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.

Reading thru the beta and the game feels like how 40k would have ended up ruleswise if it went with just Fantasy in space. I"m not even sure why you need a lot of models besides determining a foot print since you don't remove models.

Hmm, really not digging this. Not removing models isn't a mechanic I can get behind.

Fetterkey wrote:Hmm, really not digging this. Not removing models isn't a mechanic I can get behind.

Yeah, I'm not too up on that, either. Why even have individual models instead of a multi-model base if the individual models don't matter(reading through the rest of the rules, it doesn't really matter, either other than to determine where the footprint is)?

I guess its to appeal to the 40k crowd more since most likely they'll use the same base system. That means you can easily swap from game systems without too much hassle

After reading the marauders, I wonder what their Stunt Bots and Battle Bots are going to look like

I am not a fan of the non-removed models either but I think the point of individual- over mult- model bases is so they can interact with terraini more.

You have more options to hug buildings etc.

Platuan4th wrote:

Fetterkey wrote:Hmm, really not digging this. Not removing models isn't a mechanic I can get behind.

Yeah, I'm not too up on that, either. Why even have individual models instead of a multi-model base if the individual models don't matter(reading through the rest of the rules, it doesn't really matter, either other than to determine where the footprint is)?

Yeah I'm not feeling this system either. It -kind of- made sense in Kings of War, but again, the models are just like markers. Not a huge fan of that in the very least and unless it's changed in the actual version of the rules, I'm going to give it a pass.

That being said, I'm looking forward to the models, especially any kind of humans.

Not removing models? Nah. I like my models to mean something.

Pass.

Tailgunner wrote:

scarletsquig wrote:Orks are one of the most popular armies that they can easily do without treading on GW's IP, and Forgefathers are a bold attempt to make some headlines and come out with a new and massively better take on a potentially very cool concept that GW haven't attempted to do anything with for 15 years.

Forgefathers effectively are a new race, and something totally new from mantic. Their background and miniatures will look absolutely nothing like the silly attempt at harley davidson riding fantasy dwarfs that GW made 20 years ago and then had eaten by tyranids instead of bothering to come up with something more creative for them.

Sorry, but the artwork appears to contradict you. These designs are still obviously based on the Squats. The padded uniforms, big gloves, oversized guns and pseudo-Celtic theme to the armour are 'copied from' rather than 'inspired by' the GW models. They're still essentially, as a couple of other posters have pointed out, space dwarves, and there's no doubt that Mantic are looking to pick up on the apparent demand for Squat models. If they'd dropped the beards and the Celtic theme, then it would be something new.

They as though they could be very nice models. But don't pretend there's anything particularly revolutionary going on here.

You are trolling right? Squats dont have any celtic theme in them, Fantasy dwarfs from GW have some nordic theme, but Mantic dont have it at all (much more steam punk). The concepts show power armored dwarves, not padded ones, and those guns are supposed to be BFGs, the ones equivalent to plasma cannons and multi-meltas. But goying beyond that, if you look at the silhouete of the ranges (GW vs Mantic) you will see two higly different styles. And looking at the fluff, Mantic dont have much of it ready, but we can see at first glance that Forgefathers are an entirely new concept of dwarfs in space, at least, very different from Squats.

About the rules (the reason i got here at first): well just have looked at the Beta, and it look incredible, well, it is exactly what i wanted. Less chance, more movement and tactics. I liked the "you must choose assault or shoot" thing, and damaging armor dont need an entirely new rule set, rules for flyers (ok, 40k had that, but droped it some editions ago, and it worked in pretty the same way), and "reserves rules" looks nice too. What i dont liked: top armor is the same as rear armor, no "deep strike", to much shoot.

The "casualties" thing is pretty strange. In KoW it worked well, but in warpath it looks misplaced. Anyway, no rule say you could not use trays for your units, and no rule in the game bring advantage/disvantage for that (except cover ones). If you really like casualties so much, speak with your oponent, and agree to use "models removal" as wounds counter. That will bring some advantage for you (easyer hidding and cover), but can do the work.

