So when WHFB died i was tired of being unable to play the game at GW even 6 years after it died and GW said it was going to bring it back in some form. I got into 40k but more and more i just feel like there's a lack of balance and i have an itch for rank and file + flanking games that just needs to be scratched. Also after over 10 years with GW i'm kinda sick of the company's prices, business practices and lore changes. Not to mention i feel like these day the "you will not be missed" tag-line is applying to WHFB players, long term players and whatever flavor of the month GW wants to dislike and heap disgust on instead of taking responsibility for mismanagement.

Anyway please let me know if KoW will scratch my WHFB itch. I used to play skaven but dark elves, beastmen and vampire counts also interested me. Does KoW have equivalents to those factions and is the balance between army factions and price per model any good?

KoW is good game and certainly less frustrating than any GW flagship game.

It is a much more streamlined version of whfb with quite a few different features. Reasonably balanced (you can min-max as usual) but nothing feels terrible enough to have a bad experience.
Unlike GW games, there are no "army books" released once every few years for each army (this prevents quite a bit of powercreep). Instead all army lists are within the Rulebook (for armies with Mantic models) or a supplement, Uncharted Empires (for armies without Mantic models). Indeed, KoW has official models but it is very easy to make it model agnostic (use whatever you want as long as it more or less fits the theme).
Mantic models are cheaper than GW's, but less quality and designs vary a lot (newer models are great, old not so much). As regiments use multibases, it is more flexible (example: a Regiment of 20 infantry can be represented with 16 models without an issue).

KoW also has a large amount of armies, all the classic whfb have their equivalent (Skaven -> Ratking / DE -> Twilight Kin / Beastmen -> Herd / VC -> Undead). On top of that, you have a couple of extra cool races like the Nightstalkers. On the Mantic website you have simplied version of the kow rules in case you want to check it out.

Could possibly scratch the whfb itch. If not, there are other r&f games that do (like Conquest: The Last Argument of Kings or Oathmark).

VBS has covered the important points. Just wanted to elaborate on some things that might be of interest to you.

The Ratkin have two army lists, both found in Unchartered Empires. The first is pure Ratkin, thus the closest to Sakven. The second list is what KoW calls a "theme" list. It modifies a Master list, and changes what units you can bring. The Ratkin theme list is "Ratkin Slaves", and the Master list is Abyssal Dwarfs. {Mantic's equivalent of Chaos Dwarfs, which I run.} In Mantic's world, the Abyssal Dwarfs bred Ratkin as slaves, but failed to reckon with their intelligence. There was a bloody revolt, and many slaves escaped. Now there are free Ratkin with their own power base, and a hunger for vengeance (the first list). However, the Abyssal Dwarfs still have Ratkin as slave troops to die in their stead, and that is what the Ratkin Slaves list lets you run. If I had ratmen minis by any manufacturer, I'd give this list a try. It seems solid, and it is thematic: if you have slaves, have them soak damage while you move in for a safe and easy kill!

The KoW Undead list is closer to the old GW Undivided Undead list, which I played back in 5th ed WHFB. Not having played Vampire Counts, I'm not sure what you'd lose (Fell Bats maybe?). There is also the Empire of Dust {not-Tomb Kings}. Mantic does put out models for the EoD, unlike GW which killed that line.

Twilight Kin is a theme list, with the Master List being Elves. While Twilight Kin were originally WHFB Dark Elves, lately Mantic has been trying to make them distinct, and so while they still have "Blade Dancers" and similar units, many of their new units are drawn from the Nightstalkers list. Mantic does make Nightstalkers minis, but since the Nightstalkers are basically creatures of nightmare, there is a lot of room for customization. Reaper Bones has many Lovecraft Mythos monsters nowadays.

The Herd (Beastmen) is a theme list of Forces of Nature. The alignment is Neutral, and some of the more obviously fantastic creatures from Forces of Nature are dropped (e.g. Unicorns, Phoenixes), and the emphasis is on the beast side, so beastmen, centaurs, and untainted werewolves (the corrupted ones are in the Undead list). The Herd can still take Earth Elementals and Forest Shamblers (treefolk/Ents).

While not one of the armies you have an interest in, Brettonians have a home in KoW. Two theme lists, one which uses the Basileans as the Master list (think a fantasy Byzantium with angels and archangels), and the second which uses Forces of Nature as the master list. The second list, The Order of the Green Lady, feels more 5th ed. Brettonian to me. {I had Brettonians in 5th ed, but I rarely played them, so I sold them.} So if you know any disgrunted Brettonian players, tell them about KoW.

There is also a fan-made army builder at https://mantic.easyarmy.com/KingsOfWar

Edit: There is a rules committee, and while they don't always get things right, they do try to keep the game balanced. Fliers were a problem in 2nd ed., and they toned them down. They are still strong, but it is no longer a risk-free tactic to send a Hero on a Dragon into the enemy's rear. Previously, that hero & dragon could dance around, and Fly off if they encountered something dangerous. Now, if they take a single wound in melee, and they are grounded, which means payback time. So it is no longer an auto-take in a list, nor risk-free in the game. That being said, Elves are still strong as they have "drakon riders" as Large Cavalry. Not as strong as pure dragons, but still strong compared to cavalry, and with the speed and manueverability of Flight. Most pre-Covid Elf tournament lists had the hero on a dragon, and at least one unit of drakon riders.

KoW is a very streamlined game that rewards good positioning. A game will look much like a summarised game of Warhammer Fantasy.

It will however, not scratch a WHFB itch. It may scratch a Warmaster itch though.

As someone else brought it up, why not give warhammer armies project a look?

Most of what I'd say has already been said so I'll be brief.

If your itch is simply for " for rank and file + flanking games" and you don't mind more streamlined gameplay then KoW would likely scratch the itch. If you like the granularity of rules and statlines and special rules of WHFB and feel that they give character to the armies you may be disappointed.

I recommend that you play through a game with the figures you have using the free rules.
https://www.manticgames.com/mantic-games-free-rules/
It won't take you long to see whether or not KoW will scratch the itch.

All the armies you mention have equivalents in KoW (you will want the Uncharted Empires supplement) and while balance isn't perfect, it tends to be much better than WHFB.

Model price is lower-per-model for Mantic models, but is also semi-irrelevant since you can use any representative figures you want. An army of WHFB figures you already have is legal in KoW. IMHO, the KoW Miniatures lines are definitely hit or miss so the freedom to pick up a used WHFB army or source figs from another manufacturer is a positive aspect.

Don't consider all this faint praise however. I highly recommend KoW as a very enjoyable and well crafted fantasy wargame experience. It's my preferred ruleset for fantasy battles at the company level.

KoW is a great game, I have played for a few years now, and have practically not experienced rules discussions.

Multibasing is also fantastic for the hobby side, I have two big multibased armies, with a few more in line, and they look so much better than my older single-based fantasy armies.

The only downside is that it sometimes can feel a bit mechanical, as angles and threatranges are super important, so quite a lot of higher level play is adjusting angles and playing with milimeters. Still a fantastic game, the best I have played for pickup or tournament gaming, but not the best game for narrative gaming.

Agree with Illumini about the ruleset being super practical for pickup games or tournaments, making random games with strangers not too dreadful. Rules discussions and "not being on the same page" are rare.
Other more intricate/rules heavy games make me not want to play them outside garage/home (you never know.... and a few not so enjoyable experiences).

That along the multibasing (seriously fun once you try!) are really strong points in favor of KoW.

Multibases really are the best!

Here's another voice in praise of Kings of War. I played WHFB for like 20 years, and I've been amazed at how much fun - and how smooth - it is to play KOW. Great community as well, and the hobbying freedom is amazing. Also once you experience competent internal balance, it's extra obvious how terrible GW is at balancing things.

Thinking about it, WHFB had sort of two things going on: ranks-n-flanks, and random magic / tables / herohammer. KOW and AOS basically split that down the middle, with one having very low randomness (and certainly no tables!) and a fairly strong turn away from hero-driven game play (tho influential characters certainly abound and are integral to the game), and the other having no ranks or flanks but a lot of lip service to narrative gaming.

Anyhoo, give KOW a shot, it's really great, and as inexpensive as you need it to be, especially if you're porting in a WHFB army.

Also if you're looking for the community, it's most active on FB (https://www.facebook.com/groups/403267653139331/) but has some forum presence at https://www.kowforum.com, certainly more than here.

If you have this ran&file itch, you may want to check A Song of Ice and Fire. I see nothing but praise everywhere I read anything about this game(including here, on Dakka) and can't wait to try it out myself (tomorrow!)

Also, if the itch is specifically WFB-related, there's the 9th Age, which seems to be a lot more popular than Kings of War. Here in Poland it seems to be more popular than AoS even. So if WFB, but vastly improved by the most experienced players from around the globe is something you want, look no further. It's free to try out too (all rules online, as befits a fan project)

Kings of War is brilliant, being able to use whatever models you want for it, combined with a huge selection of army lists really opens up the hobby and allows you to have some real fun with making the army that you want.

In terms of gameplay, it plays fast, has a lot more to do with tactics and manoeuvre than picking the OP units from a given army list, it's one of those easy-to-learn, difficult-to-master games.

There are lists that cover all of the WHFB factions and more besides. In terms of price/model, Mantic is great, always affordable and no ridiculous pricing on things like character models.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
So when WHFB died i was tired of being unable to play the game at GW even 6 years after it died and GW said it was going to bring it back in some form. I got into 40k but more and more i just feel like there's a lack of balance and i have an itch for rank and file + flanking games that just needs to be scratched. Also after over 10 years with GW i'm kinda sick of the company's prices, business practices and lore changes. Not to mention i feel like these day the "you will not be missed" tag-line is applying to WHFB players, long term players and whatever flavor of the month GW wants to dislike and heap disgust on instead of taking responsibility for mismanagement.

Anyway please let me know if KoW will scratch my WHFB itch. I used to play skaven but dark elves, beastmen and vampire counts also interested me. Does KoW have equivalents to those factions and is the balance between army factions and price per model any good?

Kings of War is very good. You should definitely try it at the very least.
Mantic is a company that respects your hobby; not always perfect, but at least they want to make a good game.

KoW has equivalents for all the Old World factions (Mantic have not tried to keep up with all the crazy AoS stuff though), but you may have to buy a second book for the army list.
Uncharted Empires is a book of extra army lists that was released to accommodate "Warhammer refugees" and put out some unique ideas.

The models are a moot point; using "third party miniatures" is not even frowned upon.
There are army lists without model lines and most armies have units that you have to find models for.
Mantic's newer models are great and the older stuff is value for money.

From what you have said: KoW will probably scratch your WHFB itch, but there are things that WHFB did that KoW doesn't bother with. KoW has keeping it simple as a design philosophy.
I have found that former WHFB players often think they will miss things but find that the game is better without and KoW plays better than it reads.
It's easier to try playing a few games of KoW and seeing if it you like it than comparing written rules.
You have the models and the rules you need are free.

KoW gives the rank and flank feel of WFB but it's very streamlined and doesn't have some of the more detailed rules for stuff like different psychology, breaking and rallying troops, characters joining regiments, reforming and so on.

But for me it does hit the spot of rank and flank play, trying to set up flank charges and protect your own flanks, movement being important and big blocks of troops on the board.

The balance is also pretty good, sometimes certain units are a bit too powerful but generally all factions can compete and there tend to be multiple viable ways to build an army for any faction, which I think is a great achievement.

If you already have WFB models or any Fantasy models really I can't see a downside to giving KoW a go. It's also got one of the biggest player bases for a non-GW fantasy game, at least where I am.

I have a couple of soft criticisms for KoW.

1. It's very much a movement game, emphasizing positioning and speed. For the armies I prefer, - Dwarfs - such a thing is no bueno.

2. Rules for individual units aren't really as exciting to me as WHFB. This is partially due to the aforementioned simplicity.

While I agree with your criticism, dwarfs in KoW can play the movement game, with brock riders, surging elementals and mounted heroes.

If you like the traditional warhammer dwarf style, and as such don't want any cavalry or elementals, that is going to be harder. You cannot just sit and shoot in KoW, but dwarves can play shooty + infantry fairly well. They have many good infantry units, and artillery has gotten a big boost in V3. You have access to cheap anvils in the 5+/6+ infantry. Hitting power in the shieldbreakers and berserkers. Sharpshooters for scoring good shooters, and mastiffs are also really good for slow infantry armies.

Free dwarf even gives you pathfinder

 Illumini wrote:
While I agree with your criticism, dwarfs in KoW can play the movement game, with brock riders, surging elementals and mounted heroes.

If you like the traditional warhammer dwarf style, and as such don't want any cavalry or elementals, that is going to be harder. You cannot just sit and shoot in KoW, but dwarves can play shooty + infantry fairly well. They have many good infantry units, and artillery has gotten a big boost in V3. You have access to cheap anvils in the 5+/6+ infantry. Hitting power in the shieldbreakers and berserkers. Sharpshooters for scoring good shooters, and mastiffs are also really good for slow infantry armies.

Free dwarf even gives you pathfinder

While I'm not opposed to the cavalry or stuff like the golems, I prefer the traditional style. And traditional Dwarfs are slow. In WHFB, this isn't really a problem as you have units like Hammerers or Longbeards who can both take it and dish it out. But KOW Dwarfs - not counting the more mobile Free Dwarfs - are reliant on those non-traditional elements to compete in a movement-based game.

I think a good solution for at least some of my gripes would be if Ironguard could, like Dwarf Clansmen in the NA list, trade 6+ Defense for 5+ Def/ Crushing Strength 1. This would represent the elite shock troops of the army.

Another solution could be to introduce "Cataphracts" on giant goats or the like, that are slower than Brock Riders and have less Nerve, but have De 5+.

 RaptorusRex wrote:

 Illumini wrote:
While I agree with your criticism, dwarfs in KoW can play the movement game, with brock riders, surging elementals and mounted heroes.

If you like the traditional warhammer dwarf style, and as such don't want any cavalry or elementals, that is going to be harder. You cannot just sit and shoot in KoW, but dwarves can play shooty + infantry fairly well. They have many good infantry units, and artillery has gotten a big boost in V3. You have access to cheap anvils in the 5+/6+ infantry. Hitting power in the shieldbreakers and berserkers. Sharpshooters for scoring good shooters, and mastiffs are also really good for slow infantry armies.

Free dwarf even gives you pathfinder

While I'm not opposed to the cavalry or stuff like the golems, I prefer the traditional style. And traditional Dwarfs are slow. In WHFB, this isn't really a problem as you have units like Hammerers or Longbeards who can both take it and dish it out. But KOW Dwarfs - not counting the more mobile Free Dwarfs - are reliant on those non-traditional elements to compete in a movement-based game.

