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.

mithril2098 wrote:
... they'll eventually be getting a version for the imperial dwarfs, which i'd guess is going to be just different riders, since the Northern Alliance furs and plate style wouldn't fit the imperials.

My understanding is that they'll be a Free Dwarf thing and not in the imperial dwarf list.
Which makes more sense thematically; imperial dwarf are very much "traditional dwarfs".
I honestly don't want them in my dwarf list.

I'm super happy to see the ravens restricted to Northern Alliance and Free Dwarfs. Varangur and Imperial Dwarfs have a ton going for them already (and are far more popular as far as I can tell).

Really cool that Mantic made the supporting terrain separate on the ravens, good solution for the clear stand vs terrain debate. Here are the stats for the ravens for those who haven't watched the video (stolen from the KOW forum):

 Boss Salvage wrote:
I'm super happy to see the ravens restricted to Northern Alliance and Free Dwarfs. Varangur and Imperial Dwarfs have a ton going for them already (and are far more popular as far as I can tell).

As an Imperial Dwarf player, I agree.

Stupid question, but aren't regiments/hordes of Large Cav 3/6 models respectively? I just preordered two boxes, and then realized I might actually need three.

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:
Stupid question, but aren't regiments/hordes of Large Cav 3/6 models respectively? I just preordered two boxes, and then realized I might actually need three.

Yes, that's correct. Not having seen or worked with the models, my guess is that with the wingspan, only two ravens will fit in the allotted space for a regiment.

I'll likely buy the Ambush set, since that gives a regiment of ravens and twenty half-elves. Since I do have some half-elves from Vanguard, splitting the new ones will give needed variety.

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:
Stupid question, but aren't regiments/hordes of Large Cav 3/6 models respectively? I just preordered two boxes, and then realized I might actually need three.

well, Regiment are 150x50 and Hordes are 150x100 and how many models you put on that base is on you (with 2+ being the suggested amount for regiments)

and with the new Nightstalker release, Mantic announced to get away from single bases with their boxes and only adding the unit base while also working with the suggested amount of models for expensive kits (Resin Models and Monsters) to keep the game accessible

so if the box says this is a regiment you don't need more models unless you want more

I super love Mantic leaning into preferred model counts. After years in GW hell a company that treats me with respect means a lot more than slightly fancier models.

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:
I super love Mantic leaning into preferred model counts.

They don't. They'd rather have you buy the intended number of models, because they get more money that way.

Take it the other way : they're selling a box of 2 miniatures while it should be 3 for that same price.

Honestly, these are awfully designed for KoW. You can see they had to raise the base on the multibase so that the wings don't get in the way of each other. Moreover, you can also notice it will be a pain in the ass to put these regiments close to each other because of the wingspan again. That's the reason they show them on a multibase of 2 : because they fethed it up and they had no other choice to make it not look bad.

Sarouan wrote:

Take it the other way : they're selling a box of 2 miniatures while it should be 3 for that same price.

That's my take as well.

The rest of your post also applies to literally every WHFB model made after 1998 or so, so whatever.

 lord_blackfang wrote:


The rest of your post also applies to literally every WHFB model made after 1998 or so, so whatever.

Yeah. At least GW was honest enough to aknowledge their old base sizes weren't appropriate anymore for their miniatures and change it for The Old World. Mantic Games is stuck with their copied-pasted base size from Warhammer Battle for their KoW game. Maybe they'll follow GW's stance if TOW turns out popular enough.

Because let's face it, Mantic Games miniatures aren't 28mm anymore as well, and they clearly want to add more dynamic poses so that it doesn't get boring. Sadly, dynamic poses aren't compatible with regimental units, especially if the bases are too small.

I don't know what you are doing but I don't see the Mantic models not fitting on 100x80 mm base
so if your dynamic models don't fit the regiment base I guess you are not basing them for Kings of War

Sarouan wrote:
Because let's face it, Mantic Games miniatures aren't 28mm anymore as well, and they clearly want to add more dynamic poses so that it doesn't get boring. Sadly, dynamic poses aren't compatible with regimental units, especially if the bases are too small.

If only KoW used fixed unit sizes so that players could put units on multi-bases.
Potentially even having fewer models that the unit size on multi-bases, to allow for dynamic models, dioramas and bigger models.
I would be great it Mantic then acknowledged that in their rules and gave guidelines for a "Preferred Model Count" or something like that. /s

Mantic could then lean into it and have a bit of a "rule of cool" philosophy when designing models.
Which is what Ronnie has said in an interview.

 kodos wrote:
I don't know what you are doing but I don't see the Mantic models not fitting on 100x80 mm base
so if your dynamic models don't fit the regiment base I guess you are not basing them for Kings of War

Well, look at these ravens. Then try to put three regiments with even 2 miniatures on multibases like the picture next to each other on the same line without a wing getting in the way of another. Because that's a situation that can happen easily in game, you know.

