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.

scarletsquig wrote:^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.

I hope people are making good use of this, and I hope Mantic uses the info well.

http://www.manticgames.com/Forum.html?Topic=904&Page=1

Also this is the mantic forums.

So if you have something constructive to say say it there. And help make it an awesome game.

Remember people, everything, including the race names, are mutable.

Men I still can't believe they went with a system that has one play doing all the rolling on his turn and his opponent is basically doing nothing.

Theduke07 wrote:Men I still can't believe they went with a system that has one play doing all the rolling on his turn and his opponent is basically doing nothing.

IT makes sense in the context of a timed game. Your opponent should be planning while you are rolling all the dice.

Fetterkey wrote:

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.

So, have you made you feelings known over at BoW? or are you just repeating it here (again and again)?

For all my negative thoughts about Mantic and their "new" game, I have to give them some credit, they have been very open about the the games development and consumer involvement.....I think this is somthing we should all remember. There are rumours of a WH40K 6th Edition, just rumours.....we won't see the final product until those greedy blighters attempt to reach into our pockets and rape us for it..... I think when we use such emotive terms as above, just think of how lucky we are to be able to make that kind of decision so early in a games development....and lets also not forget, if we follow the right channels we can maybe change someting.

I have been a member of "Backstage" at BoW since it was created, and I have made my feelings about the rules known, as well as the direction the game seems to be taking. It might make a difference it might not. I have resigned myself to the fact, that no matter what I will give this game a chance.

For all those who have already decided they won't give this a go (lets remember its at a beta-test stage and before any models or background is released) can I suggest two things?

1: Get off your high horse already! The rules are free, why don't you grab some models to proxy and try the game first? If you try it and then don't like it that's fair enough, but a lot of what's being said reminds me of trying to get my 3-year-old to eat something new... "I don't like that, Daddy", "but you've not even tasted it, son"

2: Try playing KoW - just as early 40k borrowed heavily from early WFB and WFRP, its no surprise to find Warpath doing the same with KoW. Once you play KoW you understand the design philosophy - its supposed to be fast, clear, have zero rules arguments and be played in a time-limited environment. The philosophy will be same for Warpath. I can see it appealing to tournament players perhaps more than the 'casual' 40k crowd because it is in many ways what they have been looking for for years.

To sum up - don't knock it 'til you've tried it

Delephont wrote:So, have you made you feelings known over at BoW? or are you just repeating it here (again and again)?

I actually did one better and emailed Mantic directly-- not a big fan of Beasts of War.

Fetterkey wrote:

Delephont wrote:So, have you made you feelings known over at BoW? or are you just repeating it here (again and again)?

I actually did one better and emailed Mantic directly-- not a big fan of Beasts of War.

You can post on mantics forums

I like it that these guys aren't just creating extra bits for existing lines and doing "their own" thing. Shame is that the whole thing just smells of cheap GW rip off at the moment. :(

The model removal thing just seems really odd to me. It's like saying you won't ever play Battletech, by all rights a good game, because the rules don't require you to physically remove one of your mech's arms or legs if they've been damaged.

It "feels" more like a 15mm or 6mm game, wthout model removal. And the problem with that is that you've got a smaller number of individually based units to move around at those scales, so it works much better.

Sidstyler wrote:The model removal thing just seems really odd to me. It's like saying you won't ever play Battletech, by all rights a good game, because the rules don't require you to physically remove one of your mech's arms or legs if they've been damaged.

But the mech can't use its damaged arm, can it? It's just a WYSIWYG concession for the sake of playability. In Warpath dead guys not only psycically stay on the table but also move, shoot, fight in melee and so on. Not really comparable. A real comparison would be if the mech always operated at full efficiency regardless of damage until the pilot jettisoned.

lord_blackfang wrote:

Sidstyler wrote:The model removal thing just seems really odd to me. It's like saying you won't ever play Battletech, by all rights a good game, because the rules don't require you to physically remove one of your mech's arms or legs if they've been damaged.

But the mech can't use its damaged arm, can it? It's just a WYSIWYG concession for the sake of playability. In Warpath dead guys not only psycically stay on the table but also move, shoot, fight in melee and so on. Not really comparable. A real comparison would be if the mech always operated at full efficiency regardless of damage until the pilot jettisoned.

The point with Warpath (and KoW) is that damage to a unit does not represent dead guys. Damage represents lessening of morale, the suppressing effect of fire, fatigue, minor injuries, etc. as well as dead and seriously wounded men. Its much closer to Epic Armageddon in terms of its ruleset than to 40k.

