Switch Theme:

Is Kings of War any good? Asking as a frustrated GW player.  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in at
Discriminating Warrior





Austria

Sarouan wrote:

That's why I keep believing they're no better than GW.

Mantic is trying to use the successful way of selling miniatures, as this is were the money is and copying GW for that but why I still think that Mantic is better than GW despite all that is going on, is because they play their own games

and as long as the head of the departments play the games the company is selling, there is a different attitude towards the community (and the games)

Sarouan wrote:

I never saw IGOUGO systems especially better nor worst than alternate activation systems

and this case, both are the same as both are IGoUGo, what Stonehorse wants (as far as I understand his posts) is more interaction between instead of alternating actions
so changing from alternating turns to alternating actions won't solve his problems as he misses the possibilities of interrupting the opponents actions for more player interactions

my problem here is just that not being able to do that is not bad game design because I hate those things in wargames up to a point (stopping in the middle of my movement because I trigger a reaction, counterspell, whatever, resolve this and than continue moving is what I call bad design)

Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise

M41 - Alternative Rules for Battles in the 41st Millennium (40k LRB Project) 
   
Made in be
Longtime Dakkanaut






Mantic is trying to use the successful way of selling miniatures, as this is were the money is and copying GW for that but why I still think that Mantic is better than GW despite all that is going on, is because they play their own games

and as long as the head of the departments play the games the company is selling, there is a different attitude towards the community (and the games)


I get what you're saying. I'm not sure all the heads at Mantic Games HQ do currently play all their games to the needed amount of time as to understand why some people may criticize some of their game aspects, though. After all, they have their own work to do outside of games.

As the attitude...it depends. The way they handled the KoW campaign recently ended was a bit...I don't know, it was weird to me that it ended so quickly. I actually forgot it was launched, TBH. It felt a bit like they did hype about it a few months earlier only to give birth to a midget. Oh well.

But it's true we have them coming on fan pages so it gives the feeling they are close to us.



and this case, both are the same as both are IGoUGo, what Stonehorse wants (as far as I understand his posts) is more interaction between instead of alternating actions
so changing from alternating turns to alternating actions won't solve his problems as he misses the possibilities of interrupting the opponents actions for more player interactions


Ah, my bad, you're right. TBH, I associate the lack of interaction in game as being "inactive in game".

I also believe that putting more interactions in game would also interfere with the simple aspect of the rules, since you'll obviously enter into more special cases that need to be clear. Which would go directly against one of KoW's main points, IMHO.



my problem here is just that not being able to do that is not bad game design because I hate those things in wargames up to a point (stopping in the middle of my movement because I trigger a reaction, counterspell, whatever, resolve this and than continue moving is what I call bad design)


Exactly. It tends to take more time as well, moreover (more pauses needed to give enough time to your opponent to react properly). And not even talking about the headache afterwards !
   
Made in us
Courageous Questing Knight





Texas

I am really not sure about the immense dislike for IGOUGO based games, as most games are like this.

Do you get up and leave the table when playing Chess during your opponent's turn, or sit there contemplating what you will do, if he/she does this or that?

My Novella Collection is available on Amazon - Action/Fantasy/Sci-Fi - https://www.amazon.com/Three-Roads-Dreamt-Michael-Leonard/dp/1505716993/

 
   
Made in us
Seven Year War Afficianado






Chicago

Chopped your Quote into 2 sections...

Sarouan wrote:


1 Otherwise, I still appreciate KoW for what it is, even though we do have indeed the current GW game system cycle at work here. That you need less books to play everything doesn't change that fact.


2 [b]I agree waiting time is longer in IGOUGO systems. And I do recognize it's not especially fun in itself. However, I think the perception of this waiting time to be "lost time" really depends on how you look at the game itself. To me, a game is not just to be enjoyed by itself, it's also enjoying the company of others (which is why Jervis Johnson talked a lot about the "social contract of games"). When you wait for your turn, being "inactive" in game doesn't mean you're inactive as a person. Usually, that's when you chat with your opponent or check others things, and it's very practical for taking short breaks indeed. I don't see it necessarily as a bad thing for that reason.