That's what I'm talking about MG having badly designed these miniatures for KoW.

But yeah, you can always find a way to use them properly. I guess you could also just put one miniature on the multibase and get away with it. Though for me, it's not worth the money if I have to fix their own deficiency while I still paid them for the unit.

 DarkBlack wrote:

If only KoW used fixed unit sizes so that players could put units on multi-bases.
Potentially even having fewer models that the unit size on multi-bases, to allow for dynamic models, dioramas and bigger models.
I would be great it Mantic then acknowledged that in their rules and gave guidelines for a "Preferred Model Count" or something like that. /s

Mantic could then lean into it and have a bit of a "rule of cool" philosophy when designing models.
Which is what Ronnie has said in an interview.

Yeah, I get your sarcasm. Thing is, multibasing is always the easy excuse by MG fans for any of their own mistakes with miniature designs.

Except here, it doesn't work that well. See what I wrote just above.

As for the Rule of Cool, I don't mind it as long as it doesn't get in the way of the game practicality. If units even on multibases have some parts that touch each other and make position on the battlefield awkward...that's what I call bad design. It should be noticed and reported early on by people who play the game...well, if they care or have the time / money to do so.

Yeah, I know, they're a "small company". It shouldn't be the excuse for everything as well, IMHO.

Yeah, not like mutlibasing was in the rules since 1st edition

just because there is a side not for basing to make it compatible with models based for other rules, like every historical game is doing, does not mean that there was every anything else in the rules than the unit base

if you based for another gaming system and now have a problem that those models don't work with that system, it is your problem and yours alone

Well, look at these ravens. Then try to put three regiments with even 2 miniatures on multibases like the picture next to each other on the same line without a wing getting in the way of another. Because that's a situation that can happen easily in game, you know.

That's what I'm talking about MG having badly designed these miniatures for KoW.

I have done this with other models, never run into a problem as using PMC allows you to arrange the models on the base
you know, you don't need to put them all symmetrical and identical on all units

I have worked with GW models and their wings and it never was a problem to get regiments ranked up in line or base contact for a charge
and I don't see a problem here either with those tiny wings

Sarouan wrote:
blah

I have a feeling you didn't go around WHFB threads cicra 2014 raging at how a Thundertusk sticks out from his base and how it's impossible to put 3 of them in a conga line.

These Ravens were at least designed to be high enough to melee a regular unit without clipping through so it's already better than every GW model.

Always some GW fanboy in here to slag of mantics new release.

The ravens look cool and have some nice design features, such as the option to clear flight stand or plastic rock formation.

The new half elves are a great step up from the limited poses of the previous models. I think it’s time to take all the models I got in the vanguard Kickstarter and buy a new army box and start my third KoW army properly.

Design talk and close up of the frames, Ravens have more options than expected and look like to be a very good deal even if you just want the bits

Ravens are brilliant, I like how you end up with a couple of spare dwarf models in each set, as well as loads of spare pieces.

Here's a quick savings breakdown for the various sets to help people with their purchasing decisions, as usual the 2-player starters and ambush sets tend to be the way to go.
I always go for 2-player starters since I love having spare rulebooks to give away to anyone interested, especially once they hear it has all the army lists in there as well.

The mega army isn't bad if you want everything in there, but the army set is probably a miss unless you really want an iceblade instead of taking the easy route of converting one from a berserker.

2-player Ice & Shadow set: £145 of minis (comes to £180 value with rulebook) for £85 (42% savings, 53% if you count the rulebook)

Ambush: £45 of minis for £35 (23% saving)

Mega Army: £140 of minis for £115 (18% saving)

Army: £80 of minis for £75 (6% saving)

Ravens do look fething sweet.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

Sarouan wrote:

Take it the other way : they're selling a box of 2 miniatures while it should be 3 for that same price.

That's my take as well.

The rest of your post also applies to literally every WHFB model made after 1998 or so, so whatever.

