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 us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Ellicott City, MD

Voss wrote:


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.


Having literally done EXACTLY that whilst playing Warhammer back in the day, when we couldn’t always afford armies, I can assure you that is it entirely possible to do the same with WHFB. That is no way a knock on a set of rules in and of itself.

Valete,

JohnS

Valete,

JohnS

"You don't believe data - you test data. If I could put my finger on the moment we genuinely <expletive deleted> ourselves, it was the moment we decided that data was something you could use words like believe or disbelieve around"

-Jamie Sanderson 
   
Made in ie
Dakka Veteran




Ireland

 Baragash wrote:
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.


Cheers, will check it out.

 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.


When I played WFB my units would change formation all the time. The flexibility was a great thing, it gave me options on how my units could respond to enemy units. Either to maximise my attacks, or to give the enemy unit less options to attack. Also it was handy to get the most out of terrain. Sadly in KoW units are inflexible blocks that can not change. For example sit a Troop/Regiment in-between 2 pieces of terrain and back a bit, a Horde can not charge it. In WFB that horde could reform to be able to charge in.

 kodos wrote:


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



Erm...

I listed several games that do remive models and are rank and file, and are nothing like Warhammer.

Oathmark, uses a D10, capped at 5, forces can be mixed races, alternative activation, leaders command units to activate.

So to you that is a variation of warhammer?

Age of Fantasy Regiments, alternative activations, units only have 2 stats.

So to you that is a variation of warhammer?

A Song of Ice and Fire, alternative activations, had non combat characters, a tactics board to represent the political world, forces have a faction deck of cards.

So to you that is a variation of warhammer?

Why the hang up with historical games, aren't these meant to be fantasy games? Realism for weapons, sure. A fantasy set of rules were swords acted like crossbows, and shields acted like spears, would be daft. So asking for weapon realisim in a fantasy game is fine.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2021/10/20 09:26:09


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

well, for weapons working like the did in real life, not really possible without being too complicated outside Skirmishers and not something we have seen Warhammer at all
I mean Spears or Helbards made frontal charges for cavalry impossible not just being hard to win or taking damage but yet there is no effect at all for those weapons against Cavalry in Warhammer, no Phalanx, no ignoring armour etc., they work the same against infantry and cavalry
pure fantasy inside a fantasy world to get the game going and than people take how the rules in Warhammer make a weapon work and think this is how it worked in real life and therefore need to work that way in other games as well (like something very simple as knights with full plate used shields, which is fantasy as it was either plate armour or lighter armour+shield)


as the other definition brought up here would be "true Rank and File game" if they have rules for Ranks and Files, compared to others with R&F games without rules for changing ranks and files

Yes, those games with Rank&Files as in "base to base formations" or fixed units, with single model mechanics and a 1:1 scale of model to soldier (aka Skirmish Game) would be "a Warhammer like game" (as they fill the same niche Mass-Skirmish with R&F Elements)

were as a game with single models mechanics and 1:1 scale but no formations or fixed units is a Mass-Skirmish game (SAGA, 40k, AoS)

and than there are those without single model mechanics but R&F formations, that have an abstract scale (as the unit on the table is not 1:1 to real life formation but something larger)

you can also change the terms as the others are "Miniature Games" and the rest are "Wargames" but just because the rules are different does not make it another genre if the games want to serve the same niche/spot

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 ie
Dakka Veteran




Ireland

 kodos wrote:
well, for weapons working like the did in real life, not really possible without being too complicated outside Skirmishers and not something we have seen Warhammer at all
I mean Spears or Helbards made frontal charges for cavalry impossible not just being hard to win or taking damage but yet there is no effect at all for those weapons against Cavalry in Warhammer, no Phalanx, no ignoring armour etc., they work the same against infantry and cavalry
pure fantasy inside a fantasy world to get the game going and than people take how the rules in Warhammer make a weapon work and think this is how it worked in real life and therefore need to work that way in other games as well (like something very simple as knights with full plate used shields, which is fantasy as it was either plate armour or lighter armour+shield)


as the other definition brought up here would be "true Rank and File game" if they have rules for Ranks and Files, compared to others with R&F games without rules for changing ranks and files

Yes, those games with Rank&Files as in "base to base formations" or fixed units, with single model mechanics and a 1:1 scale of model to soldier (aka Skirmish Game) would be "a Warhammer like game" (as they fill the same niche Mass-Skirmish with R&F Elements)

were as a game with single models mechanics and 1:1 scale but no formations or fixed units is a Mass-Skirmish game (SAGA, 40k, AoS)

and than there are those without single model mechanics but R&F formations, that have an abstract scale (as the unit on the table is not 1:1 to real life formation but something larger)

you can also change the terms as the others are "Miniature Games" and the rest are "Wargames" but just because the rules are different does not make it another genre if the games want to serve the same niche/spot


In fantasy games the unit charging a unit of spearmen might not always be Human on horseback. Spears will be a great counter to Humans on horse back, but against say big hulking thick scale covered lizards who don't feel pain riding equally hulking lizards who don't feel pain and have a lust for blood, the spear isn't always going to work... same if the charging unit is Undead, demonic, etc.it is fantasy, not historical.

