨, otherwise the game is way to often over before it started. It does not require much (if any) skill during the actually game, I myself have experienced that my HE list plays itself as long as i max out my 6 dices on my ultimate spells. This is as far from KoW as a game can be as KoW requires you to calculate your decisions during the game in a much larger extent thanks to the generics of the stats (the zombie horde will smash my dragon if it gets them in the flank). Thoughts on this?
Butterqwist wrote: Super good points concerning: ascetics, single vs multi
base, what are individuals to you etc. Yet I want to follow up on one question, the one concerning generics. In WHFB you can build real thematically, fluff wise armys that have special rules that fit them yet there is a downside (in my experience). In WHFB you need (and in some cases must have) ¨comp¨, otherwise the game is way to often over before it started. It does not require much (if any) skill during the actually game, I myself have experienced that my HE list plays itself as long as i max out my 6 dices on my ultimate spells. This is as far from KoW as a game can be as KoW requires you to calculate your decisions during the game in a much larger extent thanks to the generics of the stats (the zombie horde will smash my dragon if it gets them in the flank). Thoughts on this?
Heck, you have to start planning while starting the game - the number of times where mistakes made during deployment come back and bite my opponents in the butt.... I win about a quarter of my games during set up, I swear....
The Auld Grump - of course, I have never done the same thing, and had it bite me in the butt, no siree Bub....
cygnnus wrote:This type of objection seems to me, like many objections people seem to have with the KoW mechanics and design philosophy, to be as much a rationalization to dislike the game for not being WHFB as anything else.
Or, ya know, it's just a reason to prefer one system over another....
I explicitly stated I prefer the idea of individual models being wound counters vs blocks being unit counters. So I'm directly acknowledging both systems are simply using counters to represent something, either a wound or an entire unit...
I'm just stating what *I* prefer as people often tout this as being a "pro" when in reality it's just a personal preference and frankly it's not hard to house rule WHFB to act like KoW or house rule KoW to act like WHFB.
I like the fact I have a visual representation of how unit cohesion has broken down., whether you think of them as wounds or unit cohesion is up to you, and whether you prefer a unit to look the same at the start of a battle right up until it gets removed, that's also entirely up to you.
Vermis wrote:
AllSeeingSkink wrote:I know some people don't like the idea of models as wound counters, but for me it's kind of like why even bother painting models if they actually serve no purpose in the game. I might as well put a tissue box down and call it a unit of Orcs.
So, you're trying to convince me that well converted and well painted models look well converted and well painted?
All wargames use models as counters (at least by my definition of a wargame).
When it comes down to the game itself, all our models are is glorified counters. People can have varying preferences on what those counters represent (if I'm painting a 28mm model, I like that specific 28mm model to represent something... if I'm painting 6mm figures I'm happy if 5 to 10 of them combined represent something, it's just how I cope with painting an army ).
But the main thing that turns me off KoW is it does feel too much like generic fantasy to me. WHFB is specific, it's nuanced to the fluff (maybe not always accurately, but things like Knights Errant being unique from Knights of the Realm or Night Goblins being unique from Common Goblins, I *like* that).
Blimey. I've been looking at Bretonnians recently for a skirmish warband, and wondering how they can justify so many types of knights in the game. Or how much difference there'd really be if you assembled a wedge of a few dozen to a couple of hundred of them and charged them at a gaggle of peasants.
You've kind of nailed the point that I was making, that game wise it doesn't really matter if you have 200pts of Knights Errant vs 200pts of Knights of the Realm., but it adds to the heart and soul of WHFB that these small differences exist. The fact Bretonnians have Knights Errant, Knights of the Realm, Questing Knights and Grail Knights is more important from the *fluff* perspective than it is from the *rules* perspective, but part of the draw of WHFB is that the rules are creating a tie-in for the fluff.
Every time I've tried to translate my WHFB to a KoW army list I feel like I'm removing the heart and soul of my fantasy army.
I wasn't intending to post in this thread at all, I just decided it was important for people to realise that when they tout things like being generic as a good thing, that's actually part of the reason many people don't want to make the transition
AllSeeingSkink wrote:
It's all just abstraction anyway. I've always seen removal of models to represent more of a breakdown of unit cohesion as the battle progresses more than "Fred, Bob and John died, we must now take a leadership test!".
But isn't that what happens when the other guy only loses Tom and Dick from his back rank, all other things being equal?
I think this is the main cause of so much trouble and friction in the uptake and performance of other games, rules, settings and minis, not just KoW.
