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.

In a game with a high model count and no movement trays, removing models is a good way to keep the time involved down without sacrificing realism.

The Warpath system seems slightly more geared towards a smaller scale of miniature.

Marauder Beta Army List
Forgefathers Beta Army List
Warpath Beta Rules

It's good to see that some feedback has been taken into account with these rules. It still has issues for me. I have no problem not removing models as anything I spend time painting will stay on the board longer - I understand why people don't like it or don't like the sound of it and for many of us it would just seem odd, but I don't see it as that big a deal. You could just use leader models and have card counters if you wanted but we all like minis - which are just counters at the end of the day (artistic arguments aside). Remember when GW had card cut outs for 40k and Warhammer? (Well they weren't really cut outs - just blocks with an image on )

I don't think Mantic are purely one-dimensional either - Dwarf Kings Hold was an unexpected release and they're still really young and are putting out a lot of models fairly rapidly. It'll be interesting to see what they produce later and how much emphasis they put into their games.

Here's an excellent initial review of the warpath rules:

http://sigur.tabletopgeeks.com/warpath-first-impressions-of-mantics-upcoming-sci-fi-tabletop-wargame/

Worth reading because it highlights a few things that Warpath does better than 40k. Don't write these rules off right away people, there is some really good stuff in there.

The biggest one to me is, if you have a heavy weapon in a unit of models then it can fire at a different target to the unit.

How awesome is that? In 40k if a unit of space marines with a lascannon is facing a unit of orks and a dreadnought they have to either shoot their lascannon at the orks or shoot their bolters at the dreadnought, they are not allowed to be smart and split their fire, they have to act like idiots with no combat training and not use their weapons efficiently.

In Warpath they would get to shoot their bolters at the orks and their lascannon at the dreadnought. Makes much more sense.

I'm just going to say it right now: I will not play any game that involves large units and does not involve removing models from those units or any mechanic that lets you whittle down the enemy. It's both unimmersive and, as currently implemented, heavily luck-based. I can "damage" a unit more times than it has models and it'll stick around at almost 100% effectiveness until I roll high? Morale is a more important defensive stat than actual armor? Not feeling it. The shooting system is also quite poor-- if you're going to be this abstracted, you might as well go to one roll like in Starship Troopers rather than having both to-hit and to-damage results.

It's a shame, because I'd like to see more viable competitors to 40k out there, but I really think this isn't one as currently implemented. Removing whole units works a lot better in a fantasy setting (even though I'm not 100% okay with it even then), and is IMO a dealbreaker in a sci-fi game.

thesilverback wrote:Looks interesting. Really want to see the actual spruces.

Can't see the miniatures for the trees?


I would agree with the sentiment, though... Concept art is all well and good, but I'm not going to get interested until there are actual miniatures to ogle.

Not really feeling the space orcs, though. The bodies and weapon designs are nice enough, if somewhat familiar... but I'm not liking the heads at all.

scarletsquig wrote:
The biggest one to me is, if you have a heavy weapon in a unit of models then it can fire at a different target to the unit.

How awesome is that?

A negligible bonus compared to the downsides.

Let's add 5" coherency to the list. A horde of Orx that all have to be within 5" of the leader will be giant blob of plastic. Too bad there are no blast templates, eh? PP kinda has the same system, but their coherency is equal to the unit's morale, usually around 8, and with a maximum of 12 models per unit.

This is a beta, yes? So why are people getting so militantly upset about a mutable subject? Things can change. That's why they did a beta....They used to call it "playtesting", and it used to be a lot more exclusive. Now we all get a go first.

If the point of the beta is to gather feedback on what people think of it, why would you be surprised that people are pointing out what they don't like about it?

Insaniak, its not that they are pointing it out. Its the WAY they are doing it. "OMG I will DIE of DEATH before I ever play a sci-fi mass battle-system that doesn't support figure removal." Drama-Llama rampaging across the street much? "There's no way this could ever work, the coherency rules are EVIL and make my children CRY BLOOD."

While I don't recall anyone being anywhere near that hyperbolic about it, again, if the point is to influence the game's ongoing design, people pointing out that they actively dislike certain mechanics is going to be more likely to garner a change than people saying 'Meh, it's not the greatest idea, but whatever...'

Just saying. There are constructive ways to give feedback, and there is panicky rhetoric and toy-throwing...

I'm not entirely sure that we're actually reading the same thread... because I'm not seeing anything like that in this one.

People dislike certain game mechanics. In some cases, the existence of those game mechanics in the rules may well be enough to stop people from wanting to play the game.

Pointing that out isn't 'toy throwing'... it's pointing out that you won't play a game that has certain rules you don't like.

I think you're reading emotion into posts that just isn't there.

Whilst I dont think it's the next 40k I can see this "potentially" taking some market share.

The fact that you can buy a complete army from £70 and it includes a carry case is quite frankly amazing - and if we can buy the sci-fi armies for similar money it might just be worth a whirl.

I like the way they are beta testing, and the rules are free lol. I am going to be keeping my eye on this one. i wanna see the models though.

Anyone got a link to the models all painted up?

Still waiting for the models before I'll now if it's any good for me or not. Rules are rules, I learn em if I like the models. In the end, all that really matters is how cool the army men look... and I really hope they do a better job than their mostly-blah fantasy range.