Some cents o mine...

Eh, I'm not that put-off by not removing models. I'll still give it a try.

Ouroborus wrote:Eh, I'm not that put-off by not removing models. I'll still give it a try.

Exactly. For all those who like removing models, give it a try. Everything is worth one chance at the table right?

lord marcus wrote:

Ouroborus wrote:Eh, I'm not that put-off by not removing models. I'll still give it a try.

Exactly. For all those who like removing models, give it a try. Everything is worth one chance at the table right?

I didn't say that the game wasn't worth trying, only that the models are irrelevant to actually playing the game outside of determining what the unit's footprint is and LoS. Individually based models aren't needed for that.

Part of the reasoning for not removing models is to make the game quick and also to support the "one player does everything in their turn" idea.. so you're not physically removing your opponents models.

Other reasons include the spectacle of the game... lets face it, 40k armies do *not* look like armies these days, most of the time it's just a few transports and tanks on the table and the odd unit that has hopped out of it's transport.

With Mantic the thing you have to realise is, that despite the incessant droning of the internet, they really do actually take a different approach to things than GW does. Their rules are different. Their models look different, their background is different. It's a little bit closer to warmachine in terms of adding markers to things and having characters providing buffs and combos to units. Anyone who plays that game will probably get the hang of it really quickly, along with the "torunament" structure of the gameplay, with lots of very short player turns one after the other.

Their releases of models that are very similar to GW models is simply a crutch they need to get good sales and expand the company. As soon as that is done they want to ditch that approach and do their own thing. Fact of the matter is, there simply is no market that currently exists for sci-fi or fantasy plastic models that can't also be used in GW games. There just aren't enough customers to make back the £30k-£40k cost of cutting a mould to make the plastic sprues. There is no alternative.

All of you might sit here on the internet and say, "fishmen plastics would be awesome, mantic would be so cool and original and doing their own thing if they made those and not copying GW like dumb mindless sheep who steal other people's hard work"

.. but then, come the day that mantic releases their range of fishmen plastics, not a single one of you would buy them because you can't use them for your GW games that are played exclusively by 90% of the people you play with.


Look at VOID, AT-43, Warzone, Metropolis.

Those are mass-battle sci-fi games that have existed at some point in the last decade. The first 3 released plastics and went out of business. Metropolis only continues to exist due to being based on the more popular skirmish game Urban War. I'm not aware of many people who have heard of it and don't know anyone who plays it.

Mass-battle Sci-fi games are a dead market. It's 40k or nothing, the monopoly is totally complete and there is zero competition. You absolutely cannot succeed without cloning GW to some extent. Rackham had massive resources behind the production of AT-43.. the models, game, artwork and background were all really rather good. You could get a 2000-point army in a box for £60, entry point was cheap. It still completely and utterly failed, and Rackham now no longer exists.

I came into it not expecting to like it (I'm uninterested in any mass battle game) but it looks ok to play if I had nothing else to play or got burnt out on my normal games. The core rules are pretty good -except los, that feels like a copy/paste from 40k and it kind of sucks.
It sort of feels like fast food wargaming, the substance and flavor are acceptable, but never outstanding and undoubtedly cheap. Mantic actually gives off the vibe of wanting to be the burger king to gw's mcdonalds in general so I suppose that's a fitting analogy. As for me, I think I'll continue dining at privateer press' steakhouse or that anima tactics pancake house on the corner.
I'm not really sure why they make you use markers to show damage when irrelevant models are there just waiting to be scooped up. You would lose minimal los blocking ability but the unit would at least get a bit less unwieldy.

Mass war games aren't dead. 28mm mass war games are dead. There are plenty of lower scale games like Flames of War. Also all those games died for reasons out side just 'the market'.

WOW if 2000 points is average then they are BIG army's.