Have we seen sprues for the ravens yet?

they are shown in the video above at minute 4:10

there are 2 identical sprues in the box with enough bits to make 2 different ravens (2 different stone bases, 2 sets of wings, 2 heads for the raven, 2 dwarf bodies, 3(?) heads for the dwarfs, 2 set of weapons)

Sarouan wrote:

 kodos wrote:
I don't know what you are doing but I don't see the Mantic models not fitting on 100x80 mm base
so if your dynamic models don't fit the regiment base I guess you are not basing them for Kings of War

Well, look at these ravens. Then try to put three regiments with even 2 miniatures on multibases like the picture next to each other on the same line without a wing getting in the way of another. Because that's a situation that can happen easily in game, you know.

That's what I'm talking about MG having badly designed these miniatures for KoW.

But yeah, you can always find a way to use them properly. I guess you could also just put one miniature on the multibase and get away with it. Though for me, it's not worth the money if I have to fix their own deficiency while I still paid them for the unit.

This is a non-existent issue. Why not just use a higher flying stand, or craft one yourself? They are flying models, and a hobbyist willing to build and paint a unit is probably willing to do some work to make one of the ravens higher off the base. In fact, I think I will do an article on this type of minor conversion when these arrive to my store.

 DarkBlack wrote:

If only KoW used fixed unit sizes so that players could put units on multi-bases.
Potentially even having fewer models that the unit size on multi-bases, to allow for dynamic models, dioramas and bigger models.
I would be great it Mantic then acknowledged that in their rules and gave guidelines for a "Preferred Model Count" or something like that. /s

Mantic could then lean into it and have a bit of a "rule of cool" philosophy when designing models.
Which is what Ronnie has said in an interview.

Yeah, I get your sarcasm. Thing is, multibasing is always the easy excuse by MG fans for any of their own mistakes with miniature designs. You say its an excuse. I'm not one to always defend mantic games (many of their newer sculpts have had issues to my mind) however I would argue that mutli-basing is honestly one of the stand out hobby-related Strengths of the ruleset.

Freedom of modeling, without the constraint of needing each and every miniature on a base. You could make each unit a small-scale diorama and it would be absolutley fine and legal for gameplay purposes.

Except here, it doesn't work that well. See what I wrote just above. See my above comment about raising the flight base.

As for the Rule of Cool, I don't mind it as long as it doesn't get in the way of the game practicality. If units even on multibases have some parts that touch each other and make position on the battlefield awkward...that's what I call bad design. It should be noticed and reported early on by people who play the game...well, if they care or have the time / money to do so.

Yeah, I know, they're a "small company". It shouldn't be the excuse for everything as well, IMHO.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

scarletsquig wrote:
Ravens are brilliant, I like how you end up with a couple of spare dwarf models in each set, as well as loads of spare pieces.

Here's a quick savings breakdown for the various sets to help people with their purchasing decisions, as usual the 2-player starters and ambush sets tend to be the way to go.
I always go for 2-player starters since I love having spare rulebooks to give away to anyone interested, especially once they hear it has all the army lists in there as well.

The mega army isn't bad if you want everything in there, but the army set is probably a miss unless you really want an iceblade instead of taking the easy route of converting one from a berserker.

2-player Ice & Shadow set: £145 of minis (comes to £180 value with rulebook) for £85 (42% savings, 53% if you count the rulebook)

Ambush: £45 of minis for £35 (23% saving)

Mega Army: £140 of minis for £115 (18% saving)

Army: £80 of minis for £75 (6% saving)

I've also posted kit-level prices at my usual discounts in my thread.

Now that I have seen the sprues, I know these will be easy to split into sprue-packs. Which is nice.

So if you really want that third raven, to rise above the other 2 perhaps, there will at least be an option in the US for you to get it.

 McDougall Designs wrote:


This is a non-existent issue. Why not just use a higher flying stand, or craft one yourself? They are flying models, and a hobbyist willing to build and paint a unit is probably willing to do some work to make one of the ravens higher off the base. In fact, I think I will do an article on this type of minor conversion when these arrive to my store.

I know, I myself have a lot of experience modeling and converting plastic miniatures with external material. That's not the issue.

What I'm talking about here is design by the miniature designers at Mantic Games. Because these miniatures are made for a specific game in mind, their own - with the rules they wrote themselves. To me, it should be obvious when you both make the game and the miniatures for it, you have complete control about the practicality of said miniatures in said game. That they made miniatures that aren't designed to be use the way they are intended in the rules - meaning forcing people to use other ways to fit the normal number of models per unit category on their base - is exactly what I'm pointing at.

Of course people will always find a way to use these miniatures the way they like. But not all of them are hobbyists loving to convert models with additionnal material.

That the only defense here is pointing at those as an answer should be the real question about how Mantic Games design their miniatures at the start of their process. Apparently game practicality isn't their main concern, that's all I'm seeing with these recent new kits.