You can't just shrug things off as people being stuck in there ways though. There's reasons I played WHFB specifically. I don't really have an interest in a generic fantasy game, I specifically liked WHFB. I also play WW2 historics, and I enjoy them for a specific set of reasons, but it's not the same reasons I used to enjoy WHFB. When you present someone with a game and tell them "This is a replacement for that game you enjoy but removes several of the things you enjoyed about that game" then don't be surprised when people aren't all that enthusiastic to take it up.
Kilkrazy wrote:Well, that's fine and it's a good thing we have a variety of rules available to depict battles in different ways.
Indeed, my point in this thread has never been that one way is better than another but rather things that something that some people take as purely positives can be negatives for other players. It only comes across as ignorance when people try and talk about things in blacks and whites.
Butterqwist wrote:Super good points concerning: ascetics, single vs multi
base, what are individuals to you etc. Yet I want to follow up on one question, the one concerning generics. In WHFB you can build real thematically, fluff wise armys that have special rules that fit them yet there is a downside (in my experience). In WHFB you need (and in some cases must have) ¨comp¨, otherwise the game is way to often over before it started. It does not require much (if any) skill during the actually game, I myself have experienced that my HE list plays itself as long as i max out my 6 dices on my ultimate spells. This is as far from KoW as a game can be as KoW requires you to calculate your decisions during the game in a much larger extent thanks to the generics of the stats (the zombie horde will smash my dragon if it gets them in the flank). Thoughts on this?
There's not really a direct question there for me to answer
I would definitely say WHFB has always been biased toward the deployment phase. A mistake in deployment can ruin your game. Though personally I've frequently still won games where I've made a mistake in deployment by following it up with unpredictable actions that throw the game in to a more random state.
I don't really think the game needs to be comped to avoid it being over before it started except for a couple of outliers over the years where one army book was blatantly overpowered. Though admittedly I didn't really play much of 8th, so maybe it was worse in 8th? I guess statements need to be qualified by which period of WHFB we are talking about. I played WHFB from the start of 5th through most of 7th.
Any lack of balance in WHFB was not to do with things not being generic enough. Knights of the Realm being different to Knights Errant instead of just being labelled a generic "Bretonnian Knight" isn't what makes a game unbalanced.
Sometimes the reason you love a game is the very reason someone dislikes it. I like parts of both games. If only there was a game that combined tje parts I like into one.
Since AoS we consider 2 options:
1) Play WHFB 8th, but without the 6th spells.
2) Try KoW rules
We will probably do both, but since we also have more than enough other wargames, we above all focus more on those (40k, X-Wing, Dystopian Wars, Firestorm Armada at the moment).
The KoW background, fluff and most of the models do very little for us. The current rules look allright though.
infinite_array wrote: The first is the fluff. Mantic's factions are definitely different than Warhammer's - enough so that perhaps they enjoy playing in the Old World instead of Mantica.
Honestly I'd find this excuse quite lame. Many KoW armylists have been designed with the main goals of letting veteran Fantasy gamers play with their already existing Fantasy armies. You can set the game in whatever universe you want.
From what the OP is saying, it looks like the archetypical "GW-centric" community that will simply refuse to play anything non-GW, because GW is all they know and stepping beyond such limits would be heresy.
It's not an excuse, it's a reason. And we're talking about choosing to play or not play a game, so any reason is a good enough reason - none are "lame". ergo: "I just don't fething want to" is a perfectly legitimate reason.
Oh, and I say this as someone who hasn't played WHFB for years, and credit KoW for drawing me back into Fantasy Battle Gaming - with many armies on the go. Still, the way that their not-40k (WarPath) appears to be developing, I'll probably be on the "Yeah, not interested" side when that eventually comes out.
I guess the thing is I look to the source matieral for inspiration, and find Mantic's writing to be rather bland. I will freely admit its a personal hangup.
Our group makes a lot videos and batreps too so alot of Salamander unit names, which grate my nerves, would have be used a lot and I couldn't get away with refering to units with other titles.
The source material is whatever I want it to be. My source material is largely taken from The Old World and Middle Earth, with a healthy helping of human history and mythology. Well, lots of them still need to be built and painted, but hey!
I'd still call it an excuse rather than a reason, for what Korinov already said. It's not a valid reason. It's not even at the level of "because I just don't fething want to", because it's not expressing personal preference, but faulty reasoning. Countless players (including yourself) can demonstrate that you can use the KoW rules without any reference to Mantica. If folk think that all those who made the exodus from 8th ed to KoW with their WFB armies, mimicked GW by completely abandoning the old world, and fully embraced Mantica, that just makes their reasoning more... lame.