So in that case a compromise has to be made around what roles weapons have, hence a spear which is a defensive weapon for infantry gets certain bonuses against charging units (Age of Fantasy: Regiments does this well. A unit charging the front of a unit of spears has to take a number of dangerous terrain tests, any failed cause a wound, and the charging unit loses any charge effects). One weapon that is always done wrong is the Halberd, as that weapon is multipurpose, so tends to be more difficult to find a good compromise.

So you think Warhammer Fantasy Battles, Oathmark, Age of Fantasy Regiments, and A Song of Ice and Fire are all Mass Skirmish game that pretend to be Rank & File games.

How exactly?

Regarding the rest of your comment, what are you on about? Can't recall talking about changing the terms to "Miniature Games" or "Wargames", think you may have me confused with someone else there?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/20 11:06:18


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 us
Exalted Beastlord




 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.


I don't need to pretend- I absolutely saw that.
I started fantasy in 3rd, when there were different formations (turtle, lance, shieldwall, etc, etc, etc). In other editions skirmisher units were godly for their shenanigans. In others, four wide was the minimum, but it was useful to use wider formations depending on what you were fielding.

In all of them, flanking mattered, and it matter what you were flanking. Flanking gobbos was basically an autowin, flanking chaos warriors was a still a dangerous fight. I remember terrifying people (well, some people) with 30 blocks of witch elves, who didn't know how to handle that many attacks (and at the time it was a lot of attacks). It would slaughter nurgle chaos warriors, but against other elf armies it was easy to pick apart with shooting.

----
Also: I'm trying to answer the OP's question which is specifically KoW in reference/comparison to Warhammer. That you added on the weird bit about 'trying to make KoW look like lesser game' is very strange and needlessly, pointlessly defensive, particularly since you literally quoted me saying 'its not a bad game'

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/21 17:00:06


Efficiency is the highest virtue. 
   
Made in si
Ravenous Beast Form







So the post you just made isn't meant to imply flanking doesn't matter in KoW? And if not, why bring it up?

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

I think he means flanking is nuanced in Warhammer, its not in KoW. In KoW its basically autowin. In warhammer it depends. Its good, but a heavily damaged or small unit on a flank isn't necessarily going to win a flank on its own.

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:
I think he means flanking is nuanced in Warhammer, its not in KoW. In KoW its basically autowin. In warhammer it depends. Its good, but a heavily damaged or small unit on a flank isn't necessarily going to win a flank on its own.


Exactly this, hence the flanking gobbos vs chaos warriors.
I'll bring some more eggshells to walk on next time.

Efficiency is the highest virtue. 
   
Made in si
Ravenous Beast Form







Does KoW flanking lack nuance because it also works against small units?

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

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Does KoW flanking lack nuance because it also works against small units?


All combat in KoW lacks nuance as the enemy doesn't retaliate, so there is no risk/reward to factor in.

In WFB flanking Chaos Warriors wasn't a guaranteed victory as they had fantastic stats and armour. So even flanking a unit could result in the few Chaos Warriors who could fight back, doing enough damage to win the combat.

Flanking a unit in historical games is a way to mop up the unit, however as I have said before fantasy isn't always human vs human. Sometimes the things being attacked are not as easy to deal with... Chaos Warriors being one of the prime candidates.

In WFB it wasn't a case of charge in and win, because the enemy unit could strike back. It made combat exciting. In KoW this element is missing.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/21 19:23:14


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 ca
Grumpy Longbeard





Canada

stonehorse wrote:
All combat in KoW lacks nuance as the enemy doesn't retaliate, so there is no risk/reward to factor in.

That's not really true though.
There is retaliation, it is just done over more than one player turn. Even if you kill a unit in one charge, where the victorious unit ends up is a concern.
Which a small amount of planning (i.e.because the game has depth) a unit that routs one of your units can be in trouble because of your other units threatening that position.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/22 01:29:08


Nightstalkers
Dwarfs

GASLANDS!  
   
Made in ie
Dakka Veteran




Ireland

 DarkBlack wrote:
stonehorse wrote:
All combat in KoW lacks nuance as the enemy doesn't retaliate, so there is no risk/reward to factor in.

That's not really true though.
There is retaliation, it is just done over more than one player turn. Even if you kill a unit in one charge, where the victorious unit ends up is a concern.
Which a small amount of planning (i.e.because the game has depth) a unit that routs one of your units can be in trouble because of your other units threatening that position.


That isn't retaliation, and you know that. If you think enemy units activating on their turn to charge a unit is is same as the retaliation talked about above (units attacking back in the same turn which could alter who wins the combat, and ultimately decide who has to take some form of a test) then I honestly don't know what to say to you.

Edit.
In KoW only the unit being charged maybe routed, there is no way way for the charging unit to be routed. In WFB and a while load of other games, there is potential that either unit could be routed.

That is why KoW combat lacks nuance.

Concern about how your units are positioned in the enemy's turn is not depth as it is one of the core elements of wargaming, whether that be fantasy, WW2 Naval, or Sci-Fi Skirmish games... in other words it is a basic part of wargaming, not depth.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2021/10/22 08:19:49


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 si
Ravenous Beast Form







Ongoing combat in KoW is highly abstracted, but it's still ongoing combat, you can tell because the rules differentiate between fighting the unit that just hit you and engaging a fresh unit.

There's the same nuance between flanking a unit of goblins, doubling your damage from 10 to 20, probably breaking them and reforming to a defensive facing, and flanking a unit of Chaos Warriors, doubling your damage from 5 to 10, probably not breaking them and getting countercharged by them next turn and probably flanked by something else because you couldn't reform.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/10/22 11:00:13


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

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Ongoing combat in KoW is highly abstracted, but it's still ongoing combat, you can tell because the rules differentiate between fighting the unit that just hit you and engaging a fresh unit.

There's the same nuance between flanking a unit of goblins, doubling your damage from 10 to 20, probably breaking them and reforming to a defensive facing, and flanking a unit of Chaos Warriors, doubling your damage from 5 to 10, probably not breaking them and getting countercharged by them next turn and probably flanked by something else because you couldn't reform.


Can my charging unit lose combat due to a combination of the enemy doing more damage and/or having more combat bonuses, which could result in my unit routing on my turn in KoW?

No.

Because combat in KoW lacks nuance.

There are rules for how a unit previously charged by an enemy unit can charge in their turn, because the game has zero player interaction. That isn't the same as a nuanced combat system.

In your example in WFB for example the Chaos Warriors could have won won combat and forced the charging unit to flee, while they (the Chaos Warriors) reform. Then on their turn they could charge the fleeing unit. The flanking unit you mentioned would be free to do something else.

This would result in a completely different boars positioning from the one you described happening in KoW, due to player interaction which allows for a more nuanced combat system.

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 si
Ravenous Beast Form







All those board states are achievable in KoW, just across both players' turns. The same actions being compressed into fewer turns isn't nuance. It could be argued that's in fact opposite, because the second player is taking two actions in a row with no chance of player interaction in between.

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 at
Discriminating Warrior





Austria

So it is still about the same, Kings of War is not a game that uses Single Model mechanics hence all those rules about single models are missing

that way a close combat is resolved on a unit per unit base instead of model vs model base

and KoW is IGoUGo instead of Action/Reaction, hence you cannot react during the opponent is active


Just adding more examples does not change the fact that KoW is IGoUGo and the rules work on unit level.
They wanted the game that way and some people like it and others don't

If you want an Action/Reaction system with single model rules in units, KoW is just not the game for you
that does not make it a bad but just not what you want it to be

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 ie
Dakka Veteran




Ireland

 kodos wrote:

If you want an Action/Reaction system with single model rules in units, KoW is just not the game for you that does not make it a bad but just not what you want it to be


This thread was initially started by someone who was familiar with WFB, and was asking whether KoW "would scratch their WFB itch."

Prior to my contribution to this thread everyone was saying how it would and is a brilliant game with little to no issues.

As I said previously...

"First of all I will say try it, and make up your own mind. If you like it, or don't like it, that is fine... you are entirely allowed to have your own opinion."

Followed by...

"My view of the game is different to the ones you are likely to hear, always important to hear both pros and cons. The pros have been covered in depth here. Now we are in 3rd edition I feel like the game has some very bad game design, allow me to go over them."

Your point of.

 kodos wrote:

If you want an Action/Reaction system with single model rules in units, KoW is just not the game for you.


Highlights what I've been saying, if one likes WFB they will be used to the things you say (reaction/Action, single model rules). Which as KoW isn't those things, it might not scratch that WFB itch and is only fair to mention them. So it could mean that KoW isn't the game for them.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/22 12:42:14


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 us
Fresh-Faced New User




Michigan

I love the game! It's a well-paced game that has a solid set of rules.

Although my preference is for a little meatier game, this game has climbed to my most played. My group and I love.

The only thing in the way is that my most local game stores are still closed for open games. Once they open up, I can't wait to promote the game more publicly.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/11/07 21:08:44


 
   
 
Forum Index » Mantic Miniature Games (Kings of War, etc.)
Go to: