Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

kenshin620 wrote:

yakface wrote:
The Perry Brothers kind of went wild with the different historical looking IG regiments back in 1st edition and then unfortunately they've gotten stuck into refining those ideas with each new update. At this point, in order to due Vostroyans in plastic they'd essentially have to dump support for one of the existing plastic IG regiments which would naturally drive players who have those armies into rage.

Are catachans really that popular over others?

I think it had more to do with them being easier to do, seeing as they lacked shoulder guards and a lot of other kit like flappy coats and scarves. It's just blokes in jeans and wife beaters.

BrookM wrote:

kenshin620 wrote:

yakface wrote:
The Perry Brothers kind of went wild with the different historical looking IG regiments back in 1st edition and then unfortunately they've gotten stuck into refining those ideas with each new update. At this point, in order to due Vostroyans in plastic they'd essentially have to dump support for one of the existing plastic IG regiments which would naturally drive players who have those armies into rage.

Are catachans really that popular over others?

I think it had more to do with them being easier to do, seeing as they lacked shoulder guards and a lot of other kit like flappy coats and scarves. It's just blokes in jeans and wife beaters.

I don't even think it was that...for better or worse GW came out with a Catachan codex at one point and so made the 'classic' ( ) Catachan squad in plastic. So when it came time to re-release the IG codex it took relatively few additions to update the Catachan range and keep it stocked.

Although GW has done a fantastic job in the past of jettisoning models or ranges, that is something they seem to try to resist doing a bit more now. People have Catachan armies, and have since the Catachan codex. So if they redo the IG codex again the question has to remain: Would it justify the time and effort to resculpt a new IG regiment in plastic rather than to put that effort into some of the other IG units that aren't already in plastic (or have no models at all)?

The answer is almost assuredly that it is a much better use of resources to get the current metal models in the range into plastic or make the units that don't have models in plastic then to scrap regiments that already have plastic models in order to come out with something cooler looking.



But anyway, I think I'll stop replying about this so as not to drag the topic completely away from Mantic!

yakface wrote:
But anyway, I think I'll stop replying about this so as not to drag the topic completely away from Mantic!

True this is about Mantic, not the questioning of IG regiments.

Heres to their new line. I wonder if they'll be a sci fi conversion set for zombies to get space mutants!

I could go for some campy 50's and 60's space monsters of the week. Though generic human troopers would be ace, as mentioned before.

As for the Kings of War rules set...no big surprises there if you watched the youtube interview with Alessio where he went over the basic rules of the game.

I'm personally a really big fan of simple rules, so I was very interested to read how well this game would play.

After a quick read through, there are a couple of things that jump out at me:


1) One of the reasons I never could get into WHFB was because I always felt that (with the exception of skirmishers) individual models in WHFB were basically meaningless except as a way to keep track of wounds for the unit...in most cases you're only dealing with UNITS, which never really captured my imagination. I think its why I like 5th edition 40K so much, it really strikes a good balance between making each model really matter (true line of sight) and streamlined unit behaviors (removing casualties from anywhere in the unit, even out of LOS or range).

Kings of War takes the problem I have with WHFB and elevates it to a whole new realm. The entire game is played only with units...as long as the unit hasn't routed off the table then you never remove any models from the unit and when the unit takes damage you just mark it with a damage counter. In fact, I really can't find any reason you couldn't (or shouldn't) play this game with all your models in a unit glued to a single base. The individual models within the unit appear to be solely for aesthetic purposes.

For me, I think that makes these rules way too abstract. Once you remove any rules involving individual models in the unit you may as well be playing at Warmaster (6mm) scale, IMHO.


2) The other thing I found interesting was the close combat resolution. Only the side that charges makes any attacks that turn and then if the unit that takes casualties doesn't flee off the table then the combatants are pushed 1" back apart for the opposing player's next turn. If he wants his unit to 'strike back' then he charges back in on his turn and makes his attacks.

At first this seemed to me like combat would take way to long to resolve (requiring several turns, I'd wager without actually playing at all). However, when you factor in that the restrictions on how move are pretty harsh, its probably well balanced. Your combats last turn after turn, but it takes you lots of turns just to get another one of your units around the flank to get into the combat as well.