What was said was reasons, ie. noun not verb. As a noun a reason is just an explanation /justification of some action. An excuse requires an offence to be the thing that you are justifying, why someone doesn't play a game does not fall into the excuse category. Any answer given is by definition a reason and not an excuse. You may not like the reason, but that doesn't mean it is not one.
Even as a verb I would say it was valid reasoning. There appears to be plenty of players leaving (or not trying) AoS because they hate the official background and/or loss of the old world. It is therefore perfectly reasonable that they might also not go to KOW for exactly the same reason - its background is not liked or it is not the old world officially.
puree wrote: What was said was reasons, ie. noun not verb. As a noun a reason is just an explanation /justification of some action. An excuse requires an offence to be the thing that you are justifying, why someone doesn't play a game does not fall into the excuse category. Any answer given is by definition a reason and not an excuse. You may not like the reason, but that doesn't mean it is not one.
Blimey...
It's a crap reason because it's no reason, whether you think that involves 'reasoning' or not. It's a mind worm set up by GW that you can only play in the warhammer world with Warhammer, and therefore only in Mantica with KoW. If you take KoW rules, especially all the lists written to accommodate WFB armies in the wake of 8th's sinking, but still can't bear to set your warhammer-world minis on a warhammer-world geological layer of skulls surrounded by warhammer-world plastic rocks, because you think that 4x6 patch of static grass is somehow Mantica and you have to identify everything - all the table and your models - with the abyss, or elvenholme, or basilea or whatever, that's not validation of KoW's inferiority, it's a freakin' psychosis.
And yeah, you can say the same thing about 8th, and AoS. 8th can only be considered dead because fans have it hammered into their heads that the thing must be constantly retweaked and repackaged and resold with more and more 'things to buy' retconned in, in order to be a valid gaming experience. Some will continue to mourn the 'loss' of 8th, and that is their loss, and some realise that AoS hasn't come round to their house to burn their books and minis (that one guy did it all by himself), and that the models are still on general sale for now, and they can still keep playing it, and that's their gain. Other people can play in the warhammer world with 9th Age, or any number of other fantasy wargame rulesets, and that's all fine and dandy too.
And that includes AoS. GWdid release warscrolls for old armies, and you can use them (to some degree) to keep playing your old armies in the old world using AoS rules. That is valid. I'll say that's just as valid as playing your old armies in the old world using KoW rules.
But the difference is, AoS is not just an alternate ruleset and alternate, optional setting. They're official replacements. As much as books will still be on individual gamers' shelves, there won't be any more progression of the setting (such as there was); no more exploration of the history, to spark off players' imaginations; the minis, I expect, will gradually disappear unless they're sucked into AoS like the lizardmen. It's not just rules and a setting, it's GW reacting to poor sales of their own making, by offering a big middle finger to a big portion of WFB fans - some still active and some patiently waiting (in vain) for GW to stop taking crazy pills. To fans who considered block maneouvre to be integral to the game. To fans who didn't have to expect to do GW's job for them and do a halfway decent balancing act on the fly. And so on.
And so they move to Kings of War. They might do it because they consider WFB as dead, and yes, that's a bad reason. But also because Mantic does offer them that mass block combat, and reasonable balance; and perhaps a little reassurance that Mantic do the otiose and listen to their customers and fans, and don't plan on pulling the rug from underneath them anytime soon. And because a lot of those switching find that they likeKoW, even finding it better than WFB, let alone a game with no inherent balance; barely any tactics, let alone maneouvre; where the most that matters is how many special rules you can pile on in the form of minis undergoing a jaw-dropping process of scale creep, flanderisation, and price-gouging.
Bleedin' Nora! KoW isn't even my first - or second - fantasy wargame of choice, but it's a step up from Warhammer, I can tell you. You might disagree, you might say "I just don't like it", and I can accept that. You might say "it's too bland for me", and I'd disagree, but understand it. But when you start giving excuses against it based on the made-up bull-hockey that exists only in your head, or because GW said so, then watch out.
Vermis wrote: It's a mind worm set up by GW that you can only play in the warhammer world with Warhammer, and therefore only in Mantica with KoW.
That's an unnecessary simplification which borders on insulting at times. GW don't have to have a mind worm, players can independently identify that Warhammer: The Game better represents Warhammer: The Fluff.
Warhammer: The Game was always written to sell Warhammer: The Miniatures which live in the land of Warhammer: The Fluff. Even if you don't think it's a good game in and of itself, it does the job it set out to do well and that's what some people *want* even more than they want a game that is technically good by itself.
And so they move to Kings of War. They might do it because they consider WFB as dead, and yes, that's a bad reason.