I think a good solution for at least some of my gripes would be if Ironguard could, like Dwarf Clansmen in the NA list, trade 6+ Defense for 5+ Def/ Crushing Strength 1. This would represent the elite shock troops of the army.

Another solution could be to introduce "Cataphracts" on giant goats or the like, that are slower than Brock Riders and have less Nerve, but have De 5+.

I disagree, but this is not the tread to argue about dwarfs.

True.

To answer the OP's question, I would say KOW is good, but it has its flaws like any other game.

Dwarfs in KoW are build to grind down the enemy and/or hold the line until support is there

and the option for trading Def for CS was removed in 3rd because the 3 units, Ironclad, Ironguard & Shieldbreaker were too similar with it (I miss my "Langbeard" Ironguard with 2 handed weapons and as a universal tool)

but I have to disagree that traditional dwarfs are slow, this is more of a meme of non-dwarf players as they were never slow in WHFB, they were made slower with each edition and some tournaments banned all fast option until dwarfs became a shooting castle in the corner in 8th, but they had their tools to be fast, the same way as Dwarfs have in KoW.


but yes, KoW has its flaws, because it is a R&F game focused on units (not 1 unit or heroes) and makes sacrifices to get this done

First of all I will say try it, and make up your own mind. If you like it, or don't like it, thatbis fine... you are entirely allowed to have your own opinion.

Small bit of background, been playing these sort of games since the 80's, been playing KoW since the beta rules.

When Kings of War first came out is felt fresh and much more enjoyable game from what WFB was morphing into.

My view of the game is different to the ones you are likely to hear, always important to hear both pros and cons. The pros have been covered in depth here. Now we are in 3rd edition I feel like the game has some very bad game design, allow me to go over them.

• IGOUGO. This creates very little player interaction, and a lot of downtime for the player who's turn it isn't. Plus as one army gets to do all of it's attacks without any retaliate from the opponent, it can lead to situations where a player has even less of their force left to deal with that of their opponents, which can and does give an advantage to a player.

• No real force structure. In WFB you had Lord, Hero, Core, Special, and Rare. You had to take a minimum core based on the size of the game, and we're limited to how much o stuff you could again based on the size of the game. Not here, the few rules for force building are very easy to abuse. 4 dragons in 2,000pts... easy with Undead, or how about 9 war engines in 2,000pts, easy with Kingdoms of Men. Now I hope no one ever does create these list, but the game as it is allows for them.

• Bucket of Dice. Do you enjoy rolling 60 dice at a time? Kings of War can do bucket if dice as well as GW Ork's can. With units having a high number of attacks that are doubled for a flank, or tripled for a rear charge it can create situations where 90 dice are rolled. This sheer brute force approach to dice games may appeal to you, but for me it leaves me cold. People say it is fast, what is fast about rolling 60-90 dice and then sometimes re-rolling all the ones?

• Damage does nothing. In Kings of War a unit has 3 states. OK, wavering, or routed. Causing any amount of damage on a unit facilities the rolling of a nerve test. This is 2D6 added to the amount of damage on a unit and comparing to the units nerve stats. Now it can happen that a very small amount of damage is caused and the 2D6 roll very high, and this could at worst see the unit routed, or wavering. The opposite is true, imaging doing a lot of damage in one go and rolling a double 1. The game has a rule that a double 1 means the unit stays ok, if the damage is over its nerve it is reduced. So it is possible to hit a unit very hard, roll poor on 2d6 and the unit in question will be fine, at full unit effectiveness, or do a small amount of damage roll well and the unit is removed. The 2D6 can make it very swingy.

• Characters have forgotten how to join units. Support Characters who would be wise to take protection in blocks of troops instead have to run around the battlefield by themselves hoping that they survive.

• Lack of focus within the setting. In aiming to be everything, it is nothing. The setting is even more of a mess when it comes to technological levels then WFB was.

• War Engine good, bow bad. 3rd edition made non War Engine ranged attacks very lack lustre. They can work, yes... but they feel like an after thought in this system now.

• Perpetual Book Cycle. Do you enjoy buying books, that will be invalidated in a few years time, only to have to buy newer versions of thise books? Mantic are no different to GW at this. 3rd edition has been out a little over a year now I think, and we already have 2 expansion books, and there is a 3rs on the way shortly by all accounts.

With all that said, again I need to stress the importance of playing it for yourself and coming to your own conclusions. Your experience, expectations, and wants from a game will be entirely different. I will say that as of now there are a great many number of rank and file fantasy games to try, so don't rush into multibasing just yet.

A lot of these points are fine as opinions, but the book point is very unfair. You generally "need" to buy one book each year, which is a 20$-ish outlay which gives every army something new or improved, and fixes balance. Shooting for example is rumored to be improved in the upcoming CoK book. You also get access to everything in the book through easy army, so you don't have to buy the book if you are so inclined.

3rd was launched in 2019. The expansion books for 3rd to my knowledge have been:
1: One book with a lot of army lists, including theme lists. Very cheap for the valuable content. Known from the start of the launch that it was coming to fill out the available armies.
2: A campaign book. Totally voluntary purchase.

Maybe I am being a bit unfair on the book point, just sick and tired of games having constant books/editions cycles, what is so wrong with wanting to be able to buy one book and that being enough to play the game? As you said in Kings of War you generally need to buy one book a year.

everything but, KoW is not a bad designed game

if you don't like all the features and/or changed your opinion because the rules are dated now does not make it bad designed

I don't like some features from Oathmark, but this does not make it a bad designed game

similar to Battletech, the classic rules are stuck in the 80ies, once being the fresh new stuff, now that most others have come along they feel old, which they are
but this does not make it bad design

and regarding the books, compared to Codex/Battletome, Chapter Approved or the GHB, those are optional and not needed
if you only have the Core book you are still fine to play against everyone else
I have bought most of the CoK books, but never used them to play games as we were happy with core

 kodos wrote:
everything but, KoW is not a bad designed game

if you don't like all the features and/or changed your opinion because the rules are dated now does not make it bad designed

I don't like some features from Oathmark, but this does not make it a bad designed game

similar to Battletech, the classic rules are stuck in the 80ies, once being the fresh new stuff, now that most others have come along they feel old, which they are
but this does not make it bad design

and regarding the books, compared to Codex/Battletome, Chapter Approved or the GHB, those are optional and not needed
if you only have the Core book you are still fine to play against everyone else
I have bought most of the CoK books, but never used them to play games as we were happy with core

Not a bad designed game you say... have a look at these perfectly legal 2,000pts lists.

Army: Undead

70, Zombie Regiment
70, Zombie Regiment
70, Zombie Regiment
70, Zombie Regiment
260, Wight Horde
260, Wight Horde
315, Vampire Lord on Undead Dragon
315, Vampire Lord on Undead Dragon
300, Revenant King on Undead Great Flying Wyrm
– Brew of Sharpness
265, Revenant King on Undead Great Flying Wyrm

Or

Army: Kingdom of Men

Shield Wall (Regiment) 100
Shield Wall (Regiment) 100
Shield Wall (Regiment) 100
Shield Wall (Regiment) 100
Shield Wall (Regiment) 100
Shield Wall (Regiment) 100
Shield Wall (Regiment) 100
Cannon 100
Cannon 100
Cannon 100
Shield Wall (Regiment) 100
Shield Wall (Regiment) 100
Ballista 75
Ballista 75
Ballista 75
Siege Artillery 90
Siege Artillery 90
Siege Artillery 90
Shield Wall (Regiment) 100
General on Winged Beast 190
- Aegis of the Elohi 15

Those are lists that wouldn't be fun to play against at all, whether they win or lose isn't important, gaming is meant to be fun for all players.

If a system can produce such horrid lists, it is a hallmark of a poorly designed system. Kings of War badly needs a decent army structure like WFB had.

those are not legal armies as there is a restriction for max 3 duplicates at 2k points

that you can abuse list building and you would need adjustments for certain units, well this is were point adjustments or army restrictions come in
hence if there are people who like to make such lists, the solution is to play 1999 points instead of 2000.

 kodos wrote:
those are not legal armies as there is a restriction for max 3 duplicates at 2k points

that you can abuse list building and you would need adjustments for certain units, well this is were point adjustments or army restrictions come in
hence if there are people who like to make such lists, the solution is to play 1999 points instead of 2000.

Those are legal list. No War Engine, Hero, or Monster/Titan has been duplicated 4 times. So it is perfectly legal. Don't believe me, create them in Mantic's Easy Army for yourself... which I where I just created them.

Even with the 1999 points restrictions the Undead one is fine as the heroes are only duplicated twice.

Again, Kings of War badly needs better force composition rules... not for players to add house rules to fix issues. Especially if the game is over 10 years old and has yearly books that are meant to fix issues of balance.

 stonehorse wrote:
First of all I will say try it, and make up your own mind. If you like it, or don't like it, that is fine... you are entirely allowed to have your own opinion.

I feel like the game has some very bad game design, allow me to go over them.

Fair enough, but as I said on the KoW forum; you not liking a game or design aspect does not make it bad.

Kings of War is the game that it is intended to be (which is what I consider good design). If what a game is designed to be isn't your thing then that doesn't mean it wasn't designed well.
I said the same thing about AoS when it was new (my issues with AoS are mainly due to GW business practices).

Kings of War is designed to be a game that keeps the rules simple so that the game plays better and more quickly. That is the core design philosophy.
The design leaves out ideas and mechanics that sound cool or one might feel should be there, but require a lot of rules and complication for little effect on the outcome and/or experience. I will respond to your comments with this in mind.

• IGOUGO. This creates very little player interaction, and a lot of downtime for the player who's turn it isn't. Plus as one army gets to do all of it's attacks without any retaliate from the opponent, it can lead to situations where a player has even less of their force left to deal with that of their opponents, which can and does give an advantage to a player.

Alternating activation is a good mechanic, but it does not fit into the design of KoW.
Turns are short and I spend my opponent's turn figuring out my next moves, confirming my opponent's measurements (so we don't argue later) and reminding them what my unit's stats are.
In games with saves and the mechanics you ask for below (calculating attacks based on damage or taking joined heroes into account), where the turn can really drag out then I get it though. KoW specifically avoids those though.
The main consideration is that chess clock could be used in tournaments, eliminating the age old "slow play" issue.

• No real force structure. In WFB you had Lord, Hero, Core, Special, and Rare. You had to take a minimum core based on the size of the game, and we're limited to how much o stuff you could again based on the size of the game. Not here, the few rules for force building are very easy to abuse. 4 dragons in 2,000pts... easy with Undead, or how about 9 war engines in 2,000pts, easy with Kingdoms of Men. Now I hope no one ever does create these list, but the game as it is allows for them.

This can be an issue, especially if unexpected. Horrible lists are possible in any system though.
KoW favours balanced lists (especially over several games).
It is telling that "netlists" are not a thing in KoW and Master's players consistently say that a list you are familiar with is preferable to a more optimized list (in podcast event coverage).

• Bucket of Dice. Do you enjoy rolling 60 dice at a time? Kings of War can do bucket if dice as well as GW Ork's can. With units having a high number of attacks that are doubled for a flank, or tripled for a rear charge it can create situations where 90 dice are rolled. This sheer brute force approach to dice games may appeal to you, but for me it leaves me cold. People say it is fast, what is fast about rolling 60-90 dice and then sometimes re-rolling all the ones?

I do like rolling lots of dice.
I agree that it become a drag if it happens all the time, but it doesn't happen often.
60+ attacks is a flank charge with the highest attack units in the game, or a rear charge. 90 attacks is a rear charge. Those do not happen often.

It's fast because you read the stat and roll. Not counting models, no figuring out how many attacks included heroes have or separate attacks for the champion. No waiting on armour saves or "look out sir". No rolling differenct saves for each character or command model.

• Damage does nothing. In Kings of War a unit has 3 states. OK, wavering, or routed. Causing any amount of damage on a unit facilities the rolling of a nerve test. This is 2D6 added to the amount of damage on a unit and comparing to the units nerve stats. Now it can happen that a very small amount of damage is caused and the 2D6 roll very high, and this could at worst see the unit routed, or wavering. The opposite is true, imaging doing a lot of damage in one go and rolling a double 1. The game has a rule that a double 1 means the unit stays ok, if the damage is over its nerve it is reduced. So it is possible to hit a unit very hard, roll poor on 2d6 and the unit in question will be fine, at full unit effectiveness, or do a small amount of damage roll well and the unit is removed. The 2D6 can make it very swingy.

See the above point. stopping and calculating you attacks for each combat drags out the game.
The variance is not (statistically) as significant as we remember (because we all have confirmation bias and remember the outliers).
Double 1's for nerve is mechanic that gets argued about. It makes the game more exciting either way.

• Characters have forgotten how to join units. Support Characters who would be wise to take protection in blocks of troops instead have to run around the battlefield by themselves hoping that they survive.

See my comment on your "Bucket of dice" point.
The extra rules and extra rolls in a combat for included characters slows things down and complicates things.
Heroes can work with units; charge with them or hide behind them well enough that the extra rules to join units wouldn't improve the game.

Another point on this:characters have not forgotten anything, WHFB was a different game and KoW is not "Warhammer lite" not it's successor.
Heroes, as in Kings of War, never joined units and really don't need to do anything because WHFb characters did.

• Lack of focus within the setting. In aiming to be everything, it is nothing. The setting is even more of a mess when it comes to technological levels then WFB was.

Really a matter of taste. It's a side effect of including a variety of themes and concepts that seem cool. People want Dark Age raiders, High Medieval Knights, chariots, pirates that go ARR, etc. it is in the interest of the game to appeal to as many of those as possible.
if you want consistent technology and realism there are many historical rulesets.

• War Engine good, bow bad. 3rd edition made non War Engine ranged attacks very lack lustre. They can work, yes... but they feel like an after thought in this system now.

All shooting armies were an issue in 2nd edition and would surely have been one of the list types you are now complaining about.
I'll grant 3rd edition may have over-solved it.

• Perpetual Book Cycle. Do you enjoy buying books, that will be invalidated in a few years time, only to have to buy newer versions of thise books? Mantic are no different to GW at this. 3rd edition has been out a little over a year now I think, and we already have 2 expansion books, and there is a 3rs on the way shortly by all accounts

It's one book a year that isn't expensive to keep the tournament season fresh and tweak the balance.