Chimera_Calvin wrote:

lord_blackfang wrote:

Sidstyler wrote:The model removal thing just seems really odd to me. It's like saying you won't ever play Battletech, by all rights a good game, because the rules don't require you to physically remove one of your mech's arms or legs if they've been damaged.

But the mech can't use its damaged arm, can it? It's just a WYSIWYG concession for the sake of playability. In Warpath dead guys not only psycically stay on the table but also move, shoot, fight in melee and so on. Not really comparable. A real comparison would be if the mech always operated at full efficiency regardless of damage until the pilot jettisoned.

The point with Warpath (and KoW) is that damage to a unit does not represent dead guys. Damage represents lessening of morale, the suppressing effect of fire, fatigue, minor injuries, etc. as well as dead and seriously wounded men. Its much closer to Epic Armageddon in terms of its ruleset than to 40k.

I got that when I read it, too. Hence why I have a problem with the system using individual figures instead of multi-model bases like Epic(which would also speed up the movement of units). Individual models are unnecessary for the system as is. I keep getting the feeling they want to write 15mm/6mm games in 28mm scale.

Has anyone tried using movement trays
If so do they work okay for the combat phase?

Sorry for the rhyming couplet

Chimera_Calvin wrote:The point with Warpath (and KoW) is that damage to a unit does not represent dead guys. Damage represents lessening of morale, the suppressing effect of fire, fatigue, minor injuries, etc. as well as dead and seriously wounded men. Its much closer to Epic Armageddon in terms of its ruleset than to 40k.

I get it, but a unit of 20 individual models being the functional equivalent of one 6mm infantry stand is ridiculous and kills my suspension of disbelief.

In essence, Warpath is not a battle. It's a display. Like a mating contest. The armies show up, posture a bit and fire in the air until one side soils its pants and runs.

An alternative to the "Removing" of casualties would be to leave them lay on the table, faced up for incapacitated, or down for dead. Then have an additional rule that you could pick up dead guys weapons and remove the casualty and replace it with one of your own. ( Such as in I pick up a heavy weapon, I remove one of my regular guys and replace it with a heavy weapon.)

I wasn't spazzed on the rules, but they are a far cry different then the 40K ones of "Roll a D6 to have FUN!"

In the other rules, I can see that squads need to be tightend up and either leave them at 10 or let the characters be independent and temerarily join squads and take them over as the leader.

The issue of the vehicle capacity is... an iassue. One guy is going to end up running behind the vehicle. Why not add in the guys and let them ride outside, giving you the option of if they fell off, they roll to take a hit. Along with that, the vehicles should have a repair roll, where if you get hit, you have a chance to fix the damage and gain back points.

They need a Medic, as well. Same thought on the squaddies. I get the medic to a down guy, he rolls to see if they get back up, then the guys consolidate into a new unit, or a seperate unit.
Later on they have the chance to join thier old squads, or have the option of keeping the new one.

Targeting rules are ok, but where are the beloved Blast markers, or templates?

Cover and destruction of the table top terraign? If an enemy is in a bunker, I should be able to crack it open like an egg to get to the soft center.

If I'm hiding in a woodline, I should be able to burn it down., leaving a smoking wall of concealment behind. ( would be easy with a wind direction before the game, with a arrow marker to represent the wind direction.)

Why have a war without a objective? Have a goal oriented objective that gives you the option of adding more reserves, terraign options, or something like an orbital strike on a target. (Basicly an objective that can do something for you, instead of just- go here...)

Move as a unit tray? Why? This is supposed to be a future war, where is the free fire? If I was to see someone moving up on me, I'd be blowing them away as fast as they poked a head out. WHY wait around here? The I go you go thing is kinda pedestrian. SOmeone moves up on you you should be reacting to it, shooting at it, or falling aback and setting ambushes up on it.

As for the close combat? Why do they all get a chance, the only ones in contact should be the ones that fight. That seems like a throwback for comfort from 40K.
Once again, dropping models on thier backs or bellies, and making them into terraign checks and modifiers would be more interesting and give you something to talk about. reroll for the down guys, leave the dead guys and later on, whoever wins can change out a dead guyw ith special weapons with and equivilent.


I like them on the whole. They are workable, Just here are a few things that I'd do to give the game it's own feel.

Da Boss wrote:It "feels" more like a 15mm or 6mm game, wthout model removal. And the problem with that is that you've got a smaller number of individually based units to move around at those scales, so it works much better.

Incidentally, try taking Kings of War, cutting the base dimensions and game measurements down to centimetres and putting 15mm or 6mm historical and fantasy miniatures on them. You can play huge games of it that way with a 2 x 3 foot table. Actually, screw the 15mm miniatures, use Kings of War miniatures but have four to eight per base instead.