What I do enjoy in KoW is its relative simplicity.


I disagree a bit with the first one. Yes, a new edition every 4 years is the same thing that GW does, however, I don't think you can call it the GW system when the books cost half as much and you only need 2 books for the rules and ALL the armies. In fact if I'm spending less than $75 bucks on books each time I'd actually prefer a new edition every 4 years if it results in good tweaks, updates, clarifications, etc.

Your second point is perhaps the most important and one I agree with wholeheartedly. The social aspect of gaming is paramount for me. Down time in KOW isn't down time. It's a chance to chat, encourage your opponent, snack, bathroom and scheme your next move. When you're moving an entire army, time to scheme/strategize is quite useful and as has been mentioned so many times KOW's simplicity leads to turns that just aren't that long.

Chicago Skirmish Wargames club. Join us for some fast-play, indie gaming in the windy city.
http://chicagoskirmishwargames.com/blog/


My Project Log, mostly revolving around custom "Toybashed" terrain.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/651712.page

Visit the Chicago Valley Railroad!
https://chicagovalleyrailroad.blogspot.com 
   
Made in at
Discriminating Warrior





Austria

Sarouan wrote:

Mantic is trying to use the successful way of selling miniatures, as this is were the money is and copying GW for that but why I still think that Mantic is better than GW despite all that is going on, is because they play their own games

and as long as the head of the departments play the games the company is selling, there is a different attitude towards the community (and the games)


I get what you're saying. I'm not sure all the heads at Mantic Games HQ do currently play all their games to the needed amount of time as to understand why some people may criticize some of their game aspects, though. After all, they have their own work to do outside of games.

As the attitude...it depends. The way they handled the KoW campaign recently ended was a bit...I don't know, it was weird to me that it ended so quickly. I actually forgot it was launched, TBH. It felt a bit like they did hype about it a few months earlier only to give birth to a midget. Oh well.

But it's true we have them coming on fan pages so it gives the feeling they are close to us.


if they play enough is a different story, but having the CEO playing live against the Head of PR on Youtube (or the CEO building the new model kit) shows that they at least know what the game is about (and how it plays) that they are trying to sell

Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise

M41 - Alternative Rules for Battles in the 41st Millennium (40k LRB Project) 
   
Made in si
Ravenous Beast Form







I'd argue that IGOUGO is actually the fresh mechanic in 2021, we've had what, 10 years now for sure, of every single indy game and most GW side games being AA? I enjoy being able to execute a coherent battleplan, and I enjoy not having to wait for my opponent to rethink theirs n times each round, where n is the number of their surviving units.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/05 12:29:02


Posters on ignore list: 34

40k Potica Edition - 40k patch with reactions, suppression and all that good stuff. Feedback thread here.

Gangs of Nu Ork - Necromunda / Gorkamorka expansion supporting all faction. Feedback thread here
   
Made in us
Calculating Commissar




pontiac, michigan; usa

I think the issue of IGOUGO is more in a game where each turn can output such a decisive decision and going first is just a random roll. I think a lot of this is more if it only takes a turn or so to jump on a bunch of objectives or stupid shooting lists that can wipe out one third of your army before you can even do anything. If the killing power of the game (extreme shooting and movement) can be toned down for a turn or two then it's not so bad.

Join skavenblight today!

http://the-under-empire.proboards.com/ (my skaven forum) 
   
Made in de
Terrifying Doombull






Nuremberg

Yeah, IGOUGO works best in games based around melee with only limited shooting. Otherwise first turn advantage is too large. Or maybe you could have shooting be simultaneous? Probably a way to design around it.
That's why I prefer Alternating Activation.