It is certainly interesting and different and it makes me curious to play. However I still imagine that something would just seem a bit wrong with only one side inflicting damage during a single round of assault. By resolving combat that way it kind of makes combat behave almost exactly like shooting, only using different stats to resolve, and that (again) may be just a little bit too much abstraction for me.


But one thing's for sure, seeing these rules makes me very interested to see what they do with their sci-fi range. Will they also make a rules set and if so, I'd love to see how a super streamlined version of a sci-fi game would be done by Alessio (assuming he writes it as well).

yakface wrote:
As for the Kings of War rules set...no big surprises there if you watched the youtube interview with Alessio where he went over the basic rules of the game.

I'm personally a really big fan of simple rules, so I was very interested to read how well this game would play.

After a quick read through, there are a couple of things that jump out at me:


1) One of the reasons I never could get into WHFB was because I always felt that (with the exception of skirmishers) individual models in WHFB were basically meaningless except as a way to keep track of wounds for the unit...in most cases you're only dealing with UNITS, which never really captured my imagination. I think its why I like 5th edition 40K so much, it really strikes a good balance between making each model really matter (true line of sight) and streamlined unit behaviors (removing casualties from anywhere in the unit, even out of LOS or range).

Kings of War takes the problem I have with WHFB and elevates it to a whole new realm. The entire game is played only with units...as long as the unit hasn't routed off the table then you never remove any models from the unit and when the unit takes damage you just mark it with a damage counter. In fact, I really can't find any reason you couldn't (or shouldn't) play this game with all your models in a unit glued to a single base. The individual models within the unit appear to be solely for aesthetic purposes.

For me, I think that makes these rules way too abstract. Once you remove any rules involving individual models in the unit you may as well be playing at Warmaster (6mm) scale, IMHO.


2) The other thing I found interesting was the close combat resolution. Only the side that charges makes any attacks that turn and then if the unit that takes casualties doesn't flee off the table then the combatants are pushed 1" back apart for the opposing player's next turn. If he wants his unit to 'strike back' then he charges back in on his turn and makes his attacks.

At first this seemed to me like combat would take way to long to resolve (requiring several turns, I'd wager without actually playing at all). However, when you factor in that the restrictions on how move are pretty harsh, its probably well balanced. Your combats last turn after turn, but it takes you lots of turns just to get another one of your units around the flank to get into the combat as well.

It is certainly interesting and different and it makes me curious to play. However I still imagine that something would just seem a bit wrong with only one side inflicting damage during a single round of assault. By resolving combat that way it kind of makes combat behave almost exactly like shooting, only using different stats to resolve, and that (again) may be just a little bit too much abstraction for me.


But one thing's for sure, seeing these rules makes me very interested to see what they do with their sci-fi range. Will they also make a rules set and if so, I'd love to see how a super streamlined version of a sci-fi game would be done by Alessio (assuming he writes it as well).

Why not try it out and then do a more detailed look at the game and your revised problems with it in an article on dakka?

Why did we need to see the whole of Yakface's post all over again pray tell?

We have been playing KoW for a little while now.
It is great for us with younger kids as the simple rules set flows very smoothly.
Also makes life a lot easier setting up and packing away.

The aesthetics is good so I don't see why this mechanism should be in 6mm though having said that the possibility of really massive battles is intruiging!
Would work equally as well in 1/72 scale.

We have the models attached to the base, and use dice for wounds. The combat resolution seems to work really well imho. The key is the nerve test roll which is very unlikely to succeed until there are enough wounds on a unit.

Flank and rear attacks hit very hard as they are doubled and tripled in number respectively.

@Yakface

You really need to try it out for yourself. What reads a little simplistic on paper becomes a bucket of fun on the table.

Sure, you move around whole units, but the game also includes some heros that rush around the field to wherever they are needed most, like in a real battle. You really need to make good use of how the different troop types interact. Also, since it is 28mm you can reuse lots of stuff you got at home anyway and quite some WHFB-players now play KoW with their WHFB armies but are planning to replace tzem bit by bit with mantic units where needed.

Combats are much quicker resolved than with WHFB, you no longer have units locked forever in meele that drags on and on. There's much more movement on the table than with WHFB and you also can use much more scenery.

All in all it's a quick and bloody game, but everybody leaves with a grin on his face. That's something that does happen less often when playing WhFB.

Any idea when or if the rules will be posted online in a PDF to download?