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.

Whhheeeeeeee!! Looking forward to a good Sci-Fi game again involving little plastic men. We used to have one of those. Then it died. Good thing a replacement is on the way. 3 > 6 or 7!!

Out of curiosity, what does everyone think of the idea of movement trays and element basing (5 models on a movement tray) for a sci-fi game?

I'm not even sure myself what the new rules will look like, but this is something Ronnie has mentioned.

I don't like movement trays for anything 20th century or later, to include Sci-Fi. With the advances in tech that have occurred and are likely to occur, guys lined up or clustered together that closely just does't look right to me for any game where the player takes on the role of a platoon leader or company commander.

Now, if the player is supposed to be a BN commander and is maneuvering platoons or companies, platoon bases are appropriate.

At 28mm I'm not a fan. Movement trays make sense for fantasy and historical because that was actually how they fought. Modern and later combat where the soldiers spread out to avoid area-effect weaponry makes the movement trays into an undesirable break from immersion, IMO.

At 15mm and under, well, obviously it's fine since infantry are super tiny anyway and the area covered by a base is actually pretty sizable.

 scarletsquig wrote:
Now that the info seems to be in the public domain after being confirmed.. I'll mention it here:

- Deadzone Kickstarter wave 2 will ship with a copy of the Warpath 3.0 rules.

Or, to put it more accurately, Warpath 1st Edition.. in the same way that the KoW hardback is considered 1st Edition despite also having 1.0 and 2.0 rules before it.

It won't be WP3.0 rules. It'll be beta 3.0 rules. They won't be final and Mantic are willing to make significant changes based on feedback.

 scarletsquig wrote:
Out of curiosity, what does everyone think of the idea of movement trays and element basing (5 models on a movement tray) for a sci-fi game?

I'm not even sure myself what the new rules will look like, but this is something Ronnie has mentioned.

Make it 4 to a base and I'm in.

Something like this, but with a more irregular pattern (with a couple of different patterns for variety's sake) and maybe rounded corners:

Movement trays for SF games just don't seem 'right' to me.

With SF combat being primarily a ranged thing, it just seems...wrong.

I'm partial to the concept at high quantities but you'd sacrifice some playability doing so. I always wondered if there was a 2d (ie. x, y) version of one of these sphere expander toys to act as a movement tray where you could expand or contract to create different spacing between the models on the fly.

 Alpharius wrote:
Movement trays for SF games just don't seem 'right' to me.

With SF combat being primarily a ranged thing, it just seems...wrong.

I see no real difference between this and infantry squads in something like Epic, or (for the kids) Dropzone Commander, and the same concerns never get raised there.

It all depends on the scale of the game, for me. If my group of 4 guys are going to move around together everywhere, and have to maintain coherency at all times, and there are no downsides inherent in the rules (things like blast templates) AND they're one of 20 or so similar squads of guys doing the same thing? Then yes, movement tray every time thanks, even at 28mm.

I think it doesn't seem right because it's not currently done. If a game came along that popularised it, then greater acceptance could follow.

 Riquende wrote:

I see no real difference between this and infantry squads in something like Epic, or (for the kids) Dropzone Commander, and the same concerns never get raised there.

It all depends on the scale of the game, for me. If my group of 4 guys are going to move around together everywhere, and have to maintain coherency at all times, and there are no downsides inherent in the rules (things like blast templates) AND they're one of 20 or so similar squads of guys doing the same thing? Then yes, movement tray every time thanks, even at 28mm.

I think it doesn't seem right because it's not currently done. If a game came along that popularised it, then greater acceptance could follow.

As I alluded to with my post, it's not really raised there because the ground covered by a base is actually pretty sizable. Also, infantry and their tactics are rarely the focus of that scale of game and it is instead on vehicles/walkers and aircraft that normally don't appear on the table. At that scale the abstraction you're dealing with anyway encompasses the movement tray/base approach.

At 28mm my feeling is that model falls apart because the scale is close-in enough that soldiers clumping up looks wrong. Grenades and artillery are the primary reason soldiers tend to spread out and given their prevalence and effectiveness in modern combat saying that they will somehow be phased out in the far future stretches disbelief past the breaking point. To then try and further add on a lack of radios or other communications devices to facilitate more dispersion when those technolgies and tactics are already extant and it becomes patently ridiculous.

Could it be done? Maybe, as you say we've not seen someone really make a strong play at doing it. However, I'm extremely doubtful it can be done well enough at the scale to compensate for the damage being done to the suspension of disbelief.

 Riquende wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:
Movement trays for SF games just don't seem 'right' to me.

With SF combat being primarily a ranged thing, it just seems...wrong.

I see no real difference between this and infantry squads in something like Epic, or (for the kids) Dropzone Commander, and the same concerns never get raised there.

It all depends on the scale of the game, for me. If my group of 4 guys are going to move around together everywhere, and have to maintain coherency at all times, and there are no downsides inherent in the rules (things like blast templates) AND they're one of 20 or so similar squads of guys doing the same thing? Then yes, movement tray every time thanks, even at 28mm.

I think it doesn't seem right because it's not currently done. If a game came along that popularised it, then greater acceptance could follow.

OK?

I also don't like it as it makes dealing with terrain unnecessarily fiddly, complex and unwieldy.

Well, as someone who admittedly doesn't have much knowledge of modern 40K and the like:

I thought that most Sci-fi games above the skirmish level tended to require unit consistency, at least - no models more than 1 or 2 inches apart. This was flexible, so you could go single-file to get past difficult terrain, or in a long rank to maximise line of sight.

I also recall it being a *massive* pain to manage as the game sizes scaled up, particularly with large-but-cheap armies. You don't really care about the exact positioning of one grot in a group of forty.

Assuming that unit consistency rules are already in place, and we're dealing with quite a few 'squads', I can absolutely see the advantage. I don't think it would look too odd if the following rules were obeyed:

1) Irregular spacing on the round base 'slots', so that you don't get regular ranks.

2) A choice of 'round' trays, for more elite or scouting units, with wider spacing between the base slots. Troopers/grunts could get away with more rectangular trays, which could then be stacked to move large units as a whole.

Personal opinion (kept it out of the initial question to avoid bias) -

I'd like them, but as an optional game aid rather than a requirement.

On the one hand there's immersion and that's great for small games, but in large games you don't want to move 100+ guys individually.

And no restrictions on the size/ shape of the bases.

And no limitations on removing the base mid-game so the models can set up in some ruins.

If the battle is large enough that movement trays are required to move infantry, then I don't think 30mm is the right scale.

As a variant form of gameplay like Apocalypse, it's fine.

As the go-to method of a game, not as much IMO.

 scarletsquig wrote:


And no limitations on removing the base mid-game so the models can set up in some ruins.

I don't think they really work for 'modern' games for the reasons detailed above, although you could go with them if you wanted,

If you did use the above idea the system would have to have a compatible movement system, as taking minis on/off a movement tray would be far to easy to game for extra distance

Combined bases work for Fantasy because they move in mobs.

It's a terrible idea in Scifi and Modern settings, where firearms make mobs suicidal.

If someone wants to base a horde of cheap melee xenos on a base for easy mocvement that's great, but it whould not be a equirement.

 Alpharius wrote:

OK?

I also don't like it as it makes dealing with terrain unnecessarily fiddly, complex and unwieldy.

Only if the game's rules make it so.

I'm not actually that keen on movement trays, but I'm certainly willing to give them a go, and I've never seen any substance to the counterpoints, it always comes down to 'it feels wrong, it looks wrong, it seems wrong' etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Red Viper wrote:
If the battle is large enough that movement trays are required to move infantry, then I don't think 30mm is the right scale.

That I agree with. I'll be honest and say that nothing I've heard about Warpath makes me think it's a game for me, if I want the sort of game Ronny envisions (tanks, planes, hordes of guys etc etc etc) then I'd just stick to my Epic armies.

If there were movement tray rules, I'd stick with 2.0. Fixed unit positions does not represent the flexible nature of modern/sci-fi warfare at all, and while it's an abstraction, it's one we can do without. I get the impression Warpath is meant to be in the 40-70 model range, not the 100+ (yet, although I wouldn't be averse to a separate ruleset) and at that size, I wouldn't feel any need to sacrifice a element of realism and tactics for simplicity at that scale.

Hi guys,

I, too, would like to voice my opinion here... simply, I don't think that movement trays really work for a 28mm sci-fi setting. I actually quite like the idea of units being able to group up into a mob and put on a tray (and then given the option to dismount/remount whenever), as scarletsquig mentioned, but I don't know if it would really cut it.

I'm not sure if it would actually speed up gameplay, or improve simplicity, rather than add time consumption when playing.

Lastly, I would like to mention that, especially with round-based miniatures, having them spread out doing their own thing just looks nicer. It just isn't the same as with our square-based fantasy friends, when a big block of minis is an impressive spectacle.

Just my tuppence.

Another important point is ease of adapting from 40k.
Like it or not, 40k is the thing that WP will be compared to.
Every design decision that takes you farther away from a 40k aesthetic is another excuse for folks not to try the game.

"I don't want to buy/make movement trays"
"That looks silly with sci-fi/skirmish."
"40k doesn't play like that. That's stupid!"

Decisions like removing template weapons in favor of dice for blasts are more supportable IMO. I'm sure most of us can point to at least one time our opponent either fudged a template placement and/or we at least disagreed on who got hit.

I've actually just uploaded a fan edition of WP2.0 which I'd originally written to iron out some of the 2.0 problems but has now warped into its own thing:
http://forum.manticblog.com/showthread.php?8380-Warpath-2-5-Fan-Edition

It does NOT require movement trays. I absolutely detest the idea of multibasing in 28mm modern/sci-fi games (I'm not even keen on IG weapon teams) so there's not even a hint of that here.

I'm not a fan of movement trays either. It works ok for fantasy or games where you need ranked troops.. but IMO if a game involves any kind of rapid firing guns and men that need to get into or outta dodge real fast, it seems like loose models just work better.

Looking forward to getting the ruined urban quadrant.. waiting to see if it shows up on the warstore soon, I'd rather order it domestic-like. Or am I better off just preordering from Mantic?

Free terrain sprue giveaway for signing up for the newsletter:

http://www.manticgames.com/Free-Giveaway.html

On a less awesome note...

Is anyone else still waiting for any news on their Deadzone Wave 1 missing parts? It's been 6 months now. :(

They should have all gone out by now. Email Sarah directly at Sarah.Clark@manticgames.com. Copy Ronnie.Renton@manticgames.com in too.

Looks like most are pretty much not in favor of movement trays for SF games.

Shocking.

 pretre wrote:
Free terrain sprue giveaway for signing up for the newsletter:

http://www.manticgames.com/Free-Giveaway.html

Weirdly if you already support them and have signed up for the newsletter you get nothing....unless you place an order for more stuff

Up to 50 of those already signed up will get a free sprue too.

I'm going to work on the assumption that not a huge amount of people have signed up to the newsletter. - Otherwise, that is yeah, a bit pants.

And thanks for the tip about CC-ing Ronnie, I think I'll do that after my dinner.

 edlowe wrote:

 pretre wrote:
Free terrain sprue giveaway for signing up for the newsletter:

http://www.manticgames.com/Free-Giveaway.html

Weirdly if you already support them and have signed up for the newsletter you get nothing....unless you place an order for more stuff

Or unless you happen to have an extra e-mail address.