Let's not, and just say we did. Keep it civil. - insaniak

Lovepug13 wrote:Anyone got a link to the models all painted up?

Nobody has a link to any models at all yet. All they've shown so far is concept art.

ah....thanks.

Will keep my eyes peeled for them

Just a couple of thoughts:

Is there any reason why one could not remove models if they so wished and both players agreed?

Not had a good look at the rules yet, but would there not be a possible issue with LoS and the amount of models on the table?
A depleted unit may be easier to hide in terrain

ArbeitsSchu wrote:Insaniak, its not that they are pointing it out. Its the WAY they are doing it. "OMG I will DIE of DEATH before I ever play a sci-fi mass battle-system that doesn't support figure removal." Drama-Llama rampaging across the street much? "There's no way this could ever work, the coherency rules are EVIL and make my children CRY BLOOD."

I will literally not play a sci-fi system at this scale that does not have casualty removal or some other means of reducing the performance of a unit as it suffers damage (and no, the -1 to hit penalty doesn't count). I'm not trying to be hyperbolic here-- I would be happy to play this system if each damage point removed a model and the unit's stats were reduced accordingly-- indeed, I think it would be quite fun as a quick and dirty version of 40k, though (just like 40k) it's not without its faults. However, the casualty removal (or lack thereof) is a dealbreaker for me, and I think that's important feedback for Mantic.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Just a couple of thoughts:

Is there any reason why one could not remove models if they so wished and both players agreed?

Not really, in fact you can already do it with KoW if you really want to, without any modification to the core rules needed.

Not had a good look at the rules yet, but would there not be a possible issue with LoS and the amount of models on the table?
A depleted unit may be easier to hide in terrain

Yeah, that would be an issue, but you could always houserule around it.

That said, I really don't think it's as much of a big deal as everyone is making out. I personally had exactly the same reaction a year ago when KoW was released... I thought that removing models would be better. Now I don't mind damage markers at all, it really is just a case of getting used to them and having counters on the table.

It's just a mental hurdle that takes a little bit of getting used to but it's not a new concept or anything, in fact Epic Armageddon uses a similar system of adding blast markers to units and that game is fantastic to play. As long as you can accept the idea that things need to be abstracted to speed up the game and reduce complexity, then it's fine. 40k is the polar opposite of this approach, with tons of complex special rules everywhere, so I can definitely see why 40k fans will not take to warpath very easily. I think warmachine players might find it easy to pick up though, since that game uses a lot of abstraction for the sake of quality gameplay.

Worth mentioning that mantic always includes corpses on their sprues for you to use as damage markers, which is pretty neat... you can litter the battlefield with the corpses of your enemies instead of boring old counters.

I quite enjoy 40k, but I do have to say it's nice to see a ruleset that can be incorporated in what is essentially a booklet. The rules, in their current state, fit on 8 double sided pages. The 40k rules fit on what, hundreds? Add 1 double sided page for the army list of your choice - 8 double sided pages for all 8 potential armies. There is something to be said for the simplicity of the ruleset.

Concept for the trike looks like the just retrofitted a drarf... but still looks AWESOME!!

Haven't given the rules a good read yet but the non-removal of models makes me raise my eyebrows.


I think there is a certain psychological reward to seeing your enemy remove models from the table---it gives you a sense of accomplishment for a good decision.

On the flip side, I also enjoy having the fear of losing my model from the table---knowing if I make a mistake I might have to remove a a nicely painted figure from the table.


I think I would miss both the reward and feeling of risk if the only visual cue I received from an action was a counter.

This might be old news but I noticed this bit about the Space Dwarf allies

AllIEs: Corporation, Rebs, Marauders,
Asterians.

I guess we know what the Chaos, Eldar and IG counterparts will be called.

And for the Marauders/Space Orks:

ALLIes: Corporation, Rebs, Forgefathers, the
eigth race, Asterians.

I assume that's 'eighth race'. The marine equivlents?

Kid_Kyoto wrote:This might be old news but I noticed this bit about the Space Dwarf allies

AllIEs: Corporation, Rebs, Marauders,
Asterians.

I guess we know what the Chaos, Eldar and IG counterparts will be called.

And for the Marauders/Space Orks:

ALLIes: Corporation, Rebs, Forgefathers, the
eigth race, Asterians.

I assume that's 'eighth race'. The marine equivlents?

marauders seem to be orks (orx?) actually.

Marauders are orks, Asterains are Eldar.

Corporation and rebs are 2 different human factions, open to speculation.

Odds are corporation will be power armour, rebs will be more IG in style.

Even if you can't stand the rules, there will be some very nice and cheap figures coming out over the course of the next year.

Im very curious how Mantic is using this information. Is there a place to give feedback directly to them?

^Yes, on the beasts of war feedback forum.

http://www.beastsofwar.com/groups/warpath-testing-group/forum/

I'm not a fan of the BoW forums (signal-to-noise ratio is horribly low), but that's the only place they'll be looking.

scarletsquig wrote:
Odds are corporation will be power armour, rebs will be more IG in style.

Sounds like a reasonable assumption, Corporation sounds like a big bad evil faction with shiny high tech equipment and "no individual" soldiers vs the ill equipped, ragged, yet tenacious, romanticized, and crafty rebs

Thats not to say though that the rebs cant easily be space terrorists and the corps arent utopian peace keeping forces