   
Made in si
Ravenous Beast Form







Alpha strike isn't an issue in games with functional terrain rules. That's why it's only been a problem in 40k from 5th edition on

AA brings its own slew of problems, one being the incentive to completely ignore activated units no matter how vulnerable, in favour of blasting the biggest thing that hasn't activated yet.

One solution to both is resolving all damage at end of round, but bookkeeping is annoying.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Anyway KoW has none of these problems and in fact shooty armies tend to want to go second so the enemy walks into 24" range.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/09/06 11:05:35


Posters on ignore list: 34

40k Potica Edition - 40k patch with reactions, suppression and all that good stuff. Feedback thread here.

Gangs of Nu Ork - Necromunda / Gorkamorka expansion supporting all faction. Feedback thread here
   
Made in be
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Da Boss wrote:
Yeah, IGOUGO works best in games based around melee with only limited shooting. Otherwise first turn advantage is too large. Or maybe you could have shooting be simultaneous? Probably a way to design around it.
That's why I prefer Alternating Activation.


EDIT : my suggestion to use alternate activations was bad, so I removed it. KoW actually needs to be reworked a bit more for it to function properly.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/07 10:35:26


 
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut





 stonehorse wrote:
Never in all my 10 years playing Kings of War has anyone ever suggested using chess clocks. That part of the rules is very much a gimmick that was tacked on as an after thought. Using it as a reason why the game has to remain IGOUGO doesn't carry water.


Actually we were using chess clocks at the early invitation only playtest events. The fact that Alessio is a big fan of chess might give you a window into his thinking.

   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





Central Valley, California

I will chime in here --- KoW is a light game, and I find it enjoyable. With a basic magic system, it is not highly unbalanced and the spells / items add flavor to the game.

I enjoy KoW much more than I ever did WFB, and I am a fan of Rank & Flank systems.

You will find the issues described by others to be a factor, but no where near as disappointing / frustrating as 40K.

If you have a few opponents who will jump into it with you, proxy some cards as units and throw some terrain down and give it a go. I think you may be refreshed.

~ Shrap

Rolling 1's for five decades.
AoS * Warcry * LoTR SBG * Dust 1947 * Warmaster 10mm * 40K & Kill Team * Flames of '47 * Reign in Hell
 
   
Made in us
The Conquerer






Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios

KoW is reasonably balanced, but it really IMO completely lacks the flavor of WHFB. And somehow I think it loses the general flavor of most ranked infantry table top games too. The game mechanics just don't feel like you're smashing units of soldiers together in melee combat.

KoW just comes across as the plain oatmeal of wargames. Its balanced, but at the cost of any type of flavor or enjoy-ability IMO.

Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines

Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.

MURICA!!! IN SPESS!!! 
   
Made in us
Exalted Beastlord




 Grey Templar wrote:
KoW is reasonably balanced, but it really IMO completely lacks the flavor of WHFB. And somehow I think it loses the general flavor of most ranked infantry table top games too. The game mechanics just don't feel like you're smashing units of soldiers together in melee combat.

KoW just comes across as the plain oatmeal of wargames. Its balanced, but at the cost of any type of flavor or enjoy-ability IMO.


I'd agree with that. My experiences with KoW is you can change the measurements and play it with cardboard unit chits on graph (or hex) paper and not lose anything.
Which IMO is a bad thing for a miniatures game.

While Warhammer places way too much emphasis on the (multiple) attacks of each individual model, KoW makes everything below the unit level almost completely irrelevant. (or made, I admittedly haven't kept up with the edition churn)

Efficiency is the highest virtue. 
   
Made in at
Discriminating Warrior





Austria

Voss wrote:

While Warhammer places way too much emphasis on the (multiple) attacks of each individual model, KoW makes everything below the unit level almost completely irrelevant. (or made, I admittedly haven't kept up with the edition churn)

Well, it is a R&F game so I don't expect anything but the unit (and command) to matter

Warhammer had this nice mix between Skirmish and R&F (but depending on Editions was more a Mass Skirmish with Formations rather than an R&F game like 8th, were 6th was R&F with Skirmish elements) and Action/Reaction based system

No problem if someone does not like this and want something with more focus on the individual model, but KoW is a Rank & File Wargame with IGoUGo and is doing what you expect from one and never pretended to be something else (like a Mass Skirmish Miniature game with R&F elements)

It is a bit unfair to blame the game not doing what it never said it will

Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise

M41 - Alternative Rules for Battles in the 41st Millennium (40k LRB Project) 
   
Made in be
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Grey Templar wrote:
KoW is reasonably balanced, but it really IMO completely lacks the flavor of WHFB. And somehow I think it loses the general flavor of most ranked infantry table top games too. The game mechanics just don't feel like you're smashing units of soldiers together in melee combat.

KoW just comes across as the plain oatmeal of wargames. Its balanced, but at the cost of any type of flavor or enjoy-ability IMO.


It was true for the first edition and in a less way for the second. But things are changing slowly for the 3rd...and we already see the impact on balance.

Some players still don't understand that balance gets always in the way of flavor. You also see that phenomenom with AoS 3.0 : less options for better balance (less command traits, less artifacts, less special rules for the "free" lesser factions, and so on).

Warhammer Battle was unbalanced...and that's why it was so rich.

Depends what are your priorities with the game, in the end.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Voss wrote:

While Warhammer places way too much emphasis on the (multiple) attacks of each individual model, KoW makes everything below the unit level almost completely irrelevant. (or made, I admittedly haven't kept up with the edition churn)



It's funny because I saw that argument with Warhammer Battle too. The argument was that models part of a unit were ultimately just token to remove when the unit gets losses and you could replace them with cardboard.

Well yeah. In a wargame, miniatures are ultimately just token for the rules. The reason why we use miniatures is for another reason than the rules, in fact : for the visual, for the pleasure to use our miniatures built and painted with love...

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/16 09:13:26


 
   
Made in ie
Dakka Veteran




Ireland

 kodos wrote:
Voss wrote:

While Warhammer places way too much emphasis on the (multiple) attacks of each individual model, KoW makes everything below the unit level almost completely irrelevant. (or made, I admittedly haven't kept up with the edition churn)

Well, it is a R&F game so I don't expect anything but the unit (and command) to matter

Warhammer had this nice mix between Skirmish and R&F (but depending on Editions was more a Mass Skirmish with Formations rather than an R&F game like 8th, were 6th was R&F with Skirmish elements) and Action/Reaction based system

No problem if someone does not like this and want something with more focus on the individual model, but KoW is a Rank & File Wargame with IGoUGo and is doing what you expect from one and never pretended to be something else (like a Mass Skirmish Miniature game with R&F elements)

It is a bit unfair to blame the game not doing what it never said it will


Sorry, but Kings of War is not a Rank & File game. Where in the rules does it go in to detail about how Ranks work, how enemy units can deny Ranks?

Kings of War is a Block & Flank game, units have an inflexible footprint and gain attacks from attacking enemy units in the Flank/Rear.

Warhammer fantasy battles, Oathmark, A Song of Ice and Fire, Age of Fantasy Regiments, etc are examples of a Rank & File game.

Sarouan wrote:

It was true for the first edition and in a less way for the second. But things are changing slowly for the 3rd...and we already see the impact on balance.

Some players still don't understand that balance gets always in the way of flavor. You also see that phenomenom with AoS 3.0 : less options for better balance (less command traits, less artifacts, less special rules for the "free" lesser factions, and so on).

Warhammer Battle was unbalanced...and that's why it was so rich.

Depends what are your priorities with the game, in the end.



Very true, balance is good if the end goal is a game that is geared up for Tournament/competitive play.

For narrative and casual play balance is less important as the aim is not about winning. The big issue is when plays bring a competitive mindset over to a narrative game... that usually ends badly.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/16 10:50:37


The objective of the game is to win. The point of the game is to have fun. The two should never be confused. 
   