Then again, there already are some really good systems designed to be played that way from the ground up. My favorites are probably Fantasy Rules! TCE (Tournament & Campaign Edition), Rally Round the King, and Hordes of the Things.

My main issue with lack of figure removal is that it is in a game where you move models individually. Warpath does a *ton* to speed up the movement of units with their moving the unit commander system, but you're going to have the same (very high) number of miniatures you move with a unit all the way until it is destroyed. But on the other hand, the time they're talking about per side is very, very low (what was it? 12 minutes for a 2000 point game?).

Malika2 wrote:I like it that these guys aren't just creating extra bits for existing lines and doing "their own" thing. Shame is that the whole thing just smells of cheap GW rip off at the moment. :(

While I'm sure they'd be overjoyed if WARPATH/KINGS OF WAR take off and become the market leaders//industry standards I'm fairly sure that the rules are secondary to the miniatures - a cheaper alternative to 40K/WFB appears to be the true driving factor.

I do not want any laying down of models. It's a terrible idea as models can get damaged.

Alpharius wrote:

Malika2 wrote:I like it that these guys aren't just creating extra bits for existing lines and doing "their own" thing. Shame is that the whole thing just smells of cheap GW rip off at the moment. :(

While I'm sure they'd be overjoyed if WARPATH/KINGS OF WAR take off and become the market leaders//industry standards I'm fairly sure that the rules are secondary to the miniatures - a cheaper alternative to 40K/WFB appears to be the true driving factor.

Can see where you're coming from there, 40k/ WFB sales are the major factor, but I disagree with you that this is the main reason why Mantic are doing what they do, as a company. They want to do their own thing eventually, in the mean time, selling to GW players is simply a means to an end, they would much rather we played Kings of War rather than Warhammer. If they were purely about selling alt-GW models, then why bother releasing dwarf king's hold? Warhammer players aren't going to want to buy that, and they could have spent their resources on making plastic not-empire state troops for warhammer instead of wasting their time doing DKH. In fact, why bother releasing rules at all? All the other companies making "rip-off GW minis" do not have their own set of rules, it would be a waste of time when they are trying to sell to 40k players.

But, they did release Dwarf King's Hold, and guess what? It sold out within a few months of release (A whole print run of 10000 boxes). There is demand out there for a product that is not attached in any way to GW. Mantic made quality artwork, a good set of rules and set the price point very low for a nice cheap and fun board game and it sold like hotcakes, people love it. Mantic will now be releasing a couple of expansions for that game because it worked out so well.

Eventually I can see Mantic doing more and more things like this that have nothing to do with GW because it seems to be working out quite well for them whereas GW players on forums often say "mantic sucks, don't like the minis, don't care that they're cheap.... also I hate GW their prices are too high!". The GW crowd in general doesn't seem that interested in having mantic provide alternative cheap models for their armies, they are happy to pay GW prices while whinging about them.

If the rules are an afterthought, then why are they putting so much effort into updating them frequently and releasing betas all the time?

GW does not do any of that, it's rules and army book balance is terrible. GW is about a thousand times bigger than mantic in terms of the money it can spend on this sort of thing. It could have released all 16 codexes on the release of 5th edition if it wanted to, properly updated and balanced but it didn't, because it doesn't care about the rules, Tom Kirby said so himself, that the rules "are there to sell the minis".

Mantic produces yearly updates to it's main rules and all of it's army lists. That is an ongoing commitment to making a good set of rules, not just some half-assed attempt to make rules to sell minis. They currently have 2 game developers hired on a freelance basis, Alessio and Jake Thornton.

I don't understand why some people on here (the same people who rightfully rant about how GW sucks for making broken codexes and not bothering to update them) are now trying to tar mantic with the same brush when it just flat-out isn't true.

All evidence points to Mantic taking the rules very seriously. Look at Kings of War. Excellent game, and the army lists get updated once every year based on customer feedback. The 2011 edition will be released in a few months time.

Not only is the game free, it is also high quality. Seriously, give it a try using your warhammer figures, it's great. You can even use your GW models in official mantic tournaments, they are cool with that.

Paying $100+ for 6th edition book and then wait 5 years before your favourite army gets it's codex.. well, that sure isn't the option I'll be taking when I could get a whole army from mantic + free rules for the price of getting the rules from GW.

I currently have a massively underpowered eldar army gathering dust that was built for early 4th edition and probably won't get a 5th edition book at all. Not because GW doesn't have the resources to make that happen, they just can't be bothered to, it is not a priority compared to selling miniatures.

This was the main reason I stopped playing GW games, they just do not take their rules seriously anymore like they did back in 3rd edition 40k/ 6th edition warhammer, the release rate for new books is glacial and when books do come out they often have very poor internal balance. Have you read the tyranid codex? Complete trash, half the units are not worth taking.