Why is that a bad reason? Gaming communities have a tendency to drop games that aren't officially supported for plenty of good reasons (difficulty getting rules, difficulty deciding on which version to use, difficulty getting models, difficulty getting new players to replace the old ones that naturally drop out over time).
Communities that continue to play outdated games tend to be small and dedicated.... not everyone wants to play in a small and dedicated group.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: That's an unnecessary simplification which borders on insulting at times.
Pain is nature's way of telling you something's wrong. But if you want some elaboration...
GW don't have to have a mind worm, players can independently identify that Warhammer: The Game better represents Warhammer: The Fluff.
Mostly because GW have crammed so many special rules in to act as mock-fluff, which a lot of the time are arbitrary mechanics and modifiers that bear relation to the fluff only in that they have a title.
Warhammer: The Game was always written to sell Warhammer: The Miniatures which live in the land of Warhammer: The Fluff.
Maybe that's the underlying problem.
Even if you don't think it's a good game in and of itself, it does the job it set out to do well
Yeah. Like you hint, that's debateable. Especially in the face of people ostensibly getting their Warhammer: The Fluff jollies with KoW, and other games. But...
and that's what some people *want* even more than they want a game that is technically good by itself.
... that's alright, but like Puree you're missing the point. Some consider it inherently impossible to use fluff with other games at all. Not just "I like warhammer world with warhammer better" but "if you play KoW you have to use Mantica fluff".
Why is that a bad reason? Gaming communities have a tendency to drop games that aren't officially supported for plenty of good reasons (difficulty getting rules,
In some quarters 8th ed was dropped like a snake just as AoS was released. I think there might still have been some rulebooks floating around then. Including the ones on home bookshelves. And if 9th Age is basically tweaked 8th, and available online for the forseeable future, well...
difficulty deciding on which version to use
Given GW's history of rules churn with little actual change or improvement, I'm not sure if that's entirely a 'good' reason.
difficulty getting models
I mentioned this, didn't I? But then there was that thing about Warhammer that GW decided it didn't like - generic fantasy models. I figure the old players who'll eventually drop out already have their models with all the right gewgaws on them, and once they drop out of their still-active group I guess they might be past caring. Sucks to be the last two or three.
Players new to Warhammer, a few years down the line, might not be so picky as long as they get elves or dwarfs. Or maybe they will. Or maybe they'll be struck by lightning, or win the lottery. Or it might be more likely that they get their alternate elf and dwarf models and play KoW with them.
I dunno. All this stuff about "What about the new players? Won't somebody think of the new players?" doesn't sit right with me. I think it's a bit overrated. At least, it points to an expectation that they'll just fall into your lap with no effort, which might've been true in stores, when Warhammer was still current. And of course a lack of available, official models in a few years is going to factor into the 'mainstream' uptake of the game. But it shouldn't, yet. They're still there.
You can keep playing, Skinky. Without GW's consent, and as long as you're able. I don't recall saying you could do it indefinitely, more's the pity. Games come, games go, but you don't have to bin them the very instant GW waves it's hand and issues a decree, and attics and cupboards are still a thing.
Communities that continue to play outdated games tend to be small and dedicated.... not everyone wants to play in a small and dedicated group.
And some people think the ability to play in a GW store halfway around the world is one of the more valid reason to keep playing. The thrust of my last few posts is that there might have to be a shift in thinking - in fantasy gaming, at least - away from GW's way of doing things and hooking people, of sitting in one place and playing one game for two or three decades. I don't presume to imagine it'll be to everyone's liking, or easy, or that it won't leave a few ex-(pickup)gamers scattered over the landscape.
But even GW is hacking at the apron strings, now. They don't wantcha, WFB players. Not unless you can morph yourselves into AoS players. There are going to be changes whether you like it or not.
Polonius wrote: This is old school internet, Kirk/Picard type nerd rage here. It warms my heart to see the traditions kept.
It's a crap reason because it's no reason, whether you think that involves 'reasoning' or not. It's a mind worm set up by GW that you can only play in the warhammer world with Warhammer
That is bad reasoning. You are jumping to the assumption that those who do not think like you can only be the victim of some GW indoctrination. People can and do make their decisions for their own reasons. We are talking about a hobby, something that pretty much by definition people only do because they get some enjoyment out of it. Enjoyment is highly subjective - for some it is high level competition, others playing with painted minis and for others the whole feel of the game and its specific background/setting.
Most of the rest of your stuff was irrelevant to the argument of not playing a game because of background of a game. There are those who say they won't play AoS due to its background, there are those who won't play KOW due to its background. I don't fall in either camp, I will play either. However, I accept that background (official) is a thing for quite a number of people, and trying to make out that is some lame excuse rather than a reason is in itself ... lame.
puree wrote: And yeah, you can say the same thing about 8th, and AoS. 8th can only be considered dead because fans have it hammered into their heads that the thing must be constantly retweaked and repackaged and resold with more and more 'things to buy' retconned in, in order to be a valid gaming experience. Some will continue to mourn the 'loss' of 8th, and that is their loss, and some realise that AoS hasn't come round to their house to burn their books and minis (that one guy did it all by himself), and that the models are still on general sale for now, and they can still keep playing it, and that's their gain. Other people can play in the warhammer world with 9th Age, or any number of other fantasy wargame rulesets, and that's all fine and dandy too.
For that matter any edition of Warhammer - I know folks that think that 4th was the best thing since sliced bread, and i am passing fond of 3rd.
If you have the rules, then you can play the game.
That said, once you have seen the rules, it is possible to say whether or not you think that you will enjoy playing them.
I felt that the rules for Lord of the Rings were too simplistic, yet I am very much enjoying Kings of war, which, if anything, has an even simpler rules set. (But also deals with large units being treated as units - big, unwieldy things that maneuver around the fields as a single piece, rather than fifty or so guys doin' their own thing.)
I can tell that AoS is not something that I would enjoy.
Malifaux is a lot harder for me to know whether or not I would enjoy it. (My best guess is that I would, but that some parts of the game would really annoy me.)
I'm going to be going back to 6th edition with someone i know, will see how it goes and my invote others i know who don't like aos much. though might give 7th a go as well as see what we prefur.
Butterqwist wrote: So my question and hopefully basis for discussion: have others experienced this, and why do people keep stay so intensely with WHFB? The game is unsupported.
Forgive me for not reading every message before this, but you're actually asking two questions.
As for why WHFB, it's got lots of flaws, but it's still a system that:
-Has more detail than KoW.
-It's units "flavor" is more represented by their rules
-There's still (though for how long...) more folks out there with WHFB armies and rules than any other high'ish fantasy wargame.
-Is based in the highly developed WHFB world that so many folks really have affection for
-Is a different style of game that many folks enjoy.
As for the "unsupported" question, I think that:
-If folks are still playing the game and enjoying it, then it doesn't matter whether or not it's being expanded
-Folks still play necromunda and it's been unsupported for a decade.
-The overall experience of unsupported games can actually be rather easy since you can work within a closed system and not worry about how the game balance may change with the next codex/supplement/release.
-Playing a popular game that is recently unsupported may still yield more players than playing an indie game like Song of Blades and Heroes (or most of the other games I play).
That said, I've never had any interest in WHFB, but I've been playing KoW casually for a couple of years now using mostly vintage WHFB/Battlemasters figures. It's a great game with a very tight ruleset and handles it's abstractions very well.
Vermis wrote: I'd still call it an excuse rather than a reason, for what Korinov already said. It's not a valid reason. It's not even at the level of "because I just don't fething want to", because it's not expressing personal preference, but faulty reasoning. Countless players (including yourself) can demonstrate that you can use the KoW rules without any reference to Mantica. If folk think that all those who made the exodus from 8th ed to KoW with their WFB armies, mimicked GW by completely abandoning the old world, and fully embraced Mantica, that just makes their reasoning more... lame.
I wouldn't call it an excuse, because ultimately people don't need to justify their choices or preferences or phobias or irrational fears to you, me or anyone else. The term excuse implies a requirement for justification.
Vermis wrote: I'd still call it an excuse rather than a reason, for what Korinov already said. It's not a valid reason. It's not even at the level of "because I just don't fething want to", because it's not expressing personal preference, but faulty reasoning. Countless players (including yourself) can demonstrate that you can use the KoW rules without any reference to Mantica. If folk think that all those who made the exodus from 8th ed to KoW with their WFB armies, mimicked GW by completely abandoning the old world, and fully embraced Mantica, that just makes their reasoning more... lame.
I wouldn't call it an excuse, because ultimately people don't need to justify their choices or preferences or phobias or irrational fears to you, me or anyone else. The term excuse implies a requirement for justification.
Oh, I'd call it an excuse.
But I would also call it a valid excuse.
I think that they should give KoW a try, and, given that the rules are available for free, that there is little cost aside from time to give the game a try.
But it is their time.
I am actually more annoyed with folks that have rage quit the entire hobby because they don't like AoS - sticking with a game that you like is a perfectly valid reason to not bother with a new game.
Burning your army and quitting in a huff... not quite so much, eh?
Really, for the sake of theme, there is no reason you can't base nearly all of the Kings of War armies in the Old World, other than outliers like Abyssals and Elohi.
TheAuldGrump wrote: I am actually more annoyed with folks that have rage quit the entire hobby because they don't like AoS - sticking with a game that you like is a perfectly valid reason to not bother with a new game.
Burning your army and quitting in a huff... not quite so much, eh?
I totally agree that burning your army is ridiculous. But it also represents a tiny fraction of the disaffected wargaming population (I think, the unhinged part ).
On the other hand, quitting the hobby and doing something is isn't really unreasonable. Hobby takes a big chunk of your time, and being disillusioned, one might go do something else, at least for a while. There's always the possibility of return, months, years, or decades later, right? Also, I know that there are a lot of people who like kickstarter companies and relatively small companies like Mantic (I only name them because you mentioned KoW). However, being the type of hobbyist/gamer that I am, I usually won't give a small company a chance, until they get to the size and popularity of PP/FFG (WMH or X-Wing). I like small and scrappy, and I can deal with small player pool.
But I would rather go with large catalog and fair certainty that the game will exist for a long time with lots of new releases not contingent on factors beyond their control, which is a promise that small or young companies can't truthfully make. I am not happy building armies from a company that relies on one brilliant sculptor, no matter how awesome he is, because if he is hit by a truck tomorrow, nothing new will likely come. Yeah, companies are not going to get big without people supporting them (or a big investor so that they can go big, and go fast), but that's not really my problem; I'd rather support the incumbent "big worlds" and pay the premium they command than go with the uncertainty of what the release cadence for a startup game world.
And, sadly, there are very few large companies in the scifi wargaming world. As I discovered just the other day, thanks to Azrael13's link to Companies House, Mantic is actually a tiny company (likely more than 10 employees, definitely less than 50, and net sales below something like 6 million GBP and balance sheet total less than half that... or something in that order of magnitude).
AllSeeingSkink wrote: That's an unnecessary simplification which borders on insulting at times.
Pain is nature's way of telling you something's wrong.
Yeah, that ignorant simplifications can be insulting ignorant simplifications
But if you want some elaboration...
Why thank you sir, how kind of you...
GW don't have to have a mind worm, players can independently identify that Warhammer: The Game better represents Warhammer: The Fluff.
Mostly because GW have crammed so many special rules in to act as mock-fluff, which a lot of the time are arbitrary mechanics and modifiers that bear relation to the fluff only in that they have a title.
Warhammer: The Game was always written to sell Warhammer: The Miniatures which live in the land of Warhammer: The Fluff.
Maybe that's the underlying problem.
A problem? Or something some people actually prefer? No... it can't be that, it must be that people are brainwashed and simply lack your insight.... yes... that makes much more sense. /sarcasm
Some people are quite happy with a game that was written to sell models as long as it isn't completely horrible. It's a sliding scale, not black and white, AoS and more recent editions of 40k are showing that many people are getting pushed off the end of the scale, but a company spending time making sure the fluff fits within the rules rather than the rules exist and then the fluff is projected on top of that is exactly what many people want.
... that's alright, but like Puree you're missing the point. Some consider it inherently impossible to use fluff with other games at all. Not just "I like warhammer world with warhammer better" but "if you play KoW you have to use Mantica fluff".
I doubt anyone finds it "inherently impossible". Unless you can link me to where someone actually said that (in which case I will just shrug it off as being a crazy person or hyperbole ).
People don't think in extremes like that. I doubt anyone (or very few people) will think it's inherently impossible, they just won't like doing it. Some people actually want some sense of immersion when playing a wargame, some people to the point where playing the game written for the models is more important than playing the game with subjectively better rules which you then apply your own fluff on top of.
But anyway, I'd love you to link me to some of this evidence that there are people who think that it's inherently impossible.... or was that just unnecessary extrapolation, or perhaps unnecessary hyperbole?
It's entirely possible for someone to like something different to you without them being brainwashed or ignorant or immature. Surprising I know
Why is that a bad reason? Gaming communities have a tendency to drop games that aren't officially supported for plenty of good reasons (difficulty getting rules,
In some quarters 8th ed was dropped like a snake just as AoS was released. I think there might still have been some rulebooks floating around then. Including the ones on home bookshelves. And if 9th Age is basically tweaked 8th, and available online for the forseeable future, well...
That's a pretty poor excuse for thinking that it's a bad reason.
difficulty deciding on which version to use
Given GW's history of rules churn with little actual change or improvement, I'm not sure if that's entirely a 'good' reason.
It is a real reason, multiple editions exist and not everyone agrees on which one is best. This is a real hurdle.
