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.

As a counter example, I use EasyArmy almost constantly during the workday, as my mind is a-buzz with army ideas thanks to KOW's level of army balance, model agnosticism, and my 3D printer. And yet I'm not entirely behind the price either

It's good, but will absolutely need offline functionality before I'll pay for it.

I have my digital rulebooks and army builders on my tablet, where I can read them on a reasonably-sized screen, but one that doesn't have internet when out and about.

It's been either battlescribe or paper printouts for me for army building and .pdfs on a cheap lightweight tablet bought just to have digital rulebooks on.

 kodos wrote:
The free part will be enough for me and offline availablity will be a big plus over easyarmy

I'm not sure there is offline functionality. From what I have heard this is not an app as such - it is a website optimised for both desktop and mobile.

Offline availablity is mentioned as being on the roadmap for mid/late 2023

So lets see how this turns out

Just read the notice when I logged into Easy Army that renewals are canceled and anyone with subscriptions months remaining will have those months tacked on to the end of the free-period of the Mantic app.

So I guess I don't have to cancel my renewals as I was planning too. I'm not sure I like the math hammer section, but I'm equally sure it will be just what some players want. I notice the rulebooks will be included. That's genuinely interesting, but I do like dead tree editions for rulebooks.

Overall, the app looks mildly interesting and I'll check it out during the free period. In the end though, I'll probably just stick with paper books and the tacticalwargames free list builder.

I have a mildy random question about KoW 3e, as I haven't played since 2e.

How crucial is the base sizing for infantry if you're not planning on tournament play? I've been moving to 25mm round bases on my fantasy stuff, thanks to lots of indie skirmish games and Oathmark.

Does the 20mm basing for human-sized infantry serve any real purpose beyond, "We started out doing it the way WHFB, so we're sticking with that"? Does the extra 25mm of unit frontage REALLY make that big of a difference if you want to keep ranks of five?

 Psychopomp wrote:
I have a mildy random question about KoW 3e, as I haven't played since 2e.

How crucial is the base sizing for infantry if you're not planning on tournament play? I've been moving to 25mm round bases on my fantasy stuff, thanks to lots of indie skirmish games and Oathmark.

Does the 20mm basing for human-sized infantry serve any real purpose beyond, "We started out doing it the way WHFB, so we're sticking with that"? Does the extra 25mm of unit frontage REALLY make that big of a difference if you want to keep ranks of five?

As Kings of War doesn't have figure removal, base size is utterly unimportant as long as the unit/element footprint is right. It can look a little odd in some situations since you can only fit about 11 25mm bases in the space that 20 20mm bases take up, but it matters not at all to friendly gameplay and probably wouldn't even matter in most tournaments. There is a recommended minimum number of figures for each element/unit size in the rulebook, but in practice that's quite squishy.

In our current campaign we even have a player using SOIAF figures. Infantry are on 30mm bases where you can't even fit half as many infantry figures compared to 20mm and while it doesn't look nearly as cool as a densely packed infantry unit, it works fine for play as the footprint of his unit trays are all correct.

 Psychopomp wrote:
I have a mildy random question about KoW 3e, as I haven't played since 2e.

How crucial is the base sizing for infantry if you're not planning on tournament play? I've been moving to 25mm round bases on my fantasy stuff, thanks to lots of indie skirmish games and Oathmark.

Does the 20mm basing for human-sized infantry serve any real purpose beyond, "We started out doing it the way WHFB, so we're sticking with that"? Does the extra 25mm of unit frontage REALLY make that big of a difference if you want to keep ranks of five?

The unit size (i.e. footprint) makes a difference and is more important to gameplay that the number of models (or the bases individual models are on).

I units that are 4 models wide it you have 25mm bases. I made movement trays that are the right size and put as many models as would fit (they were magnetic) on them when I started.

+1 to the unit size mattering far more than the number of models

The rules allow for using bigger bases, but for the most part it's only a negative to up-base. Ask any Orc player how much it sucks having 25mm infantry as opposed to 20mm infantry

It only causes actual issues with aura effects or other abilities based on base size, but you can adjust the aura size down to compensate. There are a few units - shrines typically or things that have very unique rules - that specifically say you can't up-size their base, however those are single big models you aren't likely to be using round based small models for.