I like nearly all the rules. Especially the rules for hitting and the rules for vehicles. The rules for reinforcements are cool.

Although the models staying on is weird.

scarletsquig wrote:Part of the reasoning for not removing models is to make the game quick and also to support the "one player does everything in their turn" idea.. so you're not physically removing your opponents models.

Other reasons include the spectacle of the game... lets face it, 40k armies do *not* look like armies these days, most of the time it's just a few transports and tanks on the table and the odd unit that has hopped out of it's transport.

With Mantic the thing you have to realise is, that despite the incessant droning of the internet, they really do actually take a different approach to things than GW does. Their rules are different. Their models look different, their background is different. It's a little bit closer to warmachine in terms of adding markers to things and having characters providing buffs and combos to units. Anyone who plays that game will probably get the hang of it really quickly, along with the "torunament" structure of the gameplay, with lots of very short player turns one after the other.

Their releases of models that are very similar to GW models is simply a crutch they need to get good sales and expand the company. As soon as that is done they want to ditch that approach and do their own thing. Fact of the matter is, there simply is no market that currently exists for sci-fi or fantasy plastic models that can't also be used in GW games. There just aren't enough customers to make back the £30k-£40k cost of cutting a mould to make the plastic sprues. There is no alternative.

All of you might sit here on the internet and say, "fishmen plastics would be awesome, mantic would be so cool and original and doing their own thing if they made those and not copying GW like dumb mindless sheep who steal other people's hard work"

.. but then, come the day that mantic releases their range of fishmen plastics, not a single one of you would buy them because you can't use them for your GW games that are played exclusively by 90% of the people you play with.


Look at VOID, AT-43, Warzone, Metropolis.

Those are mass-battle sci-fi games that have existed at some point in the last decade. The first 3 released plastics and went out of business. Metropolis only continues to exist due to being based on the more popular skirmish game Urban War. I'm not aware of many people who have heard of it and don't know anyone who plays it.

Mass-battle Sci-fi games are a dead market. It's 40k or nothing, the monopoly is totally complete and there is zero competition. You absolutely cannot succeed without cloning GW to some extent. Rackham had massive resources behind the production of AT-43.. the models, game, artwork and background were all really rather good. You could get a 2000-point army in a box for £60, entry point was cheap. It still completely and utterly failed, and Rackham now no longer exists.

Ok, while I agree with some of your arguments, others are a little too simplistic. Regarding removing troops, ok, well it's a minor mechanic, and you either like it or you don't, it shouldn't be a deal breaker, IMHO. I remember playing with my Ultramarine army back in the day.....I'd just finished doing, what I thought, was a great paintjob.....so I deployed my forces, and in the first turn, this guy raped me hard......I was literally pulling units off the table that had been there for like 10mins.......I felt like I'd painted those guys for nothing.....this is a feeling you wouldn't necessarily get with Warpath.

Regarding their business model, and comparrisons to Urban War et al. First of all, Urban War is more like a skrimish game than a mass war game, in which case, you need to be comparing that to Infinity, Warmachine etc....which of course blows your argument out, as those games seem to have a decent and growing following. AT-43 went dead because of the company running the show, and some of the less market savvy decisions the corporate made.....I don't think it had anything to do with the game, or at the most, very little to do with the game.

Syaing that Mass-battle Sci Fi games are dead are a dead market is soo far off the mark it hurts. Have you taken a look at the associated products markets? Like computer games, books, films etc......Sci Fi is as big now as it ever was, perhaps even bigger, and that means most derivative products based on that genre are going to be successful if managed correctly. Now, I'm not saying that just because you slap a Sci Fi sticker on your product, you will find yourself amoung the Fortune 500, but, if you get the right mix, and apply the right feel, I think you can almost guarantee a degree of success.

Are Mantic doing this right? Well, ok, I get the economics / market trend analysis.....and again, while simplistic, I agree with you. However, it's a short term gain that will damage any potential for long term sustainability. So , what the hel am I talking about? Mantic wants to run 8 races, and from what we can see, most of them are derivative from GW I.P. Mantic will most likely milk these guys dry, pumping any investment capital they have into making them as attractive as they can.....this puts them into a dangerous position.

1. They are really tied to what GW does, if GW suddenly decides that all their Orks get eaten by Nids, suddenly Mantic have a ton of derivative figures that are only applicable to their own game, and they will lose their "secondary" market...i.e the GW players.

2. Now they have invested so much into their derivative products, can or will they be able to afford to invest the same levels of resource into designing new races? If so, will it be at the expense of current races? and won't they have the same problem as point one, the potential to lose thier "secondary" market...the GW players?

In short, this hope that they will somehow start to develop their own way is optimistic at best.....it's clearly not a business objective for them to do so. Some of you will jump up now and shout "Well GW doesn't make Sci Fi dwarves".....at the moment, that's true, but when these guys sit on shelves after the initial "rush", I can't help wondering if they will be pushed by Mantic to the same extent as other products.

Looking at it, just looks to me like you might spend quite a bit of time moving models. There again, at least you don't have to move them more than once per turn, but in early game 40k (when you have the most models) this is often true as well.
Model removal makes sense in that it makes the game faster as you go along. Since everything counts on the unit leader anyway, and it's only footprint that is being changed, I am dubious about not removing models but willing to give it a go.
Looking at the list though, one thing that occurs to me is that competing with GW for my Ork love, GW offers me a much bigger selection of units...

I am so happy that Alessio isn't writing 40k 6th edition.

I like his vehicle rules more, but the rest I can take or leave to be honest.

Delephont wrote:Regarding their business model, and comparrisons to Urban War et al. First of all, Urban War is more like a skrimish game than a mass war game, in which case, you need to be comparing that to Infinity, Warmachine etc....which of course blows your argument out, as those games seem to have a decent and growing following. AT-43 went dead because of the company running the show, and some of the less market savvy decisions the corporate made.....I don't think it had anything to do with the game, or at the most, very little to do with the game..

I did not mention sci-fi skirmish games in my post for a reason - they are indeed very popular.

I did not compare to Urban War. At no point in my entire post did I compare to Urban War. The entire comment was about mass-battle sci-fi games.

I listed 4 mass-battle sci-fi games on a seperate and you completely ignored all of those and went straight to stating that my comment was "comparing to Urban War etc.". This is very irritating.

I compared to Metropolis, the mass-battle version of urban war. Sales for this game were not as good as sales for urban war, because sci-fi mass-battle games are not as popular as skirmish sci-fi games, which do indeed have a big following. Again, at no point did I state that this was not the case.

In short, this hope that they will somehow start to develop their own way is optimistic at best.....it's clearly not a business objective for them to do so.

Yes it is, Ronnie himself has stated that they will be adding 2 completely new and unique races to Kings of War as the 9th and 10th armies. Warpath could easily go in the same direction.


Also, sorry for this comment being terse, I'm still grumpy at having to deal with some of the more annoying posters elsewhere on the internet.

I basically agree with the rest of your post including the stuff about rackham and the individual model removal and I accept that "dead market" was probably a bit too much of a hyperbolic statement from me.

With the exception of model removal (which would change the nerve mechanic fundamental to both Warpath and KoW) there seems very little that is contentious about the rules.

Vehicles being able to independently target all their weapons? Given that a Mk I could do that its a bit odd that in WH40K they can't 40,000 years into the future.

Having the guy with the missile launcher shoot at the tank while the rest of his squad fire their gat's at the infantry? Its a piece of common sense that is not allowed in 40k (outwith Long Fangs)

Having generic special rules with multiple levels of effectiveness instead of a sprawling morass of USR's and codex-specific rules that do nothing but overlap into one rules argument after another? Is this not exactly what a lot of 40k players in general and tournament players in particular have been crying out for for years?


As for the races/background etc - given that we have no information at all beyond the concept sketches for the first two races and the names of four others, isn't it a bit premature to be saying how things will turn out?

Ronnie and Alessio on turn 8 when Warpath was announced said their would be more than 8 races (not sure where only having 8 races has come from) and I am expecting to see some GW-clones to start with then some new stuff later - KoW is doing the same thing. They have already announced there will be 10 races of which the first 8 are generic fantasy armies (Men, Undead, Orcs, Goblins, Elves, Evil Elves, Dwarfs, Evil Dwarfs) to be followed by 2 races unique to KoW.

I'll wait to see how the background and models pan out before making a final decision but I like what I've seen so far


Damn!, partial Ninja by scarletsquig

I've looked over the Beta and figured out it's pretty much not for me. The game size is just too large. I'm partially interested in trying it out at the 500-1000 point level though.

I think theres an important aspect though that can easily make mantic sci fi more survivable than other "mass combat games"

Mantic does entire armies in somewhat more affordable plastic (with the exception of metal hybrids which are almost as expensive as GW kits). Very few other games had plastic (warzone only had two types, and that was way back then)

Yes some designs are hit or miss but unless they do royally screw up a lot of the designs (and hey, even companies like WGF can sell their fugly models), I doubt mantic wont get profitable with warpath. Gaming wise will be interesting to see though

lord_blackfang wrote:I am so happy that Alessio isn't writing 40k 6th edition.

Same here!

And I still don't see the point of speeding things up so much that the game becomes some sort of bizarre abstraction. Well, even more than Wargaming is already.

This pretty much made AT-43 stillborn for me.

What's the rush?

I'm OK with setting aside some time to have some fun!

I dont see model removal as a problem for the regular nerve tests. Just use the fallowing "home made rule":

When a unit suffer wounds, instead of placing wound counters, remove models from it, we know the starting number of models, so we know how much wounds it have. Sart removing "regular guys", removing Special weapons and BFGs after it (controling player choose), the last model removed is the Leader. If all models are removed the unit is routed. We consider that you dont loose special weapons or BFGs, as the remaining soldiers just keep using them.

Well, if you have a unit with 10 guys, and it is working at 9 wounds, them that leader is epic resisting in the most Rambo way, one bfg in each hand and ccw ready for rumble. Normally the units will not survive with 50% of their initial strengh... So its cool (and generate some heroic situations).

And really, i loved the ideia of charge! or shoot!, that make assault an option (not a rule). And i really dont understand the "true LoS" hate...

I'm all for bigger battles. At clubs I've played at 40k games are usually 1000pts due to time constrictions. Now take into account the many units in 40k that are points heavy and then figure in that if those units are obliterated early on in a game, you are going to struggle. Now from what I've read Warpath is encouraging faster play, surely that is a good thing? To me that means bigger battles in the same amount of time and if you lose a unit it's not the end of the world?

Looking at the lists, I'm not seeing much that means I can't play at smaller scales. The rules have a large degree of abstraction, but I'm not seeing it as massively different to 40K in that regard.

The game is differnt, alright.

It isn't starting out like a corperate D bag mentality, and it looks like some things will be changing as the time goes on. BETA means not written in stone yet.


If you don't like something, send them a line and let them know.- Enough of the same dislike, and it will change.

I stand by my statements, regardless of some asshat wanting to be clever in response.

GW not listening to the internet is only part if thier problem. They also did that by being greedy and irrelevent.

I think they have a great start. Need a little work on a rough work, but other thenthat- the game looks interesting, different, and has more substance then I've seen in awhile.

I like the dwarfs, the mechanics are going to take a little work, but other then that- good start to a great game.

I agree with Grot and urge people to let mantic know if you see any problems. Mantic have shown an interest in their market and are letting us influence the end product. We make the most of this oppurtunity and give mantic the info they need to make the best game they can.

I'd prefer to remove the models but the rules are not bad apart from that, I'll give them a try.