Made in at
Discriminating Warrior





Austria

 stonehorse wrote:

Sorry, but Kings of War is not a Rank & File game. Where in the rules does it go in to detail about how Ranks work, how enemy units can deny Ranks?

Kings of War is a Block & Flank game, units have an inflexible footprint and gain attacks from attacking enemy units in the Flank/Rear.

Rank&File is the name/specific term for that block were the soldiers move/act with a specific formation unlike a Horde

the term is used for games were the R&F unit is the basic element on the table (and Skirmish were the basic element is the single model)

You don't need mechanics for Ranks to have an R&F game, and I have never read the term "Block and Flank" for any game, and the majority of historical non-skirmish would be those by your definition

Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise

M41 - Alternative Rules for Battles in the 41st Millennium (40k LRB Project) 
   
Made in si
Ravenous Beast Form







Pretty sure real life rank and file battles did not have rules for denying ranks either.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/16 11:21:22


Posters on ignore list: 34

40k Potica Edition - 40k patch with reactions, suppression and all that good stuff. Feedback thread here.

Gangs of Nu Ork - Necromunda / Gorkamorka expansion supporting all faction. Feedback thread here
   
Made in ie
Dakka Veteran




Ireland

 kodos wrote:
 stonehorse wrote:

Sorry, but Kings of War is not a Rank & File game. Where in the rules does it go in to detail about how Ranks work, how enemy units can deny Ranks?

Kings of War is a Block & Flank game, units have an inflexible footprint and gain attacks from attacking enemy units in the Flank/Rear.

Rank&File is the name/specific term for that block were the soldiers move/act with a specific formation unlike a Horde

the term is used for games were the R&F unit is the basic element on the table (and Skirmish were the basic element is the single model)

You don't need mechanics for Ranks to have an R&F game, and I have never read the term "Block and Flank" for any game, and the majority of historical non-skirmish would be those by your definition


Block and Flank is more accurate to how those games and Kings of War play. Some have units comprised of several stands, which add to the unit and are removed as the unit takes damage and thus reduce its combat effectiveness. That comes close to Rank & File.

I understand why the terminology is used, I am merely pointing out how it is incorrect.

Edit, I gave several examples of games that fit the description more accurately, as they have rules for ranks, whether that be by adding more attacks, or making it easier to hit the enemy unit or adding to the overall combat score. So there should be a separation of thise games that have rules for Rank & File, and those that while have units in blocks that are similar have no rules for ranks. Some of the multibased units in Kings of War look very close to a horde it must be said.

lord_blackfang 798665 11237578
22c911076cab533e6705251b886057a7.jpg wrote:


Pretty sure real life rank and file battles did not have rules for denying ranks either.


OK...

While no rules as such (because real life doesn't have rules, shock horror), ranks gave units a big advantage in both morale and combat effectiveness over those who didn't.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/16 11:58:05


The objective of the game is to win. The point of the game is to have fun. The two should never be confused. 
   
Made in be
Longtime Dakkanaut





There are ranks and files in KoW, though. They're just not following the same rules than other games like Warhammer Battle...but the way the miniatures are set in units depending of their type are following ranks and files.

Even if some players do like to use the "minimum" number of miniatures and put them somewhat loose on the unit footprint instead, the intent behind KoW's design is still using ranks and files. That's also why the profile of the units are different depending on their size; and why units with a larger front do have more attacks while the difference between troops and regiments (that have the same front size, in the end) isn't that big in comparison.