The other expansion applies to the entire edition. Uncharted Empires is full of extra lists (mostly that Mantic don'r make models for) to accomodate more collections.
It's a positive that Mantic has it. If you don't paly one of those armies you don't need it.

 stonehorse wrote:

 kodos wrote:
those are not legal armies as there is a restriction for max 3 duplicates at 2k points

that you can abuse list building and you would need adjustments for certain units, well this is were point adjustments or army restrictions come in
hence if there are people who like to make such lists, the solution is to play 1999 points instead of 2000.

Those are legal list. No War Engine, Hero, or Monster/Titan has been duplicated 4 times. So it is perfectly legal. Don't believe me, create them in Mantic's Easy Army for yourself... which I where I just created them.
Even with the 1999 points restrictions the Undead one is fine as the heroes are only duplicated twice.

you are right, this change from 2nd to 3rd, that it only applies to special units and not all just never made it to our groups, we all might have been overlocking it as everything still uses the restrictions for all units

Funnily enough, most of stonehorse's points are either pros for me (pure IGOUGO that fully facilitates clock play, very open force design, lots of dice, units more or less functioning at full power until removed, extremely minimal book requirement compared to GW) or meaningless (game setting) But I'm here for a critical voice being leveled at KOW by a person who actually plays it (pretty sure stonehorse has real experience with the game), and not just GW fanboys clinging to Mama Dub's apron strings.

Also re: WAAC lists in KOW, I don't think they're anything at all compared to WAAC lists in any GW game. I've had plenty of experiences in GW games where I know I've lost before dice happen because I've chosen to run Less Obviously Good things. It's very rare I feel this way in KOW ... tho I'm currently running a weak Herd army and let me tell you, I'm feeling outgunned in more ways than one One of the reasons I fell in love with KOW is the internal balance within lists, something that I never experienced within my GW upbringing. I'm happy to say this continues to be true, despite that balance not being perfect (i.e. war engines vs ranged infantry vs 'firebolt' infantry).

 Boss Salvage wrote:
Funnily enough, most of stonehorse's points are either pros for me (pure IGOUGO that fully facilitates clock play, very open force design, lots of dice, units more or less functioning at full power until removed, extremely minimal book requirement compared to GW) or meaningless (game setting) But I'm here for a critical voice being leveled at KOW by a person who actually plays it (pretty sure stonehorse has real experience with the game), and not just GW fanboys clinging to Mama Dub's apron strings.

Also re: WAAC lists in KOW, I don't think they're anything at all compared to WAAC lists in any GW game. I've had plenty of experiences in GW games where I know I've lost before dice happen because I've chosen to run Less Obviously Good things. It's very rare I feel this way in KOW ... tho I'm currently running a weak Herd army and let me tell you, I'm feeling outgunned in more ways than one One of the reasons I fell in love with KOW is the internal balance within lists, something that I never experienced within my GW upbringing. I'm happy to say this continues to be true, despite that balance not being perfect (i.e. war engines vs ranged infantry vs 'firebolt' infantry).

Never in all my 10 years playing Kings of War has anyone ever suggested using chess clocks. That part of the rules is very much a gimmick that was tacked on as an after thought. Using it as a reason why the game has to remain IGOUGO doesn't carry water. IGOUGO creates a lot of down time, and limits player interaction, the only player interaction during a players turn within the game come a magic item.

Kings of War would play a lot better with the following changes:

• Alternative activations, with units fighting back but counting as having activated. This allows for more tactical play, and creates player interactions.

• Damage on a unit reduces the number of attacks. So 10 points of damage, 10 less attacks.

• Nerve tests are a single d6. Less swingy. A 1 counts as the current double 1's, and a 6 will as the current double 6's.

• Flank and rear charges now double or triple the amount of damage caused. So roll as normal, then just apply the multiplier.

• Characters can join units, they active along with the unit put them at the side of the unit. They are deployed with the unit and can not leave the unit in the game. They are removed if the unit is removed. In melee they attack using their stats what ever is being attacked. If they are in the way of an opponents flank attack, simply move them to the other flank.

• more units to be irregular, this is to encourage people to take more core troops for their faction.

I think it is telling how you callout GW fan boys, Mantic are not immune to this phenomenon. Seeing as a large chunk of WFB players jumped over to KoW, they would have carried that mentality with them. I have never understood brand/system loyalty, if something is flawed, it is flawed. Mantic are in a lot of ways like GW, Kings of War is now into its 3rd edition, the game is only 10 years old, that works out at a new edition every 3-4 years, that is very much a GW manoeuvre. Plus 3rd is just a slight tweek of 2nd, which in turn was just a slight tweek of 1st. The game hasn't made ant radical changes to its rules since day one. I strongly suspect that 4th edition will follow in the same footsteps. Again, very much a page out of GW's play book.

It seems that Mantic get a pass from the community at large because they aren't GW, yet they do all the things that get people up in arms about with GW... even down to a devoted fandom. Now Mantic can't control the Fandom, so it isn'tfair to blame them for the actions of that fandom.

I think this is a symptom of a wider issue, that of tribalism. We see it in things like the 'console wars', sports, and even fast food franchises.

I have no problem with Alternating Player Turns and for me it is a feature

not all games need to be similar or do the same, as if everyone is going to use alternate unit activation you get nor real difference in the games any more
having a more dynamic gameplay would be nice, but not just the blunt unit activation everyone else is using

changing flank and rear from attacks to damage would be a good change to reduce dice rolling
will change the outcome on some units as the potential damage differs but overall a positive change

not a friend of characters joining units but being used to historical games were commanders are always on their own it is the the default thing for me, were joining the units I only know from Warhammer with all the negative aspects of units being reduced to vehicles to deliver the hero unharmed to the target and nothing more

that there is no damage but only "moral" is also something I am used to from historical games
the unit is fully working until you break it and it flees is the default mechanic for most unit level games were damage is more for mass-skirmish games
what could be a good change is to increase the difference between wavering and routed, those are too close together on most units

a single D6 is more swingy than 2D6, you want 2D3 for less margin, which could be a good change



in my opinion, the overall problem is not that Mantic gets a free pass because they are Mantic, but that they have advertised their game as being more constant and new Editions being upgrades and not change for the sake of change

There are things out there only GW can do were any other game will be dead after it

So changing too much, no matter if it is for the better or not, will result in people walking away because it is not their game any more, Mantic being like GW and makes big changes for nothing etc.

We have seen this with SAGA, changes from 1st to 2nd Editon were less than a GW Chapter Approved or GHB, with all of them making for a better game
Yet people stopped playing it over night, not even testing the changes but just reading how much changed and were done with the game

The game starts now to recover from this loss with new players but is still not there were it once was and still avoided by those who played 1st Edition

Similar with Lasalle, the author kept the name from the 1st Edition for consistency, as same setting and same scale, were 2nd Edition is very different game, and a much better one
People don't even try it because "too many changes and we don't like games that change"

Same with Deadzone, 2nd Edition was changed for the better, and it more or less died over night and needed to build up a new community because not a lot of people accepted the changes

So the changes Mantic can make to KoW without losing the majority of the Community are limited
Because they are not GW and people won't accept changes that easily

I think it's really healthy to see some pushback against KOW.

I disagree with almost every criticism raised above but it's good to have some alternative opinions.

The best advice, which had been offered by both sides, is to download the free rules and play a game. Since it's a unit based hand without casualty removal you can get a feel for the rules just using cardboard squares.

One point that should be pointed out to fans of alternating activation and other player interactivity is that the game has always been DELIBERATELY designed to have only the player whose return it is take any actions, dice rolls, etc. It's a core feature and enforces a linearity that something most KOW players enjoy about the rules.

That is unlikely to change and if you don't like design philosophy -an entirely reasonable opinion- then this is not the game for you. And that's ok. It's silly though to argue that the game should switch to alternating activation. Not going to happen.

As regarding rule updates and buying books. With the cost of the rulebook and multi army supplement together still averaging less than the cost of a full GW rulebook, a new edition every 4 years is not really a big cost investment.

Boss Salvage wrote:Funnily enough, most of stonehorse's points are either pros for me (pure IGOUGO that fully facilitates clock play, very open force design, lots of dice, units more or less functioning at full power until removed, extremely minimal book requirement compared to GW) or meaningless (game setting) But I'm here for a critical voice being leveled at KOW by a person who actually plays it (pretty sure stonehorse has real experience with the game), and not just GW fanboys clinging to Mama Dub's apron strings.

It is actually a decent list of features that one may or may not like. They're mostly positives for me too, but understandable that someone might not like them.
I take issue with declaring that KoW is a badly designed game though. KoW meets design goals, whether those goals are what you like or not.

stonehorse wrote:Never in all my 10 years playing Kings of War has anyone ever suggested using chess clocks. That part of the rules is very much a gimmick that was tacked on as an after thought. Using it as a reason why the game has to remain IGOUGO doesn't carry water. IGOUGO creates a lot of down time, and limits player interaction, the only player interaction during a players turn within the game come a magic item.

It's really only relevant if time is an issue, like at a tournament. As per interviews with Alessio Cavatore (who did the original games design) being able to to use chess clock and solve the "slow play issue" was an intentional design decision.
In many games IGOUGO does create a lot of down time, but KoW plays fast enough that it isn't an issue (for me anyway). Mostly due to not having the things you demand below. If your opponents play so slowly that it is an issue then maybe you should try chess clocks.
I interact with my opponent during their turn by confirming their measurements ("yes, that unit is out of charge range, not reason to argue later"), reminding them of my stats ("don't forget wild charge" or "my de is..."). A bit of time to figure out my next moves or grab a drink is nice too,

Kings of War would play a lot better with the following changes:

I disagree, strongly, with all of these. They all go against the core design philosophy of favouring simplicity.

• Alternative activations, with units fighting back but counting as having activated. This allows for more tactical play, and creates player interactions.

Play is already exceedingly tactical.
Alternating activation is great for skirmish games, but not for mass battle. Troops should be able to advance in a line.

• Damage on a unit reduces the number of attacks. So 10 points of damage, 10 less attacks.

This is extra admin that doesn't add much more than the devastated rule. Units being combat effective or routed is not actually unrealistic.

• Nerve tests are a single d6. Less swingy. A 1 counts as the current double 1's, and a 6 will as the current double 6's.

It isn't really. Smaller range, but gives a random number rather than a normal distribution with an average value.

• Flank and rear charges now double or triple the amount of damage caused. So roll as normal, then just apply the multiplier.

Pretty much the same, but with less dice. Most players enjoy rolling loads of dice on occasion. Another matter of taste that you seem to think is more important than it is.

• Characters can join units, they active along with the unit put them at the side of the unit. They are deployed with the unit and can not leave the unit in the game. They are removed if the unit is removed. In melee they attack using their stats what ever is being attacked. If they are in the way of an opponents flank attack, simply move them to the other flank.

Not significantly different to just having an individual next to a unit, but with more rules.

• more units to be irregular, this is to encourage people to take more core troops for their faction.

3rd edition had more irregular units and it was not a popular change.

I think it is telling how you callout GW fan boys, Mantic are not immune to this phenomenon. Seeing as a large chunk of WFB players jumped over to KoW, they would have carried that mentality with them. I have never understood brand/system loyalty, if something is flawed, it is flawed. Mantic are in a lot of ways like GW, Kings of War is now into its 3rd edition, the game is only 10 years old, that works out at a new edition every 3-4 years, that is very much a GW manoeuvre. Plus 3rd is just a slight tweek of 2nd, which in turn was just a slight tweek of 1st. The game hasn't made ant radical changes to its rules since day one. I strongly suspect that 4th edition will follow in the same footsteps. Again, very much a page out of GW's play book.

It seems that Mantic get a pass from the community at large because they aren't GW, yet they do all the things that get people up in arms about with GW... even down to a devoted fandom. Now Mantic can't control the Fandom, so it isn'tfair to blame them for the actions of that fandom.

I think this is a symptom of a wider issue, that of tribalism. We see it in things like the 'console wars', sports, and even fast food franchises.

I am certainly a Mantic fan. Mostly because they don't do the things that lead to me giving up GW games.
They're similar in that the are boh gaming companies that need to make money, but their priorities and aims are different. i am in no way blind to Mantic's faults, I think that they overreached with 3rd edition and should have changes less.
Mantic has nothing near the constant churn of unbalanced rules that GW produces.
The annual Clash of Kings Mantic produces is reasonably priced and has a reason for being released. It's nice to have something new for each tournament season and it can be ignored if you and your group are not interested in that.

3rd edition was released just shy and in celebration of Kow's 10 year anniversary. That's 5 years per edition, a reasonable rate in my book.
Each edition seeks to improve on a good game; which is a good goal to have for a gaming company IMO.
That is absolutely isn't is a page from GW's book, they have had radical changes between editions and your suggestion that it's a similar is ridiculous.

I'm a Mantic fan because they do things in a way that I appreciate and make a game that I enjoy. IF those things change I would dump Mantic games like I did GW games, but I don't expect that to happen,

If you don't enjoy KoW that's fine, it's designed (well) to be a certain way that is (evidently) not for everyone.
No need to gak on something I enjoy because your tastes are different though. That's why I'm calling you out, not tribalism.
I said the same thing about AoS when it was new.

I don't have any experience with either (KoW does it the way I like it), but to my understanding of them Oathmark and 9th Age are the kind of games that you seem to be looking for.

 stonehorse wrote:
Never in all my 10 years playing Kings of War has anyone ever suggested using chess clocks.

Basically every minigame played in a tournament format in America uses chess clocks, although many games aren't designed for it. KOW is the least painful to play on a clock for me because it's pure IGOUGO. But as for down time in KOW, I really don't find it the yawning abyss that you do, I use the time to take photos, tidy up the board, prep for next turn (hopefully!) and listen to my opponent as they tell me what they're doing and what their intent is. I can't remember playing KOW and just sitting in silence, there's a lot of conversation that goes into social minigaming simply around the game at hand.

So Mantic have a sense of humour about criticisms of the game...
https://www.manticgames.com/news/mantic-is-featured-in-a-comic/


The game is designed with tournament play heavily in mind, but unlike say 40k where they are trying to accommodate that, it was done from the ground up.

So chess clocks have absolutely been a thing in tournies I have seen.

The idea is to get a game that uses big blocks of fantasy troops and have it play out from start to end in good time, in fact at most games nights you have time to play 2 games of an evening. In this regard its similar to newer historical blocks of infantry games like King of the Battlefield.

With basing being all important I have seen it played a fair amount with printed card troops, both 2d and 3d, and different scales. Blocks of 15mm or 10mm troops can look fairly incredible and stop looking like 28mm skirmishes.

It takes IGOUGO to its ultimate conclusion, but reduces the alpha strike potential. Yes you can get shattered in a turn, but you can also position to stop that, something that is hard to do in games like 40k.

For the speed and simlicity combined with player base it would be my choice for 28mm troop block fantasy (conversely for AOS style basing God of Battles wins out), but at that point a voice inside me asks why aren't we just playing Warmaster?

I will say I have not played any wargames in quite a while, but when KOW came out, I dumped WHFB rules and never looked back.

Being a super casual gamer with my boys, I could not invest the intellectual time and capital to keep up with WHFB - way to much complexity. If you want your rank and file army game to be a little simpler and streamlined, KOW is your game.

Very much agree that all of those suggestions would just destroy the great game KoW is. DarkBlack answered it very well.

If that is what you want from a game, then you should look elsewhere.

Chess clocks can actually improve the game even for friendly gaming, as they force decisions, which is sometimes needed with indecisive, detail-oriented players.

IGOUGO is bad game design. A game is meant to be fun and engage all players. The extreme IGOUGO in KoW is the antithesis of this. It may be a design philosophy, but that doesn't pardon it from being bad. During my opponents turn I could go make a cup of tea, read some news articles, hang the wasing out to dry, etc, as I am simply not needed to be there, for all intents and purposes the game is lacking in player interaction to a level they might as well be playing a solo game or a video game

This is why it is bad game design.

I used to really enjoy KoW, as I get older I find the extreme IGOUGO, and made with tournament crows in mind to be very off putting. I want games where all players have agency and the game has player interaction, and scope for narrative play.

As for claims that it is the most streamlined, and fastest mass combat system, hardly. Age of Fantasy Regiments has those titles.

Alternating Player Turns is not bad design because there is no interaction
this is intended by the design

interruption of the turn is bad designs

hence if you want more interaction, you don't have more interruptions but shorter turns

could be alternating phases instead of turns, or alternating unit activation, but it is still the same, as long as the active player is doing something, the passive player is doing nothing, everything else is bad design

you problem is simply that the downtime between turns is too long
but without a clock, this does not change, if you have alternating unit activation and your opponent needs 1 hour to act with each unit every time, the downtime is even longer than with alternating turns were the opponent makes his turn in 10 minutes

I understand that it is intentional... that doesn't mean it isn't bad game design.

The down time varies upon size of a game, it is also the sheer lack of player interaction. Hence my I could go and do something else while they play their turn, as I am not needed. Being not needed at a game is not a feature. I'm not in favour of interrupts, those are different to interactions. For example in WFB (I use this as people are more familiar with it), on a players turn the opponent did get to fight in melee, got to try to stop spells, had to check for leadership based checks... they were needed there on their opponents turn to play the game.

That is bad game design, we play miniature games to interact with people. KoW has gone too far into abstraction to remove that element, prime example of this is infantry with spears and pikes have to charge to fight in melee. Those are defensive weapons, they are meant to be used at receiving a charge, not charging into melee.

Here is much easier to get WHFB 6th, 7th or 8th edition than King of War games. There's a significant community of old editions of warhammer hanging around while I've never heard of anyone playing Kings of War.

WHFB 6th edition in particular was amazing for casual games.

but because it is alternating player turns, those are still bad designed games

 stonehorse wrote:
A game is meant to be fun and engage all players.

I personally find KOW to be a ton of fun and very engaging, and certainly more so than the alternating activation games I've played. While I've technically been more engaged during some alternating games, I wouldn't say I actually enjoy that level of intense nonstop rules-driven engagement. I'm fully able to stay engaged in a game of KOW without having to be rolling dice at all times or the one making decisions. What I appreciate about how KOW has approached player turns is that it doesn't pretend like the inactive player is actually doing something overly meaningful. Looking back on 20 years of playing Warhammer, I mostly see a lot of games where the active player shatters the reactive, with token resistance or extreme luck being all the reactive player can muster (unless the active player has overreached or is fishing themselves).

Soooo while I can objectively agree that alternating activation in game design is of a higher order than IGOUGO and certainly more modern, it's hard for me to swallow that it's a core choice that is so horrendous as to be 'bad' or a 'mistake.' Especially given the thousands of games that use it! You could use words like 'archaic' or 'boring' or 'not to my liking' or anything, but I just don't buy that it's 'bad design.' Bad design are the editions of WHFB and W40k and AOS that used IGOUGO and also didn't stop Turn 1 alpha strikes. Or used IGOUGO and didn't balance anything. Bad design is using IGOUGO and not addressing its shortcomings. I'm not of the opinion that KOW commits this sin. Despite using IGOUGO.

I certainly didn't expect that one day I'd be defending IGOUGO, such an obviously dated bit of game design

Aside: I feel like one of the more legit complaints against KOW is that as a whole the scenarios aren't great. Dynamic / progressive scoring is the way forward, especially for IGOUGO.

Why does IGOUGO or any particular mechanic have to be a "good" or "bad" thing? Why can't it simply be a mechanic that some prefer or dislike in a given games.

I have played dozens of wargames rulesets over the years and enjoyed games with a wide variety of activation mechanics including alternating, random, by-initiative (or similar stat), full IGOUGO, IGOUGO with opponent interaction required, Reaction systems, etc and I'm sure there are some I've forgotten.

Folks explaining their preferences and ideas about game design is great and makes for good discussion. However those saying one is fundamentally better (or worse) than the others would do well to get over themselves and realize just how broad the range of wargaming design objectives and philosophies are and how equally broad are the range of player preferences.

Sometimes in life, things are objectively good or bad, even when it comes to game design.

IGOUGO can be ok, if there is still player interaction. Again, KoW has gone too extreme (remember extremes are bad) with this and removed player interaction entirely.

Next time I play Kings of War, on my opponents turn I'll leave the room and only come back when they are finished. Me being there is not important, again... I could leave my opponent to play their turn and the game wouldn't suffer, my opponent could do the same and again the game wouldn't suffer.

Does that sound like good game design to you?

 stonehorse wrote:

Next time I play Kings of War, on my opponents turn I'll leave the room and only come back when they are finished. Me being there is not important, again... I could leave my opponent to play their turn and the game wouldn't suffer, my opponent could do the same and again the game wouldn't suffer.

Does that sound like good game design to you?

Lots of games have that, even computer games. To be honest I prefer that to the false interaction in a game like 40k where you are there to role saves and tell the opponent your rules…

your problem has nothing to do with IGUGO but waiting time between actions

but I guess you would be more happy if you were supposed to roll the nerve test instead of the active player and would need to declare charge reactions

than you have something to do in the opponent's actions no matter if this increase to overall length of the game

40k is hardly a prime example of a good game.

No, it is nothing to do with waiting times, it is the lack of player interaction. Again, IGOUGO with player interaction (charge reactions, attacks back, attempt at stopping spells, etc) make the game engaging and a back and forth between players.

Player interactions do not make increase a games overall length, not sure why you'd thank that if anything else speed up the game, as in melee both units get to attack.

 stonehorse wrote:
I understand that it is intentional... that doesn't mean it isn't bad game design.

The down time varies upon size of a game, it is also the sheer lack of player interaction. Hence my I could go and do something else while they play their turn, as I am not needed. Being not needed at a game is not a feature. I'm not in favour of interrupts, those are different to interactions. For example in WFB (I use this as people are more familiar with it), on a players turn the opponent did get to fight in melee, got to try to stop spells, had to check for leadership based checks... they were needed there on their opponents turn to play the game.

That is bad game design, we play miniature games to interact with people. KoW has gone too far into abstraction to remove that element, prime example of this is infantry with spears and pikes have to charge to fight in melee. Those are defensive weapons, they are meant to be used at receiving a charge, not charging into melee.

So pike blocks never advanced into combat? Phalanxes just stood there until someone charged them? What a silly argument.

Pike blocks and spears in KoW are generally used as in history, as the frontline you want to lock your opponent into while you flank their main line. Their rules reflect that they are a good defensive tool.
If the enemy does not oblige to charge into you and just stands in charge range, it probably means that they outshoot you, or are in control of objectives already, and your pike / spears will of course be forced to move and initiate the engagement. A "charge" can of course also simulate a phalanx moving forward to engage the enemy formation.

The "downtime" is generally 10-15 minutes per turn, where you double check measurements, answer questions about nerve, stats etc, plan some counters to their moves, and talk to your opponent. If you are so bored because you cannot roll dice for 10-15 minutes, maybe the problem is not really the ruleset?

 stonehorse wrote:
40k is hardly a prime example of a good game.

No, it is nothing to do with waiting times, it is the lack of player interaction. Again, IGOUGO with player interaction (charge reactions, attacks back, attempt at stopping spells, etc) make the game engaging and a back and forth between players.

than it is not IGoUGo any more

I make an action and finish it, than you make an action and finish it = IGoUGo, no matter how long this action is (can be a single action, a unit, a phase, a turn)
or
I make an action, you interrupt it, than you make your reaction, I interrupt it, make my counter reaction, you finish your reaction, than I finish my action = Action-Reaction System

IGoUGo is a design decision that a player finish his action before the opponent can do something
it has advantages and disadvantages

me personally, I hate it when my actions are interrupted and the opponent takes more time to think about his reaction, than I need for my action
while he thinks about of he should "stand", "shoot", or "flee", I can leave the room, make coffee, to the laundry and come back to see that he still does not know what he wants to do
very bad game design as I cannot even finish what I wanted to do during my turn and have to wait for the opponent to make my actions

I prefer IGoUGo over other systems, although Action-Reaction works very well for Magic the Gathering I just not like it for wargames

make Kings of War alternating Phases, instead of turns, or alternating units does not matter, as long as IGoUGo is still there to make sure that the passive player is doing nothing until the active player has finished his actions

this is the great advantage for me in KoW

 Illumini wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:
I understand that it is intentional... that doesn't mean it isn't bad game design.

The down time varies upon size of a game, it is also the sheer lack of player interaction. Hence my I could go and do something else while they play their turn, as I am not needed. Being not needed at a game is not a feature. I'm not in favour of interrupts, those are different to interactions. For example in WFB (I use this as people are more familiar with it), on a players turn the opponent did get to fight in melee, got to try to stop spells, had to check for leadership based checks... they were needed there on their opponents turn to play the game.

That is bad game design, we play miniature games to interact with people. KoW has gone too far into abstraction to remove that element, prime example of this is infantry with spears and pikes have to charge to fight in melee. Those are defensive weapons, they are meant to be used at receiving a charge, not charging into melee.

So pike blocks never advanced into combat? Phalanxes just stood there until someone charged them? What a silly argument.

Pike blocks and spears in KoW are generally used as in history, as the frontline you want to lock your opponent into while you flank their main line. Their rules reflect that they are a good defensive tool.
If the enemy does not oblige to charge into you and just stands in charge range, it probably means that they outshoot you, or are in control of objectives already, and your pike / spears will of course be forced to move and initiate the engagement. A "charge" can of course also simulate a phalanx moving forward to engage the enemy formation.

The "downtime" is generally 10-15 minutes per turn, where you double check measurements, answer questions about nerve, stats etc, plan some counters to their moves, and talk to your opponent. If you are so bored because you cannot roll dice for 10-15 minutes, maybe the problem is not really the ruleset?

Advance into combat is different to charging into combat. Hence why I didn't say advancing into combat. That being said the Pike is a defence weapon... as it is a spear that is over 8ft tall, it is unwieldy, and ill-suited at being a weapon used to assault. So, not really a silly argument, unless you can provide historical accounts of pikemen using their pikes in a charge against their foes?

Again for the umpteenth time now, it is the lack of player interaction. Why do I need to repeat myself so many times? I am more than capable of waiting thank you very much

 stonehorse wrote:
Sometimes in life, things are objectively good or bad, even when it comes to game design.

IGOUGO can be ok, if there is still player interaction. Again, KoW has gone too extreme (remember extremes are bad) with this and removed player interaction entirely.

Next time I play Kings of War, on my opponents turn I'll leave the room and only come back when they are finished. Me being there is not important, again... I could leave my opponent to play their turn and the game wouldn't suffer, my opponent could do the same and again the game wouldn't suffer.

Does that sound like good game design to you?

Maybe I just don't think it's a bad thing to have wait a bit?

I've never found the IGOUGO aspect of KOW to be a detriment to my enjoyment of the game. It's such a fast moving game that as long as your opponent is halfway competent turns are just not very long.

If turns of KOW took as long as WHFB perhaps you'd have a point but they don't.

Further, between letting my opponent know what their damage rolls need to be, recording damage, plotting my next moves and congratulating my opponent on good moves there just isn't allot of dead time.

Seems like what you think is "objectively bad" is actually "subjectively bad". And that's ok.

 stonehorse wrote:

Advance into combat is different to charging into combat. Hence why I didn't say advancing into combat. That being said the Pike is a defence weapon... as it is a spear that is over 8ft tall, it is unwieldy, and ill-suited at being a weapon used to assault. So, not really a silly argument, unless you can provide historical accounts of pikemen using their pikes in a charge against their foes

Off topic but go check out Alexander and The Foot Companions (his pike blocks with their Sarisa's). The absolutely closed with the enemy to fix them and allow combined arms attacks from other units.

I think the turn system of KoW is a feature and one they should not change, but it is also a reason why I do not like KoW in 28+mm.

I think any interaction they add will not be worth the cost in time.

Plus, I like that KoW takes IGOUGO to the extreme because it is such a different experience, and I like to switch games every now and then.

stonehorse wrote:Again for the umpteenth time now, it is the lack of player interaction. Why do I need to repeat myself so many times? I am more than capable of waiting thank you very much

You need to repeat yourself because you don't read. We understand that you want interaction. We understand that you don't like IGOUGO.
All we're saying is that you not liking it does not make it bad design. It's a design choice that has it's place (as in KoW) and isn't necessarily good or bad,
This thread now have many reasons why we (not YOU, we get it) like the extreme IGOUGO in KoW and like how the game is designed, Clearly we enjoy it.

Is it really so difficult to understand that other people might enjoy different things to you?

The_Real_Chris wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:

Advance into combat is different to charging into combat. Hence why I didn't say advancing into combat. That being said the Pike is a defence weapon... as it is a spear that is over 8ft tall, it is unwieldy, and ill-suited at being a weapon used to assault. So, not really a silly argument, unless you can provide historical accounts of pikemen using their pikes in a charge against their foes

Off topic but go check out Alexander and The Foot Companions (his pike blocks with their Sarisa's). The absolutely closed with the enemy to fix them and allow combined arms attacks from other units.

he is just thinking of a very short time frame, around the 30 years war were Pikes were only used to defend Musketiers against Cavalry (New Model Army) while in the centuries before that it was also a weapon for attack
(just with the problem that because of GW's use of that word, what most people in Wargaming understand as a Pike or Spear has nothing to do with the real weapon as in the different parts of the world even the same name was used for different weapons and tactics)

The_Real_Chris wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:

Advance into combat is different to charging into combat. Hence why I didn't say advancing into combat. That being said the Pike is a defence weapon... as it is a spear that is over 8ft tall, it is unwieldy, and ill-suited at being a weapon used to assault. So, not really a silly argument, unless you can provide historical accounts of pikemen using their pikes in a charge against their foes

Off topic but go check out Alexander and The Foot Companions (his pike blocks with their Sarisa's). The absolutely closed with the enemy to fix them and allow combined arms attacks from other units.

I think stonehorse is taking the "charge" action too literally, Pikes advancing at jogging speed, or even a walk into the enemy is still a "charge". Of course, they could have a special rule that their max charge range is shorter than other units, to account for the slower maximum pace, but IMO, that is very low on the list of improvements to KoW.

I also found a historic quote that mentions charging pikemen running head-long "like the Swiss do" :

Marshall of France Monluc, in his speech to the troops before the battle of Ceresole in 1544:

Gentlemen, it may be there are not many here who have ever been in a Battel before, and therefore let me tell you, that if we take our Pikes by the hinder end, and right at the length of the Pike, we shall be defeated; for the Germans are more dextrous at this kind of fight than we are: but you must take your Pikes by the middle as the Swisse do, and run head-long to force and penetrate into the midst of them, and you shall see how confounded they will be. Monsieur de Tais then cryed out to me to go along the Battail, and make them all handle their Pikes after this manner, which I accordingly did, and now we were all ready for the Encounter.

@Darkblack & @Illumini

So we're at that stage now, personal attacks, insinuating that I 1) don't read, and 2) have a short attention span/get bored easily.

Please note that in my criticism of KoW I never said someone is wrong to enjoy it, I didn't make any judgement of what someone should or shouldn't like/enjoy. I understand that people enjoy KoW, I used to be counted among that group. My criticism still remains valid, the game designers have made the game purposely devoid of player interaction... now, people are free to enjoy that and even seen that as plus. However it must be stressed that games are meant to be interactive, taking that away from a game does come across as bad game design.

Anyway, I'll take my leave now, thanks for the snide comments leveled against criticism I guess?

 stonehorse wrote:


Anyway, I'll take my leave now, thanks for the snide comments leveled against criticism I guess?

Don't be like that. Not all KoW players are reacting this way. Better to just ignore the personnal attacks, honestly.

I do agree with your statement about KoW fanboyz and about Mantic Games actually using the GW handbook for many things, even though their fans don't aknowledge that. It is important to remember Mantic Games was made by ex-GW employees who aren't especially ignorant of the usual marketing tricks. They also know they benefit a lot from that image of "not being like GW", though.

That's why I keep believing they're no better than GW.


Otherwise, I still appreciate KoW for what it is, even though we do have indeed the current GW game system cycle at work here. That you need less books to play everything doesn't change that fact.

I never saw IGOUGO systems especially better nor worst than alternate activation systems. They simply offer different game experiences : one more strategic and the other more tactical. In IGOUGO, you tend to work a plan at the army level since you play your whole army before your opponent do the same. In alternate activations system, you tend to react more to the level of "units" - you still have a plan, of course, but it's more likely you have to change it faster since your opponent can immediately play after you move one of your pawns on the board.

I agree waiting time is longer in IGOUGO systems. And I do recognize it's not especially fun in itself. However, I think the perception of this waiting time to be "lost time" really depends on how you look at the game itself. To me, a game is not just to be enjoyed by itself, it's also enjoying the company of others (which is why Jervis Johnson talked a lot about the "social contract of games"). When you wait for your turn, being "inactive" in game doesn't mean you're inactive as a person. Usually, that's when you chat with your opponent or check others things, and it's very practical for taking short breaks indeed. I don't see it necessarily as a bad thing for that reason.

I never used chess clock either. Besides, it's funny to note that chess game is a alternate activation game, not an IGOUGO system. You don't move all of your chess pieces before your opponent does, after all. I also think it's completely irrelevant to use chess clocks as justification for IGOUGO system. And it's not especially suited for tournaments as well, nor its organization.

What I do enjoy in KoW is its relative simplicity. Even though the 3rd edition adds a few more layers that I'm not really convinced were needed (the rule for double 1 on moral checks, seriously...it's there only to say they did something for the handful of players moaning about "randomness being in the way of player skills"), it's still fast to understand and play. In comparison to Warhammer Battle, that is. So I totally get the irony of the comic shown above as well.


That said, given the original post and the poster's background, I'd say he fills all the boxes for enjoying KoW - since it was, honestly, designed to be a simplified Warhammer Battle game, at the base.

Sarouan wrote:

That's why I keep believing they're no better than GW.

Mantic is trying to use the successful way of selling miniatures, as this is were the money is and copying GW for that but why I still think that Mantic is better than GW despite all that is going on, is because they play their own games

and as long as the head of the departments play the games the company is selling, there is a different attitude towards the community (and the games)

Sarouan wrote:

I never saw IGOUGO systems especially better nor worst than alternate activation systems

and this case, both are the same as both are IGoUGo, what Stonehorse wants (as far as I understand his posts) is more interaction between instead of alternating actions
so changing from alternating turns to alternating actions won't solve his problems as he misses the possibilities of interrupting the opponents actions for more player interactions

my problem here is just that not being able to do that is not bad game design because I hate those things in wargames up to a point (stopping in the middle of my movement because I trigger a reaction, counterspell, whatever, resolve this and than continue moving is what I call bad design)

Mantic is trying to use the successful way of selling miniatures, as this is were the money is and copying GW for that but why I still think that Mantic is better than GW despite all that is going on, is because they play their own games

and as long as the head of the departments play the games the company is selling, there is a different attitude towards the community (and the games)

I get what you're saying. I'm not sure all the heads at Mantic Games HQ do currently play all their games to the needed amount of time as to understand why some people may criticize some of their game aspects, though. After all, they have their own work to do outside of games.

As the attitude...it depends. The way they handled the KoW campaign recently ended was a bit...I don't know, it was weird to me that it ended so quickly. I actually forgot it was launched, TBH. It felt a bit like they did hype about it a few months earlier only to give birth to a midget. Oh well.

But it's true we have them coming on fan pages so it gives the feeling they are close to us.

and this case, both are the same as both are IGoUGo, what Stonehorse wants (as far as I understand his posts) is more interaction between instead of alternating actions
so changing from alternating turns to alternating actions won't solve his problems as he misses the possibilities of interrupting the opponents actions for more player interactions

Ah, my bad, you're right. TBH, I associate the lack of interaction in game as being "inactive in game".

I also believe that putting more interactions in game would also interfere with the simple aspect of the rules, since you'll obviously enter into more special cases that need to be clear. Which would go directly against one of KoW's main points, IMHO.

my problem here is just that not being able to do that is not bad game design because I hate those things in wargames up to a point (stopping in the middle of my movement because I trigger a reaction, counterspell, whatever, resolve this and than continue moving is what I call bad design)

Exactly. It tends to take more time as well, moreover (more pauses needed to give enough time to your opponent to react properly). And not even talking about the headache afterwards !

I am really not sure about the immense dislike for IGOUGO based games, as most games are like this.

Do you get up and leave the table when playing Chess during your opponent's turn, or sit there contemplating what you will do, if he/she does this or that?

Chopped your Quote into 2 sections...

Sarouan wrote:


1 Otherwise, I still appreciate KoW for what it is, even though we do have indeed the current GW game system cycle at work here. That you need less books to play everything doesn't change that fact.


2 [b]I agree waiting time is longer in IGOUGO systems. And I do recognize it's not especially fun in itself. However, I think the perception of this waiting time to be "lost time" really depends on how you look at the game itself. To me, a game is not just to be enjoyed by itself, it's also enjoying the company of others (which is why Jervis Johnson talked a lot about the "social contract of games"). When you wait for your turn, being "inactive" in game doesn't mean you're inactive as a person. Usually, that's when you chat with your opponent or check others things, and it's very practical for taking short breaks indeed. I don't see it necessarily as a bad thing for that reason.


What I do enjoy in KoW is its relative simplicity.

I disagree a bit with the first one. Yes, a new edition every 4 years is the same thing that GW does, however, I don't think you can call it the GW system when the books cost half as much and you only need 2 books for the rules and ALL the armies. In fact if I'm spending less than $75 bucks on books each time I'd actually prefer a new edition every 4 years if it results in good tweaks, updates, clarifications, etc.

Your second point is perhaps the most important and one I agree with wholeheartedly. The social aspect of gaming is paramount for me. Down time in KOW isn't down time. It's a chance to chat, encourage your opponent, snack, bathroom and scheme your next move. When you're moving an entire army, time to scheme/strategize is quite useful and as has been mentioned so many times KOW's simplicity leads to turns that just aren't that long.

Sarouan wrote:

Mantic is trying to use the successful way of selling miniatures, as this is were the money is and copying GW for that but why I still think that Mantic is better than GW despite all that is going on, is because they play their own games

and as long as the head of the departments play the games the company is selling, there is a different attitude towards the community (and the games)

I get what you're saying. I'm not sure all the heads at Mantic Games HQ do currently play all their games to the needed amount of time as to understand why some people may criticize some of their game aspects, though. After all, they have their own work to do outside of games.

As the attitude...it depends. The way they handled the KoW campaign recently ended was a bit...I don't know, it was weird to me that it ended so quickly. I actually forgot it was launched, TBH. It felt a bit like they did hype about it a few months earlier only to give birth to a midget. Oh well.

But it's true we have them coming on fan pages so it gives the feeling they are close to us.

if they play enough is a different story, but having the CEO playing live against the Head of PR on Youtube (or the CEO building the new model kit) shows that they at least know what the game is about (and how it plays) that they are trying to sell

I'd argue that IGOUGO is actually the fresh mechanic in 2021, we've had what, 10 years now for sure, of every single indy game and most GW side games being AA? I enjoy being able to execute a coherent battleplan, and I enjoy not having to wait for my opponent to rethink theirs n times each round, where n is the number of their surviving units.

I think the issue of IGOUGO is more in a game where each turn can output such a decisive decision and going first is just a random roll. I think a lot of this is more if it only takes a turn or so to jump on a bunch of objectives or stupid shooting lists that can wipe out one third of your army before you can even do anything. If the killing power of the game (extreme shooting and movement) can be toned down for a turn or two then it's not so bad.

Yeah, IGOUGO works best in games based around melee with only limited shooting. Otherwise first turn advantage is too large. Or maybe you could have shooting be simultaneous? Probably a way to design around it.
That's why I prefer Alternating Activation.

Alpha strike isn't an issue in games with functional terrain rules. That's why it's only been a problem in 40k from 5th edition on

AA brings its own slew of problems, one being the incentive to completely ignore activated units no matter how vulnerable, in favour of blasting the biggest thing that hasn't activated yet.

One solution to both is resolving all damage at end of round, but bookkeeping is annoying.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Anyway KoW has none of these problems and in fact shooty armies tend to want to go second so the enemy walks into 24" range.

 Da Boss wrote:
Yeah, IGOUGO works best in games based around melee with only limited shooting. Otherwise first turn advantage is too large. Or maybe you could have shooting be simultaneous? Probably a way to design around it.
That's why I prefer Alternating Activation.

EDIT : my suggestion to use alternate activations was bad, so I removed it. KoW actually needs to be reworked a bit more for it to function properly.

 stonehorse wrote:
Never in all my 10 years playing Kings of War has anyone ever suggested using chess clocks. That part of the rules is very much a gimmick that was tacked on as an after thought. Using it as a reason why the game has to remain IGOUGO doesn't carry water.

Actually we were using chess clocks at the early invitation only playtest events. The fact that Alessio is a big fan of chess might give you a window into his thinking.

I will chime in here --- KoW is a light game, and I find it enjoyable. With a basic magic system, it is not highly unbalanced and the spells / items add flavor to the game.

I enjoy KoW much more than I ever did WFB, and I am a fan of Rank & Flank systems.

You will find the issues described by others to be a factor, but no where near as disappointing / frustrating as 40K.

If you have a few opponents who will jump into it with you, proxy some cards as units and throw some terrain down and give it a go. I think you may be refreshed.

KoW is reasonably balanced, but it really IMO completely lacks the flavor of WHFB. And somehow I think it loses the general flavor of most ranked infantry table top games too. The game mechanics just don't feel like you're smashing units of soldiers together in melee combat.

KoW just comes across as the plain oatmeal of wargames. Its balanced, but at the cost of any type of flavor or enjoy-ability IMO.

 Grey Templar wrote:
KoW is reasonably balanced, but it really IMO completely lacks the flavor of WHFB. And somehow I think it loses the general flavor of most ranked infantry table top games too. The game mechanics just don't feel like you're smashing units of soldiers together in melee combat.

KoW just comes across as the plain oatmeal of wargames. Its balanced, but at the cost of any type of flavor or enjoy-ability IMO.

I'd agree with that. My experiences with KoW is you can change the measurements and play it with cardboard unit chits on graph (or hex) paper and not lose anything.
Which IMO is a bad thing for a miniatures game.

While Warhammer places way too much emphasis on the (multiple) attacks of each individual model, KoW makes everything below the unit level almost completely irrelevant. (or made, I admittedly haven't kept up with the edition churn)

Voss wrote:

While Warhammer places way too much emphasis on the (multiple) attacks of each individual model, KoW makes everything below the unit level almost completely irrelevant. (or made, I admittedly haven't kept up with the edition churn)

Well, it is a R&F game so I don't expect anything but the unit (and command) to matter

Warhammer had this nice mix between Skirmish and R&F (but depending on Editions was more a Mass Skirmish with Formations rather than an R&F game like 8th, were 6th was R&F with Skirmish elements) and Action/Reaction based system

No problem if someone does not like this and want something with more focus on the individual model, but KoW is a Rank & File Wargame with IGoUGo and is doing what you expect from one and never pretended to be something else (like a Mass Skirmish Miniature game with R&F elements)

It is a bit unfair to blame the game not doing what it never said it will

 Grey Templar wrote:
KoW is reasonably balanced, but it really IMO completely lacks the flavor of WHFB. And somehow I think it loses the general flavor of most ranked infantry table top games too. The game mechanics just don't feel like you're smashing units of soldiers together in melee combat.

KoW just comes across as the plain oatmeal of wargames. Its balanced, but at the cost of any type of flavor or enjoy-ability IMO.

It was true for the first edition and in a less way for the second. But things are changing slowly for the 3rd...and we already see the impact on balance.

Some players still don't understand that balance gets always in the way of flavor. You also see that phenomenom with AoS 3.0 : less options for better balance (less command traits, less artifacts, less special rules for the "free" lesser factions, and so on).

Warhammer Battle was unbalanced...and that's why it was so rich.

Depends what are your priorities with the game, in the end.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Voss wrote:

While Warhammer places way too much emphasis on the (multiple) attacks of each individual model, KoW makes everything below the unit level almost completely irrelevant. (or made, I admittedly haven't kept up with the edition churn)

 kodos wrote:

Voss wrote:

While Warhammer places way too much emphasis on the (multiple) attacks of each individual model, KoW makes everything below the unit level almost completely irrelevant. (or made, I admittedly haven't kept up with the edition churn)

Well, it is a R&F game so I don't expect anything but the unit (and command) to matter

Warhammer had this nice mix between Skirmish and R&F (but depending on Editions was more a Mass Skirmish with Formations rather than an R&F game like 8th, were 6th was R&F with Skirmish elements) and Action/Reaction based system

No problem if someone does not like this and want something with more focus on the individual model, but KoW is a Rank & File Wargame with IGoUGo and is doing what you expect from one and never pretended to be something else (like a Mass Skirmish Miniature game with R&F elements)

It is a bit unfair to blame the game not doing what it never said it will

Sorry, but Kings of War is not a Rank & File game. Where in the rules does it go in to detail about how Ranks work, how enemy units can deny Ranks?

Kings of War is a Block & Flank game, units have an inflexible footprint and gain attacks from attacking enemy units in the Flank/Rear.

Warhammer fantasy battles, Oathmark, A Song of Ice and Fire, Age of Fantasy Regiments, etc are examples of a Rank & File game.

Sarouan wrote:

It was true for the first edition and in a less way for the second. But things are changing slowly for the 3rd...and we already see the impact on balance.

Some players still don't understand that balance gets always in the way of flavor. You also see that phenomenom with AoS 3.0 : less options for better balance (less command traits, less artifacts, less special rules for the "free" lesser factions, and so on).

Warhammer Battle was unbalanced...and that's why it was so rich.

Depends what are your priorities with the game, in the end.

Very true, balance is good if the end goal is a game that is geared up for Tournament/competitive play.

For narrative and casual play balance is less important as the aim is not about winning. The big issue is when plays bring a competitive mindset over to a narrative game... that usually ends badly.

 stonehorse wrote:

Sorry, but Kings of War is not a Rank & File game. Where in the rules does it go in to detail about how Ranks work, how enemy units can deny Ranks?

Kings of War is a Block & Flank game, units have an inflexible footprint and gain attacks from attacking enemy units in the Flank/Rear.

Rank&File is the name/specific term for that block were the soldiers move/act with a specific formation unlike a Horde

the term is used for games were the R&F unit is the basic element on the table (and Skirmish were the basic element is the single model)

You don't need mechanics for Ranks to have an R&F game, and I have never read the term "Block and Flank" for any game, and the majority of historical non-skirmish would be those by your definition

Pretty sure real life rank and file battles did not have rules for denying ranks either.

 kodos wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:

Sorry, but Kings of War is not a Rank & File game. Where in the rules does it go in to detail about how Ranks work, how enemy units can deny Ranks?

Kings of War is a Block & Flank game, units have an inflexible footprint and gain attacks from attacking enemy units in the Flank/Rear.

Rank&File is the name/specific term for that block were the soldiers move/act with a specific formation unlike a Horde

the term is used for games were the R&F unit is the basic element on the table (and Skirmish were the basic element is the single model)

You don't need mechanics for Ranks to have an R&F game, and I have never read the term "Block and Flank" for any game, and the majority of historical non-skirmish would be those by your definition

Block and Flank is more accurate to how those games and Kings of War play. Some have units comprised of several stands, which add to the unit and are removed as the unit takes damage and thus reduce its combat effectiveness. That comes close to Rank & File.

I understand why the terminology is used, I am merely pointing out how it is incorrect.

Edit, I gave several examples of games that fit the description more accurately, as they have rules for ranks, whether that be by adding more attacks, or making it easier to hit the enemy unit or adding to the overall combat score. So there should be a separation of thise games that have rules for Rank & File, and those that while have units in blocks that are similar have no rules for ranks. Some of the multibased units in Kings of War look very close to a horde it must be said.

lord_blackfang 798665 11237578
22c911076cab533e6705251b886057a7.jpg wrote:

Pretty sure real life rank and file battles did not have rules for denying ranks either.

OK...

While no rules as such (because real life doesn't have rules, shock horror), ranks gave units a big advantage in both morale and combat effectiveness over those who didn't.

There are ranks and files in KoW, though. They're just not following the same rules than other games like Warhammer Battle...but the way the miniatures are set in units depending of their type are following ranks and files.

Even if some players do like to use the "minimum" number of miniatures and put them somewhat loose on the unit footprint instead, the intent behind KoW's design is still using ranks and files. That's also why the profile of the units are different depending on their size; and why units with a larger front do have more attacks while the difference between troops and regiments (that have the same front size, in the end) isn't that big in comparison.

Having more attacks when you charge a unit on its flank or behind is the translation in rules for KoW to represent the disorganization amongst enemy ranks. Granted, it's more random than fixed bonuses like Warhammer Battle, but that's the reason why this rule exists.

taking it serious and breaking it down:

Infantry Troops have X Attack and Y Health-Points/Moral (aka Nerf) and represent Soldiers in 2 Ranks

Regiments represent the same Soldiers in 4 Ranks, hence the Attacks are similar with a slight increase to represent supporting attacks, but their Nerf/Moral increases to represent the Bonus of the additional Ranks

Hordes double the attacks because they don't increase Ranks but double Files and increased Nerf to represent the extra bodies

Flanking charges getting a Bonus represents that the Bonus for extra Ranks is broken in addition to the caused disorder
But instead of adding a rule "If an enemy charges in the flank or rare the unit uses the Nerf of Troops instead of the value of their current unit type and Troops half the Nerf value" increasing the Attacks is the more simple solution for a similar result

PS: and there are not many R&F games that remove actual models/bases as casualties and those that do are usually a variation of Warhammer
decreasing moral and/or fighting power instead of removing models is the most common mechanic for R&F games in the historical sector and no one is really breaking with that as it makes no sense

like a Napoleonic Bataillone represents 600-1000 Soldiers and is the smallest tactical element in an R&F game, historical battles with ~20% casualties were seen as the bloodiest and less than 10% was normal

So having a unit of 24 Models, each one represents 30 Soldiers and with 10-20% casualties the unit is broken and flees, this means removing 2-5 models out of 24 before the whole unit is destroyed
this does not change the fighting power of the unit and also does not help to distinguish undamaged from damaged units as 18 models could be as well an under strength unit that is still on full health
and with most people put 4-8 models on a single base, you remove 1 base out of 6 before the whole unit is removed

this is way too much hassle for no benefit


Yes the examples are fine, but those games also represents different scales because as soon as the single model is important your are going down to a 1 model = 1 soldiers Skirmish game mechanic
and for that, those games have a much better immersion than wargames with a larger scale

there are also Napoleonics with model removal and single model mechanics, but than the army on the table is a single Company (or less) and each unit a platoon instead of a Bataillone (and the Army on the table a Division)

Sarouan wrote:

It's funny because I saw that argument with Warhammer Battle too. The argument was that models part of a unit were ultimately just token to remove when the unit gets losses and you could replace them with cardboard.

Well yeah. In a wargame, miniatures are ultimately just token for the rules.

You (and Kodos) are misunderstanding me. KoW doesn't treat miniatures as tokens. It treats the unit size as a single token. (Troop, Regiment, Horde<Legion). All you need is a note about that on a chit and maybe a relative size on the paper/table/play surface, as nothing ever violates the outer edge of a unit's borders. There are no formations, just static rectangles based on size and type. As far as the game is written, the rectangles are all you need.

I'm not saying its a bad game, but the rank and file aspect absolutely does not matter. A unit is X by Y, and the Y only matters for determining whether an enemy is over the line for a flank charge rather than a front or rear charge (because bigger units have a longer flank).

Damage never affect models, its only a counter for when the unit vanishes. There is no token aspect to the minis.

The reason why we use miniatures is for another reason than the rules, in fact : for the visual, for the pleasure to use our miniatures built and painted with love...

I'd believe that if I'd met more people (for any game, completely system agnostic here) that actually painted their models.>

Some of you, particularly stonehorse, might find the rules for Gods of Battle by Foundry interesting.

Yes it has a suspiciously similar name because Jake Thornton originally wrote it to pitch for KoW but Alessio’s rules were preferred.

Alternate activation. Individual model removal (impacts attacks once you drop a certain number). Light units on round bases move like skirmishers, heavy units on square bases, and some round-based units that are kinda heavy (important for combat resolution). Has control zones, so you can’t just prance around right in front of an enemy ranked unit. Unit profiles are similarly simplistic to KoW, but each race has it’s own magic and items.

Voss wrote:

You (and Kodos) are misunderstanding me. KoW doesn't treat miniatures as tokens. It treats the unit size as a single token. (Troop, Regiment, Horde<Legion). All you need is a note about that on a chit and maybe a relative size on the paper/table/play surface, as nothing ever violates the outer edge of a unit's borders. There are no formations, just static rectangles based on size and type. As far as the game is written, the rectangles are all you need

This I understand very well and it has to do with the scale of the game and what the unit represent

Looking again at Napoleonic (as there are the military terms most people know), a unit being a Platoon of Company you may have single models but not really changes formation

A unit being a Bataillon, no single models needed, but change of formation is, so more bases per unit are useful

And a unit being a Brigade or Division, no need for single models or bases as you don't remove models or change formation


And this is were immersion comes into play, a game with single models in units telling you that each unit are hundreds or thousands of soldiers and you have a whole Army on the table gets into trouble if the single model matters, the single hero breaking units, and change of formations can be done on the move
(a unit of hundreds won't turn 180° and charge in one go, a unit of 20 on the other hand might)

So a game like SAGA, AoF, Oathmark telling me that this 1:1 is realistic/immersive, those telling me they are 1:10/20/100 is not

KoW saying that those are armies fighting is realistic as the influence of single models/heroes or how units act is realistic for a larger scale
If the game would tell me 1 model is 1 soldier, I would say it is stupid and the rules do a bad job

PS: all those games can be played with a sheet of paper or wooden tokens, you don't need models for any game out there

Voss wrote:

I'm not saying its a bad game, but the rank and file aspect absolutely does not matter. A unit is X by Y, and the Y only matters for determining whether an enemy is over the line for a flank charge rather than a front or rear charge (because bigger units have a longer flank).

Damage never affect models, its only a counter for when the unit vanishes. There is no token aspect to the minis.

And the only time any of that crap mattered in WHFB in actual play was when you had 3 dudes left who randomly aced a dozen Ld checks in a row and you used them to magically trip up an entire enemy regiment. Let's not pretend you saw anything other than the optimal size/shape for each unit in an attempt to make KoW look like the lesser game.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

Voss wrote:

I'm not saying its a bad game, but the rank and file aspect absolutely does not matter. A unit is X by Y, and the Y only matters for determining whether an enemy is over the line for a flank charge rather than a front or rear charge (because bigger units have a longer flank).

Damage never affect models, its only a counter for when the unit vanishes. There is no token aspect to the minis.

And the only time any of that crap mattered in WHFB in actual play was when you had 3 dudes left who randomly aced a dozen Ld checks in a row and you used them to magically trip up an entire enemy regiment. Let's not pretend you saw anything other than the optimal size/shape for each unit in an attempt to make KoW look like the lesser game.

In Warhammer each dude contributes attacks, so he feels like an actual part of the game. Not just a wound token, but also attacks and stuff. Plus while there might have been optimal unit widths and such, you were never limited by those. You could actually make your units wider/narrower as you wanted. KoW is just so pigeonholed.

If I had a unit of dudes I could make them super wide to maximize my attacks or I could make them narrower to increase ranks. The ability to change your ranks is great, and honestly an important part of a massed infantry battle from a historical perspective. Losing that loses a lot of immersion for a game, even if its not necessarily balanced.

And just for an example, I would run my ogres both in units that were 3 wide, 4 wide, and 6 wide sometimes. Depended on what army composition I was running. I liked the Empire's old detachment system(even it was a little mind bending to understand).

KoW is absolutely a lesser game when it comes to flavor. Balanced gameplay is nice, and important, but not at the total expense of flavor and character.

 Grey Templar wrote:
The ability to change your ranks is great, and honestly an important part of a massed infantry battle from a historical perspective. Losing that loses a lot of immersion for a game, even if its not necessarily balanced.

yeah, but not on a "per unit" level for armies, this is the reason why you play with large formations in most historical games, because they single unit did not change most of the time

a unit that changes from 7 wide and 3 deep for the best attack formation, to 5 wide and 4 deep for better defence, has no historical background, not if you think about army scale

unit formations stayed in their optimal formation most of the time, only light Infantry or Cavalry was to change more often, on Platoon/Company level if fighting within a larger army formation


if those are small engagments with 1 model being 1 soldier and you are re-fighting small skirmishes of 100 soldiers, than it is more realistic, if this is supposed to be an army of a 1000 or more, not really

this is not 1 game being better than the other, but 1 game is based on a very differnt scale than the other
Warhammer is not a realistic/historical army level game, same as SAGA is not.
But for small skirmishes between Squads/Platoons, it works very well were KoW is bad at bringing the Squads/Platoon Level on the table but works well for Company/Battalion level

PS: and in 20 years of Warhammer, with my fair share of competitive games, I haven't seen a lot of people changing formations outside for those units were it was "free" on the move

I guess a dozen pages of rules bloat about formations that nobody actually used in practice and wasn't even used much in real life is not my idea of realistic and immersive.

Someone gonna bring up lapping around next?

Saying that either KoW or WHFB are realistic is a joke. There's a lot of ways to compare the two, but if you're looking for realism, you're in the wrong genre to begin with and if you want some measure of "realistic" Battalion level combat in a fantasy setting it's time to switch to a smaller scale and a different ruleset.

These are fun fantasy wargames with little connection to "reality" and that's as it should be.

All that said, WHFB is of course the clear winner when it comes to flavor, simply based on the number of stats and special rules each unit has and other ways in which one can customize each unit. If one desires a near-RPG level of flavor for their fantasy rules it's hard to beat WHFB.

KoW, on the other hand is (IMHO) the winner when it comes to time-required to play and streamlined gameplay. it has enough flavor to differentiate between units, but clearly favors abstractions aimed speeding up gameplay and limiting complexity and rule-stacking.

For the record I really don't think there is necessarily a "right" or "wrong choice. For my personal preferences, and the fact that it is currently in production, I'd definitely steer a new gamer or former WHFB player to KoW with no reservations.
As has been clearly shown, fans of certain aspects of WHFB will not be satisfied with KoW but that is neither wrong nor unexpected.

Voss wrote:


I'd agree with that. My experiences with KoW is you can change the measurements and play it with cardboard unit chits on graph (or hex) paper and not lose anything.
Which IMO is a bad thing for a miniatures game.

Having literally done EXACTLY that whilst playing Warhammer back in the day, when we couldn’t always afford armies, I can assure you that is it entirely possible to do the same with WHFB. That is no way a knock on a set of rules in and of itself.

Valete,

JohnS

 Baragash wrote:
Some of you, particularly stonehorse, might find the rules for Gods of Battle by Foundry interesting.

Yes it has a suspiciously similar name because Jake Thornton originally wrote it to pitch for KoW but Alessio’s rules were preferred.

Alternate activation. Individual model removal (impacts attacks once you drop a certain number). Light units on round bases move like skirmishers, heavy units on square bases, and some round-based units that are kinda heavy (important for combat resolution). Has control zones, so you can’t just prance around right in front of an enemy ranked unit. Unit profiles are similarly simplistic to KoW, but each race has it’s own magic and items.

Cheers, will check it out.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

Voss wrote:

I'm not saying its a bad game, but the rank and file aspect absolutely does not matter. A unit is X by Y, and the Y only matters for determining whether an enemy is over the line for a flank charge rather than a front or rear charge (because bigger units have a longer flank).

Damage never affect models, its only a counter for when the unit vanishes. There is no token aspect to the minis.

And the only time any of that crap mattered in WHFB in actual play was when you had 3 dudes left who randomly aced a dozen Ld checks in a row and you used them to magically trip up an entire enemy regiment. Let's not pretend you saw anything other than the optimal size/shape for each unit in an attempt to make KoW look like the lesser game.

When I played WFB my units would change formation all the time. The flexibility was a great thing, it gave me options on how my units could respond to enemy units. Either to maximise my attacks, or to give the enemy unit less options to attack. Also it was handy to get the most out of terrain. Sadly in KoW units are inflexible blocks that can not change. For example sit a Troop/Regiment in-between 2 pieces of terrain and back a bit, a Horde can not charge it. In WFB that horde could reform to be able to charge in.

 kodos wrote:


PS: and there are not many R&F games that remove actual models/bases as casualties and those that do are usually a variation of Warhammer
decreasing moral and/or fighting power instead of removing models is the most common mechanic for R&F games in the historical sector and no one is really breaking with that as it makes no sense

Erm...

I listed several games that do remive models and are rank and file, and are nothing like Warhammer.

Oathmark, uses a D10, capped at 5, forces can be mixed races, alternative activation, leaders command units to activate.

So to you that is a variation of warhammer?

Age of Fantasy Regiments, alternative activations, units only have 2 stats.

So to you that is a variation of warhammer?

A Song of Ice and Fire, alternative activations, had non combat characters, a tactics board to represent the political world, forces have a faction deck of cards.

So to you that is a variation of warhammer?

Why the hang up with historical games, aren't these meant to be fantasy games? Realism for weapons, sure. A fantasy set of rules were swords acted like crossbows, and shields acted like spears, would be daft. So asking for weapon realisim in a fantasy game is fine.

well, for weapons working like the did in real life, not really possible without being too complicated outside Skirmishers and not something we have seen Warhammer at all
I mean Spears or Helbards made frontal charges for cavalry impossible not just being hard to win or taking damage but yet there is no effect at all for those weapons against Cavalry in Warhammer, no Phalanx, no ignoring armour etc., they work the same against infantry and cavalry
pure fantasy inside a fantasy world to get the game going and than people take how the rules in Warhammer make a weapon work and think this is how it worked in real life and therefore need to work that way in other games as well (like something very simple as knights with full plate used shields, which is fantasy as it was either plate armour or lighter armour+shield)

 stonehorse wrote:

Erm...

as the other definition brought up here would be "true Rank and File game" if they have rules for Ranks and Files, compared to others with R&F games without rules for changing ranks and files

Yes, those games with Rank&Files as in "base to base formations" or fixed units, with single model mechanics and a 1:1 scale of model to soldier (aka Skirmish Game) would be "a Warhammer like game" (as they fill the same niche Mass-Skirmish with R&F Elements)

were as a game with single models mechanics and 1:1 scale but no formations or fixed units is a Mass-Skirmish game (SAGA, 40k, AoS)

and than there are those without single model mechanics but R&F formations, that have an abstract scale (as the unit on the table is not 1:1 to real life formation but something larger)

you can also change the terms as the others are "Miniature Games" and the rest are "Wargames" but just because the rules are different does not make it another genre if the games want to serve the same niche/spot

 kodos wrote:
well, for weapons working like the did in real life, not really possible without being too complicated outside Skirmishers and not something we have seen Warhammer at all
I mean Spears or Helbards made frontal charges for cavalry impossible not just being hard to win or taking damage but yet there is no effect at all for those weapons against Cavalry in Warhammer, no Phalanx, no ignoring armour etc., they work the same against infantry and cavalry
pure fantasy inside a fantasy world to get the game going and than people take how the rules in Warhammer make a weapon work and think this is how it worked in real life and therefore need to work that way in other games as well (like something very simple as knights with full plate used shields, which is fantasy as it was either plate armour or lighter armour+shield)

 stonehorse wrote:

Erm...

as the other definition brought up here would be "true Rank and File game" if they have rules for Ranks and Files, compared to others with R&F games without rules for changing ranks and files

Yes, those games with Rank&Files as in "base to base formations" or fixed units, with single model mechanics and a 1:1 scale of model to soldier (aka Skirmish Game) would be "a Warhammer like game" (as they fill the same niche Mass-Skirmish with R&F Elements)

were as a game with single models mechanics and 1:1 scale but no formations or fixed units is a Mass-Skirmish game (SAGA, 40k, AoS)

and than there are those without single model mechanics but R&F formations, that have an abstract scale (as the unit on the table is not 1:1 to real life formation but something larger)

you can also change the terms as the others are "Miniature Games" and the rest are "Wargames" but just because the rules are different does not make it another genre if the games want to serve the same niche/spot

In fantasy games the unit charging a unit of spearmen might not always be Human on horseback. Spears will be a great counter to Humans on horse back, but against say big hulking thick scale covered lizards who don't feel pain riding equally hulking lizards who don't feel pain and have a lust for blood, the spear isn't always going to work... same if the charging unit is Undead, demonic, etc.it is fantasy, not historical.

So in that case a compromise has to be made around what roles weapons have, hence a spear which is a defensive weapon for infantry gets certain bonuses against charging units (Age of Fantasy: Regiments does this well. A unit charging the front of a unit of spears has to take a number of dangerous terrain tests, any failed cause a wound, and the charging unit loses any charge effects). One weapon that is always done wrong is the Halberd, as that weapon is multipurpose, so tends to be more difficult to find a good compromise.

So you think Warhammer Fantasy Battles, Oathmark, Age of Fantasy Regiments, and A Song of Ice and Fire are all Mass Skirmish game that pretend to be Rank & File games.

How exactly?

Regarding the rest of your comment, what are you on about? Can't recall talking about changing the terms to "Miniature Games" or "Wargames", think you may have me confused with someone else there?

 lord_blackfang wrote:

Voss wrote:

I'm not saying its a bad game, but the rank and file aspect absolutely does not matter. A unit is X by Y, and the Y only matters for determining whether an enemy is over the line for a flank charge rather than a front or rear charge (because bigger units have a longer flank).

Damage never affect models, its only a counter for when the unit vanishes. There is no token aspect to the minis.

And the only time any of that crap mattered in WHFB in actual play was when you had 3 dudes left who randomly aced a dozen Ld checks in a row and you used them to magically trip up an entire enemy regiment. Let's not pretend you saw anything other than the optimal size/shape for each unit in an attempt to make KoW look like the lesser game.

I don't need to pretend- I absolutely saw that.
I started fantasy in 3rd, when there were different formations (turtle, lance, shieldwall, etc, etc, etc). In other editions skirmisher units were godly for their shenanigans. In others, four wide was the minimum, but it was useful to use wider formations depending on what you were fielding.

In all of them, flanking mattered, and it matter what you were flanking. Flanking gobbos was basically an autowin, flanking chaos warriors was a still a dangerous fight. I remember terrifying people (well, some people) with 30 blocks of witch elves, who didn't know how to handle that many attacks (and at the time it was a lot of attacks). It would slaughter nurgle chaos warriors, but against other elf armies it was easy to pick apart with shooting.

----
Also: I'm trying to answer the OP's question which is specifically KoW in reference/comparison to Warhammer. That you added on the weird bit about 'trying to make KoW look like lesser game' is very strange and needlessly, pointlessly defensive, particularly since you literally quoted me saying 'its not a bad game'

So the post you just made isn't meant to imply flanking doesn't matter in KoW? And if not, why bring it up?

I think he means flanking is nuanced in Warhammer, its not in KoW. In KoW its basically autowin. In warhammer it depends. Its good, but a heavily damaged or small unit on a flank isn't necessarily going to win a flank on its own.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I think he means flanking is nuanced in Warhammer, its not in KoW. In KoW its basically autowin. In warhammer it depends. Its good, but a heavily damaged or small unit on a flank isn't necessarily going to win a flank on its own.

Exactly this, hence the flanking gobbos vs chaos warriors.
I'll bring some more eggshells to walk on next time.

Does KoW flanking lack nuance because it also works against small units?

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Does KoW flanking lack nuance because it also works against small units?

All combat in KoW lacks nuance as the enemy doesn't retaliate, so there is no risk/reward to factor in.

In WFB flanking Chaos Warriors wasn't a guaranteed victory as they had fantastic stats and armour. So even flanking a unit could result in the few Chaos Warriors who could fight back, doing enough damage to win the combat.

Flanking a unit in historical games is a way to mop up the unit, however as I have said before fantasy isn't always human vs human. Sometimes the things being attacked are not as easy to deal with... Chaos Warriors being one of the prime candidates.

In WFB it wasn't a case of charge in and win, because the enemy unit could strike back. It made combat exciting. In KoW this element is missing.

stonehorse wrote:
All combat in KoW lacks nuance as the enemy doesn't retaliate, so there is no risk/reward to factor in.

That's not really true though.
There is retaliation, it is just done over more than one player turn. Even if you kill a unit in one charge, where the victorious unit ends up is a concern.
Which a small amount of planning (i.e.because the game has depth) a unit that routs one of your units can be in trouble because of your other units threatening that position.

 DarkBlack wrote:

stonehorse wrote:
All combat in KoW lacks nuance as the enemy doesn't retaliate, so there is no risk/reward to factor in.

That's not really true though.
There is retaliation, it is just done over more than one player turn. Even if you kill a unit in one charge, where the victorious unit ends up is a concern.
Which a small amount of planning (i.e.because the game has depth) a unit that routs one of your units can be in trouble because of your other units threatening that position.

That isn't retaliation, and you know that. If you think enemy units activating on their turn to charge a unit is is same as the retaliation talked about above (units attacking back in the same turn which could alter who wins the combat, and ultimately decide who has to take some form of a test) then I honestly don't know what to say to you.

Edit.
In KoW only the unit being charged maybe routed, there is no way way for the charging unit to be routed. In WFB and a while load of other games, there is potential that either unit could be routed.

That is why KoW combat lacks nuance.

Concern about how your units are positioned in the enemy's turn is not depth as it is one of the core elements of wargaming, whether that be fantasy, WW2 Naval, or Sci-Fi Skirmish games... in other words it is a basic part of wargaming, not depth.

Ongoing combat in KoW is highly abstracted, but it's still ongoing combat, you can tell because the rules differentiate between fighting the unit that just hit you and engaging a fresh unit.

There's the same nuance between flanking a unit of goblins, doubling your damage from 10 to 20, probably breaking them and reforming to a defensive facing, and flanking a unit of Chaos Warriors, doubling your damage from 5 to 10, probably not breaking them and getting countercharged by them next turn and probably flanked by something else because you couldn't reform.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Ongoing combat in KoW is highly abstracted, but it's still ongoing combat, you can tell because the rules differentiate between fighting the unit that just hit you and engaging a fresh unit.

There's the same nuance between flanking a unit of goblins, doubling your damage from 10 to 20, probably breaking them and reforming to a defensive facing, and flanking a unit of Chaos Warriors, doubling your damage from 5 to 10, probably not breaking them and getting countercharged by them next turn and probably flanked by something else because you couldn't reform.

Can my charging unit lose combat due to a combination of the enemy doing more damage and/or having more combat bonuses, which could result in my unit routing on my turn in KoW?

No.

Because combat in KoW lacks nuance.

There are rules for how a unit previously charged by an enemy unit can charge in their turn, because the game has zero player interaction. That isn't the same as a nuanced combat system.

In your example in WFB for example the Chaos Warriors could have won won combat and forced the charging unit to flee, while they (the Chaos Warriors) reform. Then on their turn they could charge the fleeing unit. The flanking unit you mentioned would be free to do something else.

This would result in a completely different boars positioning from the one you described happening in KoW, due to player interaction which allows for a more nuanced combat system.

All those board states are achievable in KoW, just across both players' turns. The same actions being compressed into fewer turns isn't nuance. It could be argued that's in fact opposite, because the second player is taking two actions in a row with no chance of player interaction in between.

So it is still about the same, Kings of War is not a game that uses Single Model mechanics hence all those rules about single models are missing

that way a close combat is resolved on a unit per unit base instead of model vs model base

and KoW is IGoUGo instead of Action/Reaction, hence you cannot react during the opponent is active


Just adding more examples does not change the fact that KoW is IGoUGo and the rules work on unit level.
They wanted the game that way and some people like it and others don't

If you want an Action/Reaction system with single model rules in units, KoW is just not the game for you
that does not make it a bad but just not what you want it to be

 kodos wrote:

If you want an Action/Reaction system with single model rules in units, KoW is just not the game for you that does not make it a bad but just not what you want it to be

This thread was initially started by someone who was familiar with WFB, and was asking whether KoW "would scratch their WFB itch."

Prior to my contribution to this thread everyone was saying how it would and is a brilliant game with little to no issues.

As I said previously...

"First of all I will say try it, and make up your own mind. If you like it, or don't like it, that is fine... you are entirely allowed to have your own opinion."

Followed by...

"My view of the game is different to the ones you are likely to hear, always important to hear both pros and cons. The pros have been covered in depth here. Now we are in 3rd edition I feel like the game has some very bad game design, allow me to go over them."

Your point of.

 kodos wrote:

If you want an Action/Reaction system with single model rules in units, KoW is just not the game for you.

Highlights what I've been saying, if one likes WFB they will be used to the things you say (reaction/Action, single model rules). Which as KoW isn't those things, it might not scratch that WFB itch and is only fair to mention them. So it could mean that KoW isn't the game for them.

I love the game! It's a well-paced game that has a solid set of rules.

Although my preference is for a little meatier game, this game has climbed to my most played. My group and I love.

The only thing in the way is that my most local game stores are still closed for open games. Once they open up, I can't wait to promote the game more publicly.

I cannot understand why someone can choose to play for years a game and consider it, at the same time, flawed.

However the game works, is balanced, good enough for tournaments, has a nice international community and Mantic is doing a good job in improving miniatures quality and lore too.

Beyond this is a question of taste.

Johanxp wrote:
I cannot understand why someone can choose to play for years a game and consider it, at the same time, flawed.

However the game works, is balanced, good enough for tournaments, has a nice international community and Mantic is doing a good job in improving miniatures quality and lore too.

Beyond this is a question of taste.

People's tastes change, sometimes it is either play a game that one doesn't really enjoy or not game at all, for some it was a decent replacement to fill the gap since WFB got axed and now there are more similar replacements to WFB.

Johanxp wrote:
I cannot understand why someone can choose to play for years a game and consider it, at the same time, flawed.

I think it depends on what you want out of the game. If you're in it for social interaction, hobbying, minis, world building, fluff, or just have only moderate expectations for a given ruleset one can be perfectly happy with a game that may have even serious flaws. Especially if that game is the system that has the most presence in a given gaming community.

I never played that much, but was with 40k off and on for a decade and a half. Only took a few years to realize it was a bloated overloading of a company size game onto mechanics best suited to gang-v-gang skirmish. However, the fluff and minis were cool and during the rare stretches when I was actually gaming actively it was always easy to find a game. Haven't been into it for a decade, but I'd still go back if I was in a heavy gaming phase and lived somewhere where there weren't other viable options.

Well, I havent kept up on the new hotness in KoW. Ive only played it a handful of times, but what caught me is that i can use my historical miniatures with "KoW Historical". In this book that covers ancients and medieval periods from sumarians to samurais. I can play my Early Imperial Romans against skeletons. Thats just frickin cool IMO. And giving my boyz a buff by allowing mythical beasts (giants sorcerers dragons etc) in the lists is pretty rad too. Again not sure if they are allowed to participate in the meta or not, but its a reason KoW caught my eye.

 doktor_g wrote:
Well, I havent kept up on the new hotness in KoW. Ive only played it a handful of times, but what caught me is that i can use my historical miniatures with "KoW Historical". In this book that covers ancients and medieval periods from sumarians to samurais. I can play my Early Imperial Romans against skeletons. Thats just frickin cool IMO. And giving my boyz a buff by allowing mythical beasts (giants sorcerers dragons etc) in the lists is pretty rad too. Again not sure if they are allowed to participate in the meta or not, but its a reason KoW caught my eye.

At the moment, Historical is still an edition behind, prior to that they were allowed in Australia apart from Clash of Kings, and AFAIK some parts of the US.

 doktor_g wrote:
Well, I havent kept up on the new hotness in KoW. Ive only played it a handful of times, but what caught me is that i can use my historical miniatures with "KoW Historical". In this book that covers ancients and medieval periods from sumarians to samurais. I can play my Early Imperial Romans against skeletons. Thats just frickin cool IMO. And giving my boyz a buff by allowing mythical beasts (giants sorcerers dragons etc) in the lists is pretty rad too. Again not sure if they are allowed to participate in the meta or not, but its a reason KoW caught my eye.

As has been said, KoW Historicals are an edition behind. However, if you're not too concerned about the current meta, they should be playable in the current edition with any opponent of good faith.

That said, there are a lot of options for use of historical figures within the current game using the "Kingdoms of Man" list. Before the KoW Historical lists existed, Kingdoms of Man was the way that many players fielded historical miniatures. There were even pictures of Fireforge and other historical miniatures in the KoW rulebook! In the current-game-legal KoM lists and it's variants there are lots of options for monsters, sorcerers, etc. As it stands, they could be a great way to take an existing historical army and spice it up with some flavorful mythological/magical elements from that culture or any other.

I am doing this very thing next weekend. I will be fielding Kingdoms of Men made of what is essentially 13th century western European knights and some jungle (ie 17th century africans) tribesmen as ‘mercenaries’. The models are a mix of Footsore, Crusader, Citadel, North Star, and Red Box. Add in the giant ape, and some sorcerers and wallah, it’s a fantasy army now. Painting up the trays for KoW this week.

I have used these models for a pile of different systems now.

 Rivetbull wrote:
I am doing this very thing next weekend. I will be fielding Kingdoms of Men made of what is essentially 13th century western European knights and some jungle (ie 17th century africans) tribesmen as ‘mercenaries’. The models are a mix of Footsore, Crusader, Citadel, North Star, and Red Box. Add in the giant ape, and some sorcerers and wallah, it’s a fantasy army now. Painting up the trays for KoW this week.

I have used these models for a pile of different systems now.

Looks excellent and I applaud your use of varied minis across many systems. I've got near a dozen different brands of miniatures (though it's mostly from 6 companies) in my Chaos (Varangur) army and elements of it have seen duty in KoW, SBH, ASBH, Dragon Rampant, HoTT, Open Combat and probably a couple others that escape recollection at the moment.

Hope the game goes well for you.

Also, where are those Catapults from?

Could they be wizkids deep cuts catapult?
https://www.miniaturemarket.com/wzk90203.html

They are indeed.

 Rivetbull wrote:
They are indeed.

Thanks!
Thats a nice piece and a great price. My war Machines are the older prepainted D&D Miniatures "Lords of Madness Trebuchet"
https://www.chicagoskirmishwargames.com/blog/2014/12/more-reinforcements-trebuchets-for/

They were nice and cheap at the time and look good enough but I think the sculpting and casting on your Deep Cuts is noticeably better.

I just didn’t want any crazy skulls or moulded faces, because they serve in historicals as often as fantasy.

 Rivetbull wrote:
I just didn’t want any crazy skulls or moulded faces, because they serve in historicals as often as fantasy.

Very wise. Buying your warmachines for mutiple games/factions is good practice.

At the time of purchase around 1st edition KoW these were for a Chaos Kingdoms of Men army, but with 2nd edition the best fit for that army was Varrangur and they don't have any catapaults or Trebuchet. Now they'll wind up with a Good-Guy Kingdoms of Man (or variant) that I'm about halfway through painting and I'll probably get some shields or some-such to cover over the skulls.

There were really good catapults and ballistae in a recent Bones KS for real cheap. Not sure if they've hit retail yet.

So, I’ve played a few games now and have decided to add some more fantasy elements (big monsters) to the army. I also repurposed some wildly underused Malifaux catapults, as the Wizkids ones are never going to fit on a 50mm base. I’m enjoying the system so far, although the archers I relied upon in Lion Rampant and Oathmark are at best a mild annoyance to an opponent in Kings of War. I’ve decided to take the force to a Kings of War event the first weekend of December. Given the mistakes I have been making in deployment and lack of awareness of what most other armies are doing I expect to do poorly.

Those catapults are very nice!

Cheers

This is the original model.

Yep, that looks pretty Malifaux.

 Rivetbull wrote:
So, I’ve played a few games now and have decided to add some more fantasy elements (big monsters) to the army. I also repurposed some wildly underused Malifaux catapults, as the Wizkids ones are never going to fit on a 50mm base. I’m enjoying the system so far, although the archers I relied upon in Lion Rampant and Oathmark are at best a mild annoyance to an opponent in Kings of War. I’ve decided to take the force to a Kings of War event the first weekend of December. Given the mistakes I have been making in deployment and lack of awareness of what most other armies are doing I expect to do poorly.

Hey man how did your Kings of War event go??

When trying to sort through the old pile of shame for a bring-and-buy at the weekend I stumbled across an army core box of these undead samurai from Zenit miniatures. https://shop.zenitminiatures.es/en/22-undead

Having spent some hours reading through reviews of different rank & file rulesets I have settled on building up a force for KoW and going from there. I like that the game is miniature agnostic (reading about people using some really mad stuff on the tabletop, even in Mantic's own tournaments) and you can use unit fillers and things like that to help bulk up those larger blocks. Also that events themselves seem really common and the game must have made critical mass for those to happen. I did look at Oathmark and Warhammer Renaissance, but the difficulty in finding events for those games put me off - none of my gaming friends like rank and file games, so it's a necessity for me.

Anyway looking forward to getting some stuff painted up and an army ready in 2 or 3 years!

So, hey, sorry I didn't notice your reply for six months.

That event was a mixed bag. I won best army, but lost all my games. In fact only one of those games was particularly close. I concluded that first of all, there is a LOT more tactical finesse to KoW than lets on until you actually start playing it. Second, the Kingdoms of Men list lets you see a Kings of War game right up close, and learn, but I am not sure how much you are actually participating in those games. It is very much a starter army list, the priority of which is making most any fantasy/historical human model line playable in the system. I’m sure a superb player can get results from it. I am not saying they are helpless, but they are clearly sub-optimal and have a lot of vanilla and redundant units. But, my own play and lack of experience was every bit as important as my list’s strength in bringing about my doom. This is a game that is won in lost in the movement phase (or deployment choices) in the previous turn than the one you are playing. Unit synergies exist and matter, but there are no ‘combo’ plays or massive spells to swing a game. Careful movement, planning your facings and match-ups, and anticipating opponent’s moves are where the game is won and lost. Because it is a battle game mistakes can snowball and early losses and feel punishing in the late game. However, it is very rare that ‘a die roll’ impacts the game in a serious way. The most outsized single luck points I am noticing are rolls for wild charges, which can completely change the flow of a turn if they let a unit connect (but good players will account for the chance ahead of time), and the roll for ‘is there a turn 7?’ which can really impact who wins and is hard to mitigate in a close game. Lastly, the occasional double “1”s causing a beaten unit to not break can throw a huge spike into a gameplan, but i think it is rare enough to not be a negative. It is a game that rewards ‘tight’ play kind of like WarMachine did, but has a flow closer to a game of chess and a feel of a fantasy battle but not much like old Warhammer Fantasy Battle.

I played a second event New York a couple weeks ago. This was a much larger event than what I’d played before and had many more relatively serious players. It was also the first two day event I’d played in years. I played better and had a much better army this time, but I was definitely behind the curve in terms of experience and game skill. I was also quickly tired from playing so many games in succession which definitely wieghed me down on my last games each day. I also was unused to playing on a clock, which KoW does very cleanly. My first game would of been much closer or even a win if i was playing quicker. I learned a great deal, i think. The most important thing is to get more games in, if one wants to play better. There is a limit to what you can put in a list and still expect to do well, but play is far more important than your list. I would say play is most important, list creation/matchup is a distant second, and luck is an only modestly important factor.

@Rivetbull: That's an attractive army!

 Ancestral Hamster wrote:
@Rivetbull: That's an attractive army!

Agreed, it looks awesome!

I was there too, Rivetbull, loved your army and told you so when I thought my team was matched against yours before we were unmatched. You were sensibly sitting down and waiting instead of overthinking the match up like me

Glad you had a better time! Crossroads is probably the chummiest of tournaments, thanks in part to the team setup, although it was quite chummy before that as well (I've attended since 2009 I think? Back in WHFB days).

If you really miss WFB you should try - for free! - the default place for WFB orphans: The 9th Age. It is very popular (here in Poland more popular than AoS, at least it was last time I checked) and free.

The downside is it is based on 8th, so random charges :( but it has more options to compensate for that than WFB used to have (musician offers rerolls or something like that).

Well, to word it differently

If you miss WHF and liked 6th, you should try KoW for free
If you liked 8th, you should try 9th Age

I've been getting back into KoW myself - mostly because kodos pointed out to me there's an actual tournament scene going on just one country over - and having a blast teaching a new player, we look forward to going and being obliterated by players who actually know what they're doing. 3rd edition is a little bit more "corpo" than 2nd (mostly through the regrettable cutting of some options that do not conform to Mantic's own model range) but the gameplay itself is as fast and tight as ever. I've also had to take up the challenge of expanding an army I started in early 2nd edition and matching its original look, which means forgoing modern comforts such as Contrast paint and 3d printers.

So here's my new stuff, a Warsmith and a reg of Shieldbreakers, pretty much all from Battle of Skull Pass, like most of my infantry.



And 4 blisters of metal Mastiffs from Warlord Games, because that's what you did in the mid 2010s if you needed doggos.



Amusingly, these are the heaviest units in my army by weight, easily beating out even the Giant, which is Reaper Bones.

Good looking dwarves, the wagon is a nice addition. The mini-dioramas that KoW opens for is a great boon for the game IMO.

Funny thing for me is, KoW is pretty dead in my area since the pandemic, but I might actually use my Empire of Dust models to play The Old World, at least in casual play. The bases are too small for any kind of tournament play. The Mantic EoD skeleton models look way better than the ancient ugly sculpts of GW's Tomb Kings skeletons. Kind of ironic as EoD was designed to mimic Tomb Kings but I might be doing it the other way around.

So this weekend a friend and I drove to Austria to play KoW with people we met over the internet. They gave us beer, whisky, 8 hour smoked BBQ ribs, and didn't kill us in our sleep

We also played two games each with completely new people and learned a lot and now we're thinking of starting our second armies

 lord_blackfang wrote:
So this weekend a friend and I drove to Austria to play KoW with people we met over the internet. They gave us beer, whisky, 8 hour smoked BBQ ribs, and didn't kill us in our sleep

We also played two games each with completely new people and learned a lot and now we're thinking of starting our second armies

Wow, Hospitality, good gaming and hobby inspiration in one trip.

That there is the beauty of the wargaming community!

Glad you got some games in and also didn't die! New/old Dwarfs looking good