The unit-sized tray solution is the most common. You could go hard and make a movement tray with slots for your round models? But the magnetized tray or tray with a lip will get you by before you decide to go ham and multi-base your next army

So my issue is that I don't want equal strength units to have 16 humans vs 20 orcs because of an arbitrary base size difference rooted in "because that's the way some other game did it almost 40 years ago."

I guess my real question is, how badly would it really impact the game if Infantry and Heavy Infantry (that's the 25mm base class, right?) all used the same Heavy Infantry unit footprints across the board?

 Eilif wrote:

 Psychopomp wrote:
I have a mildy random question about KoW 3e, as I haven't played since 2e.

How crucial is the base sizing for infantry if you're not planning on tournament play? I've been moving to 25mm round bases on my fantasy stuff, thanks to lots of indie skirmish games and Oathmark.

Does the 20mm basing for human-sized infantry serve any real purpose beyond, "We started out doing it the way WHFB, so we're sticking with that"? Does the extra 25mm of unit frontage REALLY make that big of a difference if you want to keep ranks of five?

As Kings of War doesn't have figure removal, base size is utterly unimportant as long as the unit/element footprint is right. It can look a little odd in some situations since you can only fit about 11 25mm bases in the space that 20 20mm bases take up, but it matters not at all to friendly gameplay and probably wouldn't even matter in most tournaments. There is a recommended minimum number of figures for each element/unit size in the rulebook, but in practice that's quite squishy.

A regiment of twenty 20mm infantry can fit it twelve 25mm infantry actually - 3 ranks, 4 files. Likewise, a Horde can fit in twenty-four 25mm infantry. I field several armies with 25 mm round or square bases that way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Psychopomp wrote:
So my issue is that I don't want equal strength units to have 16 humans vs 20 orcs because of an arbitrary base size difference rooted in "because that's the way some other game did it almost 40 years ago."

I guess my real question is, how badly would it really impact the game if Infantry and Heavy Infantry (that's the 25mm base class, right?) all used the same Heavy Infantry unit footprints across the board?

How are 25mm base humans any less arbitrary than 20mm base humans?

 Esmer wrote:

 Eilif wrote:


As Kings of War doesn't have figure removal, base size is utterly unimportant as long as the unit/element footprint is right. It can look a little odd in some situations since you can only fit about 11 25mm bases in the space that 20 20mm bases take up, but it matters not at all to friendly gameplay and probably wouldn't even matter in most tournaments. There is a recommended minimum number of figures for each element/unit size in the rulebook, but in practice that's quite squishy.

A regiment of twenty 20mm infantry can fit it twelve 25mm infantry actually - 3 ranks, 4 files. Likewise, a Horde can fit in twenty-four 25mm infantry. I field several armies with 25 mm round or square bases that way.

I think you;'re right. I'm not sure why I thought 11. 12 is still less than Mantics "Prefered Model Count" minimum size for a Regiment, but it's enough that it should be fine. I'm building a KOM (or variant, not decided) out of Runewars Daqan figures. They come molded onto 25mm round bases but will largely be representing units that typically come on 20mm squares which would be far too small for them.

I will say also that PMC really becomes useful when using non-mantic calvary. Frequently it's difficult to get 5 Cav into a 125x50mm square. 4 Cav usually fit easily with no problems.

 Esmer wrote:
How are 25mm base humans any less arbitrary than 20mm base humans?

It consolidates two different base sizes for what are effectively one class of infantry. What makes infantry and heavy infantry different OTHER than the base size? Are they pointed differently for the different unit footprints, somehow? Is there some mechanical weight to the difference other than an extra 25mm of unit frontage?

What I'm asking is, if I have the same bases and the same movement trays for all infantry, does it break anything? Is there some crucial points or rules difference between the two types of infantry, or does it really come down to "lots of infantry come on 20mm bases, and some come on 25mm" and nothing else?

The source of the arbitrary base sizes is that the original base sizes were based off of WHFB base sizes.

I keep to the sizes proscribed by KOW rules. I've got no proof, but I do think there is a slight buff given to the larger based units that is offset by slightly less maneuverability and that unit footprint is one factor considered in their points cost.

When the Varangur list was released I moved my Chaos Warriors army to that list as it seemed more representative than KofMen. I started to play my Huscarls on the standard 100x80 plastic trays I already had used for KofMen, but myself and my opponents felt that they seemed too potent to have the advantage of a smaller base. Might not seen like much difference, but when you're coming around a farmhouse to engage an enemy you realize quickly that every inch matters. I moved them to the larger 125x100 base proscribed by the rules and it feels better and more fair.

If you're going to downsize the base size for a unit that unit is getting a distinct advantage. Inversely, forcing a 20mm based unit onto large infantry size unit footprints puts them at a distinct disadvantage.

All this to say, units have the base they have. It is arbitrary, but it is also figured into their points cost so if you're going to adjust one, to retain balance you'll have to adjust the other.

 Psychopomp wrote:

 Esmer wrote:
How are 25mm base humans any less arbitrary than 20mm base humans?

It consolidates two different base sizes for what are effectively one class of infantry. What makes infantry and heavy infantry different OTHER than the base size? Are they pointed differently for the different unit footprints, somehow? Is there some mechanical weight to the difference other than an extra 25mm of unit frontage?

What I'm asking is, if I have the same bases and the same movement trays for all infantry, does it break anything? Is there some crucial points or rules difference between the two types of infantry, or does it really come down to "lots of infantry come on 20mm bases, and some come on 25mm" and nothing else?

In KoW unit types like "infantry" and "heavy infantry" are simply a fancy way of describing base size.
The base size makes a surprisingly noticeable difference in game play. It's wouldn't "break the game", but it has more of an effect than having fewer models on infantry units would.

smaller bases have an advantage in maneuverability in KoW
that the original base sizes were based upon other games that were available by that does not change that and the game came a long way since

uniform base sizes might be a good idea but the point this is doable is long gone as neither the models nor the collection of the players would fit those any more

that said, if someone has individual based models on round bases, it is way easier to adjust to KoW unit bases than someone with KoW unit bases to adapt a new base size

 kodos wrote:
smaller bases have an advantage in maneuverability in KoW
that the original base sizes were based upon other games that were available by that does not change that and the game came a long way since

uniform base sizes might be a good idea but the point this is doable is long gone as neither the models nor the collection of the players would fit those any more

that said, if someone has individual based models on round bases, it is way easier to adjust to KoW unit bases than someone with KoW unit bases to adapt a new base size

Well said. Standardizing would be especially hard on KOW players since Mantic has been encouraging multibasing for a while now.

Looking at KOW as a whole, I like that the game has different element sizes. Some don't make perfect sense because of their WHFB origins, but in a fantasy world there will be different sized creatures and different sized units. Having 4 distinct infantry sizes gives a bit of variation while still standardizing enough to fit within the streamlined ethos of KOW.

Fun fact : when you play KoW rules with a different scale like 15/10 mm, and you decide for reasons not to use the same unit base size than in the rules but coherent base sizes that are the same no matter the type, you find a lot of troubles that were existing because of that original difference of base sizes become irrelevant. Especially the cavalry and the chariots, that have a way bigger imprint on the battlefield for their actual impact.

Now Mantic Games is stuck because they didn't want to change that original mistake of copy-pasting GW's Warhammer Battle base sizes in previous editions. Now they don't have enough new blood to ignore the anger it would generate amonsgt the veteran players if they decided to correct that (yep, that's how you count on launching a new game on healthy basis instead of using stuff from previous lazy works that forces you to artificially buff units that "perform below average" just because of that difference of base size).

It's not a question of multibasing. It's a question of original bases and optimisation for competition games. And it always ruins the fun in games.

 Psychopomp wrote:
I have a mildy random question about KoW 3e, as I haven't played since 2e.

How crucial is the base sizing for infantry if you're not planning on tournament play? I've been moving to 25mm round bases on my fantasy stuff, thanks to lots of indie skirmish games and Oathmark.

Does the 20mm basing for human-sized infantry serve any real purpose beyond, "We started out doing it the way WHFB, so we're sticking with that"? Does the extra 25mm of unit frontage REALLY make that big of a difference if you want to keep ranks of five?

Individual base sizes don't matter. Only the unit footprint does. You can have zero figures on the unit footprint and the game works (an easy way to test new units or armies before building them)

Sarouan wrote:
Fun fact : when you play KoW rules with a different scale like 15/10 mm, and you decide for reasons not to use the same unit base size than in the rules but coherent base sizes that are the same no matter the type, you find a lot of troubles that were existing because of that original difference of base sizes become irrelevant. Especially the cavalry and the chariots, that have a way bigger imprint on the battlefield for their actual impact.

Now Mantic Games is stuck because they didn't want to change that original mistake of copy-pasting GW's Warhammer Battle base sizes in previous editions. Now they don't have enough new blood to ignore the anger it would generate amonsgt the veteran players if they decided to correct that (yep, that's how you count on launching a new game on healthy basis instead of using stuff from previous lazy works that forces you to artificially buff units that "perform below average" just because of that difference of base size).

It's not a question of multibasing. It's a question of original bases and optimisation for competition games. And it always ruins the fun in games.

When you play in a smaller scale you're typically playing in proportionally larger space. As such the difference in footprint has not nearly the same effect on the game as when you're essentially playing out a full battle on a football field. 28mm KoW is going to be quite vastly different than 15mm KoW.

Mantic could standardize bases, but as folks have said they would have to rebalance points. For myself, I like the varied footprints as there's nothing inherently wrong with them and it adds a bit of variation.

10mm KoW works wonderfully.

Straight conversion of inches to cm, play on a 3' x 2' board, don't sweat the base sizes too much and it is perfect as a small format fantasy wargame, far better than the command & control push-your-luck system in Warmaster.

Mantic Companion is live now:
https://companion.manticgames.com/

upon registration you get the option to use different codes for the free trial subscription but you don't need to (so everyone can test the free stuff first if they want)

https://www.manticgames.com/news/message-from-ronnie-and-get-your-mantic-companion-code-here/

and an important side note from the blog regarding Twilight Kin:

With it being a mid-edition refresh, and offering brand new ways to play (Legendary and Ambush) AND trying to minimise book carrying we finally went ahead and added the Unchartered Armies into the main rule book.

We love that you have perhaps come over from another game system – and you got to keep your old army for a while – and so far that transition to having a Mantic version is taking a somewhat sedate pace (7 years and counting!!! 😊) You will see that with the we are really pushing and evolving the development of the Pannithor story. This is an easy task when there have been no predecessors, Trident Realm for example, but much harder when we visit classic tropes, such as the bad elves. Now because our thinking was so radical for TK we opted to take them from the book, so no one else started a new army with the old bad elves and then realised their army didn’t align well with the new TK.

We expect we will be adopting this approach with one army per year. We will of course also be focusing on developing our established armies which will be more evolution rather than revolution in completing every unit entry in the list. Please do remember though that if Mantic haven’t made models for an army previously then we absolutely reserve the right to take the army in whichever and whatever direction we think is cool!

Please do remember though that if Mantic haven’t made models for an army previously then we absolutely reserve the right to take the army in whichever and whatever direction we think is cool!

One would think it obvious and reasonable, but it had to be said.

 DarkBlack wrote:

Please do remember though that if Mantic haven’t made models for an army previously then we absolutely reserve the right to take the army in whichever and whatever direction we think is cool!

One would think it obvious and reasonable, but it had to be said.

Yeah, unfortunately :(

Well of course it's obvious and reasonnable. Mantic Games doesn't make profit if people don't buy their miniatures. And people don't buy miniatures if they already have everything in their collection to play the "old bad elves".

But since Mantic Games built its reputation by being "wargamer friendly" - meaning they're not "like that other company that cares only about profit" -, well...it had to be said. So that they can save that reputation.

Even if it was built on lies. That's marketing for you.

Every company wants to make money. Mantic still seems to be making it through the roundabout, long term method of actually building a quality ruleset that fosters a healthy and enjoyable (meta)game.

given with old world around the corner, why should Mantic re-create the evil elves of old times, when those who want them are going to buy them from GW anyway

and the standard Elves army list is (and most of the time already was) better suited to play classic Dark Elves anyway

scarletsquig wrote:
10mm KoW works wonderfully.

Straight conversion of inches to cm, play on a 3' x 2' board, don't sweat the base sizes too much and it is perfect as a small format fantasy wargame, far better than the command & control push-your-luck system in Warmaster.

While I can be a harsh critc of KoW, I do think the system would work well for smaller scale, but sadly it is sold as a 28mm game, so hard to get people to switch to a smaller scale.

Only think lacking is some sort of command element.

Sarouan wrote:
Well of course it's obvious and reasonnable. Mantic Games doesn't make profit if people don't buy their miniatures. And people don't buy miniatures if they already have everything in their collection to play the "old bad elves".

But since Mantic Games built its reputation by being "wargamer friendly" - meaning they're not "like that other company that cares only about profit" -, well...it had to be said. So that they can save that reputation.

Even if it was built on lies. That's marketing for you.

What are the lies?