But it's all right. The sprue itself is looking nice and all. It looks decent enough. And there will be indeed people like you giving offers for some liking to have 3 ravens in their troop unit.

It's just sad it could have been better with an appropriate focus on how the game works, that's all. Well, it's Mantic Games. "Good enough" is what they do.

but you can fit the normal numbers of models meant for that game on the base

It is nice that you finally not insist any more that the game is designed on using single bases 2 models is the normal amount for a regiment here

and if you cannot fit 3 ravens next to each other needs proof as just from the picture I would say you can

 kodos wrote:

and if you cannot fit 3 ravens next to each other needs proof as just from the picture I would say you can

Without converting / using another flying base, I seriously doubt it - even if you put wings in an oblique position. And that will not be the only problem : wingspan can also get in the way of side units like I said before.

With a horde, maybe it would easier to put the intended number because you have more space in depth of the unit. At least 5 should be doable, IMHO.

But you're right, it would be an interesting idea to try. If some did, please feel free to put the pictures of your result if you can (and want).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kodos wrote:

It is nice that you finally not insist any more that the game is designed on using single bases 2 models is the normal amount for a regiment here

Note that they do only that for the ravens, not the half-elf. Which is telling to me more about how they didn't design the ravens to work with intended model. The question is : did they design this way from the start or is it just an accident because they didn't think about it and "fixed it" with the picture ? That, only Mantic Games knows.

Hmmm yes the models that have 3" of ground clearance specifically so they can fit base to base with any non-flier unit are not designed with gameplay in mind.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Hmmm yes the models that have 3" of ground clearance specifically so they can fit base to base with any non-flier unit are not designed with gameplay in mind.

Of course, what you say only apply to human-size models (even so, not all...depends also of their poses, like those with high weapons raised up), unlike cavalry and monstruous infantry that do tend to be more than 3' tall. That obviously includes other units of the same ravens.

That's why pictures of the actual unit of 3 Ravens will be helpful to illustrate the reality in game.

Sarouan wrote:

 McDougall Designs wrote:


This is a non-existent issue. Why not just use a higher flying stand, or craft one yourself? They are flying models, and a hobbyist willing to build and paint a unit is probably willing to do some work to make one of the ravens higher off the base. In fact, I think I will do an article on this type of minor conversion when these arrive to my store.

I know, I myself have a lot of experience modeling and converting plastic miniatures with external material. That's not the issue.

What I'm talking about here is design by the miniature designers at Mantic Games. Because these miniatures are made for a specific game in mind, their own - with the rules they wrote themselves. To me, it should be obvious when you both make the game and the miniatures for it, you have complete control about the practicality of said miniatures in said game. That they made miniatures that aren't designed to be use the way they are intended in the rules - meaning forcing people to use other ways to fit the normal number of models per unit category on their base - is exactly what I'm pointing at.

Of course people will always find a way to use these miniatures the way they like. But not all of them are hobbyists loving to convert models with additionnal material.

That the only defense here is pointing at those as an answer should be the real question about how Mantic Games design their miniatures at the start of their process. Apparently game practicality isn't their main concern, that's all I'm seeing with these recent new kits.

But it's all right. The sprue itself is looking nice and all. It looks decent enough. And there will be indeed people like you giving offers for some liking to have 3 ravens in their troop unit.

It's just sad it could have been better with an appropriate focus on how the game works, that's all. Well, it's Mantic Games. "Good enough" is what they do.

They are designed as a 2 model unit, if I'm reading the promotional material correctly. If so, your concern is moot as the unit size is correct as intended by the manufacturer.

It goes against previously established design protocol of large units being in 3's, but thats nothing that can't be fixed and made impressive with some modeling work and either a brass rod or clever terrain build up.

It was a flimsy pretext to gak on Mantic so it was grabbed with both hands. Nobody tell him other companies also change the number of models in a unit sometimes and it doesn't mean they're "unfocused on the practicalities of their game" or whatever other crap we're spewing today.

Doing the exact opposite thing can also attract criticism.

E.g. 40k 10th datasheets which now exactly match the quantity and composition of the miniatures sold in the boxes.

I have a feeling that PMC guidelines will be loosened in 4th, they only ever were in place for specific tournaments which Mantic themselves ran, and even then only to receive prize support in the event of a win, never as an entry requirement (you can still use an all GW army, turn up and win at a Mantic tournament).

For those of us playing the game it's a total non-issue, most people still use 12 or so minis on the base instead of 20 and it's fine.