Having more attacks when you charge a unit on its flank or behind is the translation in rules for KoW to represent the disorganization amongst enemy ranks. Granted, it's more random than fixed bonuses like Warhammer Battle, but that's the reason why this rule exists.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/10/16 17:45:11


 
   
Made in at
Discriminating Warrior





Austria

taking it serious and breaking it down:

Infantry Troops have X Attack and Y Health-Points/Moral (aka Nerf) and represent Soldiers in 2 Ranks

Regiments represent the same Soldiers in 4 Ranks, hence the Attacks are similar with a slight increase to represent supporting attacks, but their Nerf/Moral increases to represent the Bonus of the additional Ranks

Hordes double the attacks because they don't increase Ranks but double Files and increased Nerf to represent the extra bodies

Flanking charges getting a Bonus represents that the Bonus for extra Ranks is broken in addition to the caused disorder
But instead of adding a rule "If an enemy charges in the flank or rare the unit uses the Nerf of Troops instead of the value of their current unit type and Troops half the Nerf value" increasing the Attacks is the more simple solution for a similar result

PS: and there are not many R&F games that remove actual models/bases as casualties and those that do are usually a variation of Warhammer
decreasing moral and/or fighting power instead of removing models is the most common mechanic for R&F games in the historical sector and no one is really breaking with that as it makes no sense

like a Napoleonic Bataillone represents 600-1000 Soldiers and is the smallest tactical element in an R&F game, historical battles with ~20% casualties were seen as the bloodiest and less than 10% was normal

So having a unit of 24 Models, each one represents 30 Soldiers and with 10-20% casualties the unit is broken and flees, this means removing 2-5 models out of 24 before the whole unit is destroyed
this does not change the fighting power of the unit and also does not help to distinguish undamaged from damaged units as 18 models could be as well an under strength unit that is still on full health
and with most people put 4-8 models on a single base, you remove 1 base out of 6 before the whole unit is removed

this is way too much hassle for no benefit


Yes the examples are fine, but those games also represents different scales because as soon as the single model is important your are going down to a 1 model = 1 soldiers Skirmish game mechanic
and for that, those games have a much better immersion than wargames with a larger scale

there are also Napoleonics with model removal and single model mechanics, but than the army on the table is a single Company (or less) and each unit a platoon instead of a Bataillone (and the Army on the table a Division)

Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise

M41 - Alternative Rules for Battles in the 41st Millennium (40k LRB Project) 
   
Made in us
Exalted Beastlord




Sarouan wrote:

It's funny because I saw that argument with Warhammer Battle too. The argument was that models part of a unit were ultimately just token to remove when the unit gets losses and you could replace them with cardboard.

Well yeah. In a wargame, miniatures are ultimately just token for the rules.


You (and Kodos) are misunderstanding me. KoW doesn't treat miniatures as tokens. It treats the unit size as a single token. (Troop, Regiment, Horde<Legion). All you need is a note about that on a chit and maybe a relative size on the paper/table/play surface, as nothing ever violates the outer edge of a unit's borders. There are no formations, just static rectangles based on size and type. As far as the game is written, the rectangles are all you need.

I'm not saying its a bad game, but the rank and file aspect absolutely does not matter. A unit is X by Y, and the Y only matters for determining whether an enemy is over the line for a flank charge rather than a front or rear charge (because bigger units have a longer flank).

Damage never affect models, its only a counter for when the unit vanishes. There is no token aspect to the minis.

The reason why we use miniatures is for another reason than the rules, in fact : for the visual, for the pleasure to use our miniatures built and painted with love...

I'd believe that if I'd met more people (for any game, completely system agnostic here) that actually painted their models.>

Efficiency is the highest virtue. 
   
Made in au
Noise Marine Terminator with Sonic Blaster





Melbourne

Some of you, particularly stonehorse, might find the rules for Gods of Battle by Foundry interesting.

Yes it has a suspiciously similar name because Jake Thornton originally wrote it to pitch for KoW but Alessio’s rules were preferred.

Alternate activation. Individual model removal (impacts attacks once you drop a certain number). Light units on round bases move like skirmishers, heavy units on square bases, and some round-based units that are kinda heavy (important for combat resolution). Has control zones, so you can’t just prance around right in front of an enemy ranked unit. Unit profiles are similarly simplistic to KoW, but each race has it’s own magic and items.