You can keep playing, Skinky. Without GW's consent, and as long as you're able
I'm getting bored so I'll just address this point rather than trying to go through the rest. My response to this is...
Reality is that communities shrink once a game becomes unsupported. One of the fun things about wargaming; meeting new people, tends to drop off once a game is no longer supported.
It happens for a lot of good/real reasons, you can try and spin them to sound like "bad" reasons but they are reasons simply because that's the way things work.
Vermis wrote: I'd still call it an excuse rather than a reason, for what Korinov already said. It's not a valid reason. It's not even at the level of "because I just don't fething want to", because it's not expressing personal preference, but faulty reasoning. Countless players (including yourself) can demonstrate that you can use the KoW rules without any reference to Mantica. If folk think that all those who made the exodus from 8th ed to KoW with their WFB armies, mimicked GW by completely abandoning the old world, and fully embraced Mantica, that just makes their reasoning more... lame.
Ultimately, though, you can use the WHFB rules without reference to the Olde Worlde.
The differences beteen Brettonian Knights Errant, Knights Questing, and so on, are purely artificial. They do not reflect an underlying reality like the differences between the Knights Templar and Knight Crusaders of actual history.
You can always find a reason to use or not to use the GW invented special rules in a game. You cannot ignore the role of the military orders in battles of the later crusades, except when you are going to do an alternate history type of fantastic game.
The inherently impossible back and forth is funny. For it to be inherently impossible for a person to play game A using models ifrom game B, there would actually have tonbe something that made the essence or physicality of it impossible.
It's inherently impossible to play war games using plastic pieces in the ISS where there is no gravity, just as it is inherently impossible to play computer games without software or electricity. But anything that is actually possible, by definition, can't be inherently impossible.
Talys wrote: However, being the type of hobbyist/gamer that I am, I usually won't give a small company a chance, until they get to the size and popularity of PP/FFG (WMH or X-Wing). I like small and scrappy, and I can deal with small player pool.
But I would rather go with large catalog and fair certainty that the game will exist for a long time with lots of new releases not contingent on factors beyond their control, which is a promise that small or young companies can't truthfully make. I am not happy building armies from a company that relies on one brilliant sculptor, no matter how awesome he is, because if he is hit by a truck tomorrow, nothing new will likely come. Yeah, companies are not going to get big without people supporting them (or a big investor so that they can go big, and go fast), but that's not really my problem; I'd rather support the incumbent "big worlds" and pay the premium they command than go with the uncertainty of what the release cadence for a startup game world.
And, sadly, there are very few large companies in the scifi wargaming world. As I discovered just the other day, thanks to Azrael13's link to Companies House, Mantic is actually a tiny company (likely more than 10 employees, definitely less than 50, and net sales below something like 6 million GBP and balance sheet total less than half that... or something in that order of magnitude).
And yet, as GW has shown us with WHFB/AoS, no matter how long a game has been around, there's no guarantee that the company won't turn around and drop it or change it enough to make it unrecognizable. I think that KoW and similar games are kind of the antidote. Even if KoW doesn't last, it at leasts give you the opportunity to get another few years of use out of the minis you love. If KoW dies, there will still be other options (in addition to continuing with OOPKoW or WHFB versions) for fantasy rules to bring your figs to the table.
Luckily I've long since disconnected rules and figs. My 40k figs haven't seen a 40k "game" in years, but they've been on the table with Warpath 1.0, In The Emperor's Name, etc, WarEngine, etc. and usually in a 40k setting.
Yeah, the "Free rules" and army lists that Mantic offers have been very slowly becoming less an less complete. Luckily as you point out easy army has all the units and everything you need to use them should be (possibly excepting some magic items?...) in the free rulebook.
That said, when the "gamer" size rulebook- is available for $20 or the full size rulebook is only $35 (both of which have the same rules and army lists) it's almost a no-brainer to own a hard copy.
Yeah, the "Free rules" and army lists that Mantic offers have been very slowly becoming less an less complete. Luckily as you point out easy army has all the units and everything you need to use them should be (possibly excepting some magic items?...) in the free rulebook.
That said, when the "gamer" size rulebook- is available for $20 or the full size rulebook is only $35 (both of which have the same rules and army lists) it's almost a no-brainer to own a hard copy.
They full lists are also in BattleScribe, complete with magic items.
I have both the hardcover and the 'Gamer' sized book... the 'Gamer' sized book lives in my book bag, and gets pulled out when I am mulling over lists. Much as I like the hardcover, it is the gamer edition that I actually use.