That said, I'm not saying that you have to like Mantic's rules or their models, just to accept that their attempts are good and that they do at least try, rather than just treating us as cash cows.

I'm not personally interested in the Warmachine models or the rules, the models are too anime, and the rules too CCG for my tastes. However, there is no denying that Privateer Press is a fantastic company that produces great quality models and an excellent set of rules and has a top-notch attitude towards it's customers. Just because something isn't to your personal taste, that doesn't neccessarily make it a Bad Thing.

Chimera_Calvin wrote:For all those who have already decided they won't give this a go (lets remember its at a beta-test stage and before any models or background is released) can I suggest two things?

1: Get off your high horse already! The rules are free, why don't you grab some models to proxy and try the game first? If you try it and then don't like it that's fair enough, but a lot of what's being said reminds me of trying to get my 3-year-old to eat something new... "I don't like that, Daddy", "but you've not even tasted it, son"

It's really more like being offered crawfish when I already know that I don't like lobster. There's certain elements that I enjoy in miniature games and they're missing here.

2: Try playing KoW - just as early 40k borrowed heavily from early WFB and WFRP, its no surprise to find Warpath doing the same with KoW. Once you play KoW you understand the design philosophy - its supposed to be fast, clear, have zero rules arguments and be played in a time-limited environment. The philosophy will be same for Warpath. I can see it appealing to tournament players perhaps more than the 'casual' 40k crowd because it is in many ways what they have been looking for for years.

To sum up - don't knock it 'til you've tried it

40k borrowed a lot of the core rules for Fantasy but it's because it worked with how the background played out. Plus they added enough sci-fi gear and weaponry to make it not just feel like a total rip-off.

I'm not lacking for time to play, in fact, it's quite the opposite! I appreciate the fact that it will have very little rules arguments but I don't want to speed through a game, I want to enjoy it.

scarletsquig wrote:

Can see where you're coming from there, 40k/ WFB sales are the major factor, but I disagree with you that this is the main reason why Mantic are doing what they do, as a company. They want to do their own thing eventually, in the mean time, selling to GW players is simply a means to an end, they would much rather we played Kings of War rather than Warhammer. If they were purely about selling alt-GW models, then why bother releasing dwarf king's hold? Warhammer players aren't going to want to buy that, and they could have spent their resources on making plastic not-empire state troops for warhammer instead of wasting their time doing DKH. In fact, why bother releasing rules at all? All the other companies making "rip-off GW minis" do not have their own set of rules, it would be a waste of time when they are trying to sell to 40k players.........

Sorry, I didn't want to quote everything. You have some really goods points there.....I agree with them all nice one!

Scarletsquig has a point.


edit: Ninja'd by Delephont

Uh yeah, OK.

Be all that as it may, it is a safe bet that more Mantic miniatures will find their way into WFB and 40K games than KoW or Warpath.

For now.

There's no negative implied there.

Infer away though!

Of course they will. As much as mantic would like to have a game capable of rivaling 40k/WHFB it isn't going to happen any time soon. People know and like GW rules. it's hard to persuade people to make thr jump into a new ruleset but people will happily use different models for the same game.

lord_blackfang wrote:

Sidstyler wrote:The model removal thing just seems really odd to me. It's like saying you won't ever play Battletech, by all rights a good game, because the rules don't require you to physically remove one of your mech's arms or legs if they've been damaged.

But the mech can't use its damaged arm, can it? It's just a WYSIWYG concession for the sake of playability. In Warpath dead guys not only psycically stay on the table but also move, shoot, fight in melee and so on. Not really comparable. A real comparison would be if the mech always operated at full efficiency regardless of damage until the pilot jettisoned.

Exactly. This sort of abstraction is acceptable (and IMO quite elegant) in games with units moving in blocks or at very low scales, but for a 28mm game where you move models individually, it adds a lot to playtime and subtracts from immersion, at least. When you get right down to it I feel like these rules are kind of a clumsy port-- a lot of the mechanics that work well in a fantasy setting aren't well-suited for a sci-fi skirmish game.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Not removing models? Nah. I like my models to mean something.

Pass.

Agreed, especially in 25/28/32mm scale ranges. Its fine for something like Epic scale where the individual troops are very tiny, but terrible for larger scale.

I havent read the rules, but that mechanic alone kills my interest to do so.

So the rules are gak...now bring on the minis, the may still provide something for me to grab up.

Mad4Minis wrote:So the rules are gak...now bring on the minis, the may still provide something for me to grab up.

Correction. One rule is "gak" in your opinion. the system on a whole seems quite good for a beta set.