Ex-Mantic Rules Committees: Kings of War, Warpath
"The Emperor is obviously not a dictator, he's a couch."
Starbuck: "Why can't we use the starboard launch bays?"
Engineer: "Because it's a gift shop!" 
   
Made in at
Discriminating Warrior





Austria

Voss wrote:

You (and Kodos) are misunderstanding me. KoW doesn't treat miniatures as tokens. It treats the unit size as a single token. (Troop, Regiment, Horde<Legion). All you need is a note about that on a chit and maybe a relative size on the paper/table/play surface, as nothing ever violates the outer edge of a unit's borders. There are no formations, just static rectangles based on size and type. As far as the game is written, the rectangles are all you need


This I understand very well and it has to do with the scale of the game and what the unit represent

Looking again at Napoleonic (as there are the military terms most people know), a unit being a Platoon of Company you may have single models but not really changes formation

A unit being a Bataillon, no single models needed, but change of formation is, so more bases per unit are useful

And a unit being a Brigade or Division, no need for single models or bases as you don't remove models or change formation


And this is were immersion comes into play, a game with single models in units telling you that each unit are hundreds or thousands of soldiers and you have a whole Army on the table gets into trouble if the single model matters, the single hero breaking units, and change of formations can be done on the move
(a unit of hundreds won't turn 180° and charge in one go, a unit of 20 on the other hand might)

So a game like SAGA, AoF, Oathmark telling me that this 1:1 is realistic/immersive, those telling me they are 1:10/20/100 is not

KoW saying that those are armies fighting is realistic as the influence of single models/heroes or how units act is realistic for a larger scale
If the game would tell me 1 model is 1 soldier, I would say it is stupid and the rules do a bad job

PS: all those games can be played with a sheet of paper or wooden tokens, you don't need models for any game out there

Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise

M41 - Alternative Rules for Battles in the 41st Millennium (40k LRB Project) 
   
Made in si
Ravenous Beast Form







Voss wrote:

I'm not saying its a bad game, but the rank and file aspect absolutely does not matter. A unit is X by Y, and the Y only matters for determining whether an enemy is over the line for a flank charge rather than a front or rear charge (because bigger units have a longer flank).

Damage never affect models, its only a counter for when the unit vanishes. There is no token aspect to the minis.


And the only time any of that crap mattered in WHFB in actual play was when you had 3 dudes left who randomly aced a dozen Ld checks in a row and you used them to magically trip up an entire enemy regiment. Let's not pretend you saw anything other than the optimal size/shape for each unit in an attempt to make KoW look like the lesser game.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/10/17 22:31:10


Posters on ignore list: 34

40k Potica Edition - 40k patch with reactions, suppression and all that good stuff. Feedback thread here.

Gangs of Nu Ork - Necromunda / Gorkamorka expansion supporting all faction. Feedback thread here
   
Made in us
The Conquerer






Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Voss wrote:

I'm not saying its a bad game, but the rank and file aspect absolutely does not matter. A unit is X by Y, and the Y only matters for determining whether an enemy is over the line for a flank charge rather than a front or rear charge (because bigger units have a longer flank).

Damage never affect models, its only a counter for when the unit vanishes. There is no token aspect to the minis.


And the only time any of that crap mattered in WHFB in actual play was when you had 3 dudes left who randomly aced a dozen Ld checks in a row and you used them to magically trip up an entire enemy regiment. Let's not pretend you saw anything other than the optimal size/shape for each unit in an attempt to make KoW look like the lesser game.


In Warhammer each dude contributes attacks, so he feels like an actual part of the game. Not just a wound token, but also attacks and stuff. Plus while there might have been optimal unit widths and such, you were never limited by those. You could actually make your units wider/narrower as you wanted. KoW is just so pigeonholed.

If I had a unit of dudes I could make them super wide to maximize my attacks or I could make them narrower to increase ranks. The ability to change your ranks is great, and honestly an important part of a massed infantry battle from a historical perspective. Losing that loses a lot of immersion for a game, even if its not necessarily balanced.

And just for an example, I would run my ogres both in units that were 3 wide, 4 wide, and 6 wide sometimes. Depended on what army composition I was running. I liked the Empire's old detachment system(even it was a little mind bending to understand).

KoW is absolutely a lesser game when it comes to flavor. Balanced gameplay is nice, and important, but not at the total expense of flavor and character.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/18 05:12:31


Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines

Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.

MURICA!!! IN SPESS!!! 
   
Made in at
Discriminating Warrior





Austria

 Grey Templar wrote:
The ability to change your ranks is great, and honestly an important part of a massed infantry battle from a historical perspective. Losing that loses a lot of immersion for a game, even if its not necessarily balanced.

yeah, but not on a "per unit" level for armies, this is the reason why you play with large formations in most historical games, because they single unit did not change most of the time

a unit that changes from 7 wide and 3 deep for the best attack formation, to 5 wide and 4 deep for better defence, has no historical background, not if you think about army scale

unit formations stayed in their optimal formation most of the time, only light Infantry or Cavalry was to change more often, on Platoon/Company level if fighting within a larger army formation


if those are small engagments with 1 model being 1 soldier and you are re-fighting small skirmishes of 100 soldiers, than it is more realistic, if this is supposed to be an army of a 1000 or more, not really

this is not 1 game being better than the other, but 1 game is based on a very differnt scale than the other
Warhammer is not a realistic/historical army level game, same as SAGA is not.
But for small skirmishes between Squads/Platoons, it works very well were KoW is bad at bringing the Squads/Platoon Level on the table but works well for Company/Battalion level

PS: and in 20 years of Warhammer, with my fair share of competitive games, I haven't seen a lot of people changing formations outside for those units were it was "free" on the move

Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise

M41 - Alternative Rules for Battles in the 41st Millennium (40k LRB Project) 
   
Made in si
Ravenous Beast Form







I guess a dozen pages of rules bloat about formations that nobody actually used in practice and wasn't even used much in real life is not my idea of realistic and immersive.

Someone gonna bring up lapping around next?

Posters on ignore list: 34

40k Potica Edition - 40k patch with reactions, suppression and all that good stuff. Feedback thread here.

Gangs of Nu Ork - Necromunda / Gorkamorka expansion supporting all faction. Feedback thread here
   
Made in us
Seven Year War Afficianado






Chicago

Saying that either KoW or WHFB are realistic is a joke. There's a lot of ways to compare the two, but if you're looking for realism, you're in the wrong genre to begin with and if you want some measure of "realistic" Battalion level combat in a fantasy setting it's time to switch to a smaller scale and a different ruleset.

These are fun fantasy wargames with little connection to "reality" and that's as it should be.

All that said, WHFB is of course the clear winner when it comes to flavor, simply based on the number of stats and special rules each unit has and other ways in which one can customize each unit. If one desires a near-RPG level of flavor for their fantasy rules it's hard to beat WHFB.

KoW, on the other hand is (IMHO) the winner when it comes to time-required to play and streamlined gameplay. it has enough flavor to differentiate between units, but clearly favors abstractions aimed speeding up gameplay and limiting complexity and rule-stacking.

For the record I really don't think there is necessarily a "right" or "wrong choice. For my personal preferences, and the fact that it is currently in production, I'd definitely steer a new gamer or former WHFB player to KoW with no reservations.
As has been clearly shown, fans of certain aspects of WHFB will not be satisfied with KoW but that is neither wrong nor unexpected.

Chicago Skirmish Wargames club. Join us for some fast-play, indie gaming in the windy city.
http://chicagoskirmishwargames.com/blog/


My Project Log, mostly revolving around custom "Toybashed" terrain.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/651712.page

Visit the Chicago Valley Railroad!
https://chicagovalleyrailroad.blogspot.com 
   
 
Forum Index » Mantic Miniature Games (Kings of War, etc.)
Go to: