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.

Okay, I'm sitting in Cleveland International Airport, I've already watched 4 episodes of Chuck on Netflix, painted an Enforcer and just wanted to kill time. So here's the question-what do we want to see when the Warpath Kickstarter hits this summer (rumored). I'm sure tanks are in, and I'd have to change my pants about ten times if the Zz'or got Warpath rules. What else does everyone want to see? Any special rules in addition to those models? Share away, boys. Share away.

Very reasonably priced Z'zor hard plastic models.

At this point I really only have a negative want - I really do not want unit bases in Warpath.

The Auld Grump

Yeah, the same here. Also, as much quality hard plastic as possible. No more goblins or MAA shenanigans.

 Azazelx wrote:
Yeah, the same here. Also, as much quality hard plastic as possible. No more goblins or MAA shenanigans.

while i liked the goblins i got, i agree, no more maa

I think the main thing I want to see is Warpath actually having its own identity. At the moment, Mantic don't seem sure which way to push it (which is why I'm personally sceptical about anything happening in the summer). Ronnie has stated he wants to see massive games featuring planes, tanks, and hundreds of guys. For me, 28mm just isn't the scale to do that in - one major reason I don't play 40k is that I the scale is off, and I just can't see how what is being visually represented translates to any sort of believable batlefield. But if that's where Mantic see the future of Warpath then it would have to be highly abstracted to allow for faster games, and then it moves towards what people refer to as "KoW in space" - unit stats rather than model, Nerve being the arbiter of destruction rather than casualties and unit bases to allow squads to be moved about faster.

On the other hand, Warpath could be designed primarily as a smaller 'platoon' game - 3 or 4 squads of varying sizes, perhaps with light walkers and IFVs. This would then move away from the 'KoW' aspects whilst being able to retain a decent pace of game. I think it also fits in better with the Warpath aesthetic - near future 'hard' scifi rather than space fantasy (Space Dwarves, Orcs and Skaven notwithstanding).

If you read the Mantic forums then both game styles have their proponents and detractors, and I don't think there's a definite right answer, other than whatever Mantic decide to do with it has to be a committed choice - if they try to appeal to both markets then I think the game will fail - too complicated for the larger games, and lacking enough depth to be satisfying at smaller game sizes.

I'd like to see a version of 40k (20-80 models) that doesn't take a stupidly long amount of time to play and filled with terrible over-convoluted rules and hideous imbalance.

And that's what we have, Warpath 2.0: http://gallery.mailchimp.com/e62f0c35454fa3ba687404d69/files/Warpath_II_Rules.pdf

Give it a read if you haven't, it is extremely good, and I managed to condense down the *entire* rules (including terrain, buildings, vehicles, and all the special rules) on to 2 sides of A4:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/27484619/Mantic/Warpath%20Quick%20Reference.pdf

Read that and you'll know the rules, a fully-feature sci-fi wargame with alternate activation and everything.

The current rules are pretty straightforward and fast to play, I'm really struggling to see where the desire for even more abstraction is coming from, at least for 40k-sized games (which presumably most people will want to play).

I do worry that Mantic is getting the wrong end of the stick with Warpath and assuming that people aren't playing because of the rules when really its the lack of models.

Sci-fi mass-battle wargame with no proper vehicle models = it's not going to get played much. Needs a few more popular armies (Zz'or, Rebs, Nameless) and a ton vehicles.

Whatever happens, I do not want to see the WP 2.0 rules ditched without a good solid replacement for 20-80 model games that doesn't just feel like a mass battle game played at the wrong points value.

There's a real risk of "shoehorning" going on in the same way that 40k tried to handle apocalypse by bolting some stuff on to regular 40k.. with this, the danger is doing that in reverse, starting with the mass-battle game and then all the people coming from 40k wonder why they're using giant movement trays and such all the time.

SS, I am onboard with your assessment. I think 2.0 are very solid rules and wish Mantic would stay with their concept---with minor tweaks as needed.

I think a big help would be if they flooded FLGSs with their one-player mini booklets of the rules. It's ironic that FREE rules---that are this good----aren't 'out there' very much; I feel the printing costs for the end user is part of the issue.

If Mantic gave away copies of those mini rulebooks to FLGSs to give away with purchase of ANY sci-fi minis, I think it would help saturation. I think eventually somebody would pick up a stack of half dozen booklets and give the game a go. That's in places where there's nobody actively encouraging the game.

Rules-wise, not much changed from 2.0. 2.0 is a great system and runs very smoothly, as well as feeling intuitively interactive and fast-paced. The simplicity is beautiful, so it has to stay. What I don't want is fliers (they have no place in a 28mm game) and unit bases (ditto).

Model-wise:
Every faction given at least 3 infantry units, a big kit and a character/leader model. Start with wave 1: Orx, corporation/enforcers/ Forge Fathers/ Plague. Wave 2: Rebs, Zzor, Asterians and Veermyn. Basically, the same structure as DZ. If it goes even bigger, a mercenary army with standalone units from other factions (Judwan medical teams, Zees, Teratons, random crazy stuff ect.)

Mantic must be careful not to realize the entirety of an army in one release.

A conservative starting point would be for four factions to each have a plastic weapons sprue, two plastic infantry sprues (that can use the weapons sprue) - grunts and elites, and one plastic vehicle sprue/kit. Metal or restic/pvc heroes would be just fine.

 Paradigm wrote:
and unit bases (ditto).

Dunno. If the style of game warrants it, then I'd prefer unit bases to pushing around each single model in 20 groups of 10 each. But then, "if the style of game warrants it" is what I mean when I say that Warpath needs to work out its own style and identity first. I'm not disagreeing that 2.0 are good rules, but Mantic (well, Ronnie) has stated what his vision of the game is, and it's certainly bigger than what the 2.0 rules can comfortably represent.

That looks like an excellent reason not to play Bolt Action, sorry.

Really sorry, until you showed me those I was actually considering the game. (Well, that and seeing about using it for WWI - WWII games are not my cuppa.)

The Auld Grump - I still play Over the Top! when I can find an opponent.

I want a game formation where I can use all 130+ of my Enforcer models (once my models from Deadzone come in) in a game of Warpath.

And I realize I'm posting that comment while looking like a "random" poster coming in and replying to the OP...consider your minds blown. I'm just feeling random today. My head is a bit fuzzy from being overworked. One last day of work tomorrow, then a 4 day vacation though!!

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
That looks like an excellent reason not to play Bolt Action, sorry.

Really sorry, until you showed me those I was actually considering the game. (Well, that and seeing about using it for WWI - WWII games are not my cuppa.)

The Auld Grump - I still play Over the Top! when I can find an opponent.

That's the first time I've seen unit bases in Bolt Action and I'm a Warlord Sarge, haha.

I think that's more like the 40k people doing unit bases, too. Just for looks/transport/display/etc. I can't imagine trying to play a skirmish game that relies upon LOS and cover like Bolt Action and using unit basing...

I think I would prefer squads to be 5 or 6 man teams rather than 10 mean teams. No matter if they go single base or unit basing I would prefer abstracted line of sight to 40k style line of sight where the pose of the model seems very important to if someone is in cover or not.

My main army choice is Enforcers (not Corp and Enforcers as they're built into 2.0 currently) and I'd prefer 5 man squads as well. 10 man squads is too pricey to get characters and more than a couple units in, but 5 or 10 man squads would be perfect for them. They're the elite of the elite. Why shouldn't they need smaller unit sizes to unlock characters?

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
That looks like an excellent reason not to play Bolt Action, sorry.

No need to apologise, I'm not pro-unit base, unless the scale of game makes it so that it's a chore to play without them (and I'm also not a Bolt Action player, I just saw the bases in the store). I'm just wondering why so many people are treating unit basing as some sort of deal breaker without knowing anything more about how the game will actually work.

Speaking of which, my own deal breaker is squad sizes based off 5s. If it stays with squads fo 5/10/20 then I'm not interested, the squads need to be 4 or 8 man units, and the 'hordes' should ideally be 12, not 16 (and definitely not 20 - 20 guys running around together in a firefight?).

As a fan of horde-type armies in 40K (Nids, IG, and hordes of greenskins ), I am dead-set against a ruleset that discourages or does not play well with unit bases. They don't have to be required, but the absolute last thing I want to see is someone breaking out a template or something similar that farts upon choosing to base models in that way.

In addition, I'd like to see rules that allow large conflicts to actually work, smoothly and quickly. Warpath 1.0, for all it's (accurate) KoW IN SPAAAAACE!!! detraction, played as cleanly and nearly as quickly as KoW itself, slowed only by the model movement rules. Warpath 2.0, with the exception of the alternating activation rules, was otherwise a complete step in the wrong direction imo.

I don't mind if they make an updated v2.5 or something for people who prefer that ruleset and style, but will be very put off if they ignore the large-scale combat end of the scale.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
That looks like an excellent reason not to play Bolt Action, sorry.
Really sorry, until you showed me those I was actually considering the game. (Well, that and seeing about using it for WWI - WWII games are not my cuppa.)

First time I've seen them based like that, so it's clearly an optional thing...

 darkPrince010 wrote:
As a fan of horde-type armies in 40K (Nids, IG, and hordes of greenskins ), I am dead-set against a ruleset that discourages or does not play well with unit bases. They don't have to be required, but the absolute last thing I want to see is someone breaking out a template or something similar that farts upon choosing to base models in that way.

In addition, I'd like to see rules that allow large conflicts to actually work, smoothly and quickly. Warpath 1.0, for all it's (accurate) KoW IN SPAAAAACE!!! detraction, played as cleanly and nearly as quickly as KoW itself, slowed only by the model movement rules. Warpath 2.0, with the exception of the alternating activation rules, was otherwise a complete step in the wrong direction imo.

I don't mind if they make an updated v2.5 or something for people who prefer that ruleset and style, but will be very put off if they ignore the large-scale combat end of the scale.

I can set that to rest for you: Mantic doesn't do templates. A flamer gives you 10 shots that hit on 4s. Nice and easy, regardless of how your unit is based.

I want to see:
-Some nice looking vehicles
-more infantry types for existing armies

For vehicles, I want to see at least a tank and a dropship. Tank for the Corp. Dropship for the Enforcers. Even better would be if they had whoever does Antenociti's Workshop vehicle designs do the designs for Warpath.

For infantry, I'd like to see a few more body types at the very least. Corp could use some heavier armored guys. Forge Fathers could use some plastic versions of the redesigned infantry.

Lore, Plastics, and uniqueness.

There are some things that can really set them apart from the bulk of the Sci-Fi genres (the explanation for the Veer-myn is rather interesting), but they need to keep pursuing these avenues. I understand much of Sci-Fi these days is more "Futuristic Fantasy", which I can swallow, just do it like Mass Effect lore where at least stuff kinda makes sense (you can't tell me the Asari weren't designed because many 1st world men have an obsession with lesbians/bi-sexual women, but at least they did it well and didn't make it overly blatant). Get into the real nitty gritty of HOW the Teratons developed "mental" teleportation. Is this something that humans could somehow learn if they were to disect an expired Teraton's Brain? Which Corporation is trying? Are they using volunteers or being dirty about?

What keeps human society together? Having a free for all Corporate struggle wouldn't propel a species to the top of the galactic food chain forever. That's a system that implodes without a few solid checks and balances (as with any cutthroat society deprived of morals and ethics). What are these checks and balances? How is religion viewed? What are the dominant religions? (Are 1/3 of the populous Mormon? Muslim? Buddhist? Something new?) What caused the explosion of these religions? How do the corporations deal with this? And do they deal with it in different ways?

What are the mortal enemies of each race? Individual Corporation? Does a paritular race even care or do they just fight everybody and everything including themselves? At what point do corporations set aside differences and just fight the common threat?

Where do the rebs operate from? How are they organized? How unified are they? Is there any over arching agreement for galactic law that a good chunk of the species/corporations abide by? (NATO, Geneva, United Nations)

I could go on and on and on.

All races need plastic troops. That's a given. At this stage in the miniature game, your factions all need stock troops in cheap plastic to stay competitive, preferably multi-part posable plastic kits. The enforcers lend me to believe that is the direction they are going. But if you are doing a KS, that has to be the goal.

They really have a dilemma, as it seems a lot of people are interested in both a 40k-sized individual unit game and also an apocalypse-sized multi-base game. I think trying to please both with a single game will be hard to try, but splitting Warpath up into 2 more games (aside from DZ) will fracture their already-small market share/playerbase too much...

Riquende - there was a time in 40k 3rd edition where flexible unit sizes were a thing, and I'm guessing that your preference for 4-man sections and 8-man squads is based off of real life fireteams? I think some flexibility would be great, especially between different armies to reflect different organisational ethos.

In more practical terms though, I can't see that changing, as 10-man inc/Sgt is so ingrained in these games, as well as the way that Mantic sell their figures.

I'm okay with selling squads in 5s and 10s, because those extra guys just become weapon options (sergeant with pistol/sword vs sergeant with rifle for Enforcers).

And is it ingrained in 'these games', or is it ingrained in 40K? I'll admit it's not my gaming area of expertise, but I can't think of anything else that uses 10s in the modern/near future/far future squad-based shooty game genre.

 Riquende wrote:
I'm okay with selling squads in 5s and 10s, because those extra guys just become weapon options (sergeant with pistol/sword vs sergeant with rifle for Enforcers).

And is it ingrained in 'these games', or is it ingrained in 40K? I'll admit it's not my gaming area of expertise, but I can't think of anything else that uses 10s in the modern/near future/far future squad-based shooty game genre.

What I see are armies "bought" by the individual with either everyone is a specialist or minimum unit sizes of 5 / 9+master(10) / 3 big 'uns (40mm+ base per model) with additional bodies allowed up to a cap and unit specialists / upgrades available up to a cap of 1/x guys or x/unit

It depends on the "real-life" system. Armies vary anywhere from 3-7 man fireteams/squads where an LMG, HMG, RPG, or other specialty weapon might show up. Varying the number to how many guys show up on the sprue seems like a logical selling point as long as it's at a practical "real-life" number.

More rag tag organizations (terrorists, pirates, raiders etc) may even see a much higher number of stock assault rifles versus specialty weapons, so when making the in-game equivalents (cultists, revolutionaries) having even larger groupings also makes sense. I feel like army list restrictions should be centered around "what this army would look like" and not just random "balancing" functions. The balance can be done with points AFTER the fluff of the army has been established. I'm not convinced all game designers do it that way.

I said 5 man squads but I am far less concerned with the exact number than I am with not wanting 10-20 man squads of soldiers on the field. I would prefer small ish squads for the most part.

I do agree though that organisation should be based on the feel of the army. Some races having 5-6 man squads and others mostly using individuals due to them having a proud warrior society that prizes individual achievement. Maybe a race that works best in pairs because they can have a psychic link with one other person which lets them perform better.

Having armies that play differently from one another due to the lore would make me more invested in the world.

 judgedoug wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
That looks like an excellent reason not to play Bolt Action, sorry.

Really sorry, until you showed me those I was actually considering the game. (Well, that and seeing about using it for WWI - WWII games are not my cuppa.)

The Auld Grump - I still play Over the Top! when I can find an opponent.

That's the first time I've seen unit bases in Bolt Action and I'm a Warlord Sarge, haha.

I think that's more like the 40k people doing unit bases, too. Just for looks/transport/display/etc. I can't imagine trying to play a skirmish game that relies upon LOS and cover like Bolt Action and using unit basing...

You have no idea how much that relieves me.

Over the Top, much as I enjoy it, is showing its age.

Thank you for letting me know.

The Auld Grump

As has been said, think Mantic have got some very difficult decisions to make regarding what they want Warpath to be, and that can be seen to an extent by the way the game seems to have see-sawed between game styles previously.

My first thought would be for something along the lines of Bolt Action or Tomorrow's War - in terms of unit action and interaction, rather than mass-scale combat which I don't think works at 28mm without having unit bases. But that area is already now occupied by Deadzone to an extent, especially considering that game's potential for expansion.

I think 40k gets away with it on the basis of the evocative nature of its universe and seniority - people have continued to play what they are familiar with, but it sticks out like a sore thumb in this day and age with regards to its rules format and scale. But remember it wasn't always this way, and the game (for the first few editions) was designed to work with a vastly smaller model count. And the issue is going to be, if you already play 40k why would you want to pick up a game that carries the same unwieldy gameplay mechanics with it?

So, Mantic have got a difficult choice to make - but, they have got some of the best games designers in the business working for them. I've got confidence that whatever route they decide to take, whether the concept is agreeable or not, it will be well executed.

I took a look at the Warpath 2.0 rules after playing some KoW today and really enjoying it, and I'm pretty damn impressed.

I can sum up the strength of the system in one line quoted from a previous post;

 timetowaste85 wrote:


I can set that to rest for you: Mantic doesn't do templates. A flamer gives you 10 shots that hit on 4s. Nice and easy, regardless of how your unit is based.

This is exactly how I have always wanted templates and such to work. Its faster, simpler, and won't gak on me for running my enormous Ork (or Orx) horde on unit bases which as Darkprince010 mentioned, is definitely *the* way to run a huge model count.

Time and time again I find things in these rules that are either fantastic concepts themselves, or, as in the case of the flamer, specific instances where I've thought to myself "god, I wish it worked like *that*" and then boom, here it is.

I'm happy for it to stay how it is, just with more weapons and models and what not.