Ye gods and little fishies... I fuss with my lists a lot! There is always some combination that I want to try, and the Uncharted Empires added a couple of lists that I really want to try. (Empire of Dust and The Herd.)
The Auld Grump - I swear, fussing with my lists is half the fun....
Yeah, the "Free rules" and army lists that Mantic offers have been very slowly becoming less an less complete. Luckily as you point out easy army has all the units and everything you need to use them should be (possibly excepting some magic items?...) in the free rulebook.
That said, when the "gamer" size rulebook- is available for $20 or the full size rulebook is only $35 (both of which have the same rules and army lists) it's almost a no-brainer to own a hard copy.
They full lists are also in BattleScribe, complete with magic items.
I have both the hardcover and the 'Gamer' sized book... the 'Gamer' sized book lives in my book bag, and gets pulled out when I am mulling over lists. Much as I like the hardcover, it is the gamer edition that I actually use.
Ye gods and little fishies... I fuss with my lists a lot! There is always some combination that I want to try, and the Uncharted Empires added a couple of lists that I really want to try. (Empire of Dust and The Herd.)
The Auld Grump - I swear, fussing with my lists is half the fun....
I should clarify. I know Easy army has the magic items, I just don't know if the free online rules do. Do they?
I'm not sure why, but I really like the big books, even when gaming. I split the rulebook pledge in the KS with a buddy. He got the small book and I'm glad I took the big one.
As for Fussing, I do very little fussing with my lists, but then I don't play all that often. I really need to get Uncharted Empires as I've been using mostly the Kindgoms of Men list to represent my Chaos warriors til now.
Yeah, the "Free rules" and army lists that Mantic offers have been very slowly becoming less an less complete. Luckily as you point out easy army has all the units and everything you need to use them should be (possibly excepting some magic items?...) in the free rulebook.
That said, when the "gamer" size rulebook- is available for $20 or the full size rulebook is only $35 (both of which have the same rules and army lists) it's almost a no-brainer to own a hard copy.
They full lists are also in BattleScribe, complete with magic items.
I have both the hardcover and the 'Gamer' sized book... the 'Gamer' sized book lives in my book bag, and gets pulled out when I am mulling over lists. Much as I like the hardcover, it is the gamer edition that I actually use.
Ye gods and little fishies... I fuss with my lists a lot! There is always some combination that I want to try, and the Uncharted Empires added a couple of lists that I really want to try. (Empire of Dust and The Herd.)
The Auld Grump - I swear, fussing with my lists is half the fun....
I should clarify. I know Easy army has the magic items, I just don't know if the free online rules do. Do they?
I'm not sure why, but I really like the big books, even when gaming. I split the rulebook pledge in the KS with a buddy. He got the small book and I'm glad I took the big one.
As for Fussing, I do very little fussing with my lists, but then I don't play all that often. I really need to get Uncharted Empires as I've been using mostly the Kindgoms of Men list to represent my Chaos warriors til now.
Except for our League, I fuss with my list every freakin' time.
Our League has an odd format - 1,500 points are 'fixed' and 500 points can be changed around, so you can make an army to deal with the person that you are facing (who can use their 500 points to make an army for dealing with you).
Seems like a good idea, but most of us made up 2,000 point armies, and use them as is.
Right now I am first in our League, with my good lady and another female player tied for second. (They had a game where at the end there was a single model on the table... the most bloody game that I had seen in a while - not surprisingly, that game ended up being a tie.)
I should clarify. I know Easy army has the magic items, I just don't know if the free online rules do. Do they?
No, they don't. But I can't see any reason not to have at least the Gamer's Edition. I grabbed mine directly from Mantic ar Gencon, and it's great, even after my son chewed on it.
I like the hardcover for that quality, but I don't need the fluff. My games are either going to be in the Warhammer Old World, or a version of the Nerath setting from DnD, that I altered for a RPG I was going to run with an awesome free D20 ruleset called Heroes against Darkness.
As for settings linked to rules and miniatures, hell. In non-wargaming settings, I've only played one long-term RPG ruleset that even used the same company's rules and setting together (Savage Worlds and their Shaintar high-fantasy setting).
Lol, I'm pretty sure a very small percentage of Sedition Wars sales sees anyone use those minis for that ruleset/game.
AegisGrimm wrote: No, they don't. But I can't see any reason not to have at least the Gamer's Edition. I grabbed mine directly from Mantic at Gencon, and it's great, even after my son chewed on it.
Your son has great tastes in games!
The Auld Grump - my good lady is getting us a puppy... I fear for my books....
. Cheers, infinite array, you were way ahead of me!! I will totally be suggesting to my group that we use those rules 
).
