[Kings of War] Mantic Fantasy News & Rumors

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.

**overtyrant**

Im all for a tight set of rules like Warmahordes. How much infulence does the commity have with Ronnie? Im worried that with Alliseo and Jake only being freelancers their intrests may not wholly be with Mantic, that Alliseo only works 1 day a week on KoW is worriesome and only renforces my belief that Mantic should have a full time rules wrighter.

**Azazelx**

Ouch. These things aren't especially good news.

**AlexHolker**

Daedleh wrote:
It took us a month of arguing and going over his head to Ronnie to convince him not to remove Regeneration, and then the same thing again to convince him not to make all large infantry armies illegal. There were much more pressing matters to fix/revert when I finally quit the team.

Daedleh wrote:
Not really. Me and Alessio in particular didn't get along because I'm blunt with my feedback and have an extremely high standard of quality for rules. I wanted to make sure that 2nd was as tight and well written as Warmachine (I know the style of game is not to everyones taste but the quality of rules is second to none), while Alessio is much more of a "gentlemans" gamer and believes that any disputes should be resolved by the players, rather than by clarity of the rules. My constant picking over exact wording and bluntness didn't go down well.

I know that feeling. I'm guessing the folks on the rules team either forgot about or failed to convince Alessio that my Regroup rule* was faster and more thematically appropriate than his attempts at a Regeneration rule?

* Regroup (n)
At the start of your Move phase, remove (n) points of damage from this unit.

**Daedleh**

That's not one that I've seen but it would have been rejected sharpish anyway because it doesn't scale with unit size and goes against existing KoW principles such as Heal or the existing Regeneration. We had numerous other alternatives that resolved all the issues.

The fundamental idea of rolling a D6 for each point of damage and healing it on n+ is fine, however for it to be only a 6+ makes it useless. We'd have much preferred to see Regeneration (n) where n was the score needed to heal, then you could have some units with low regeneration on a 6+, have the average at 5+ and some extreme tarpit units such as Mummies could even be as good as 3+.

However it was an uphill battle just to get a regen rule in the first place, actually amending it once Alessio had written it was impossible.

**Nostromodamus**

Really hoping all this internal bickering doesn't delay delivery.

**scarletsquig**

^ It won't. The rules committee work on KoW2 is basically complete at this point, including points values balancing and proofreading of the final document. As far as I know it is now in Mantic's hands for final beta testing before going to print.

**vorpalhit**

Are Ogres still a big guy only army or have I got a now obsolete pile of restic?

**Daedleh**

Ogres are a big guy army still as far as I know. I worked long and hard over the Ogre list developing new units to pad them out without resorting to the easy option of adding more goblins. I was very happy that the army list we submitted was characterful, well balanced and offered suitable modelling opportunities where models don't exist already. I've been told that it's been significantly amended from what we submitted so time will tell...

**AlexHolker**

Daedleh wrote:
That's not one that I've seen but it would have been rejected sharpish anyway because it doesn't scale with unit size...

It explicitly does scale with unit size, because it scales based on whatever value of (n) the unit possesses. Give a lone troll Regroup (1), a gang of three trolls Regroup (2) and a mob of six trolls Regroup (3).

...and goes against existing KoW principles such as Heal or the existing Regeneration.

The existing KoW principle isn't very good. Dice rolling should exist to introduce fog of war to the decision-making process, so that you cannot predict with absolute certainty what the results of your strategy will be. There is no strategy in regeneration - you always want your unit to regenerate, and it would regenerate anyway even if you didn't - so the rules should be written to resolve the ability as quickly and efficiently as possible.

**NTRabbit**

scarletsquig wrote:
^ It won't. The rules committee work on KoW2 is basically complete at this point, including points values balancing and proofreading of the final document. As far as I know it is now in Mantic's hands for final beta testing before going to print.

If the Rules Committee work is complete, then who receives the feedback from beta testing in order to make necessary changes discovered by the community? Because if Alessio is ignoring the Rules Committee, what chance do the rest of us have of getting heard?

**highlord tamburlaine**

I just hope I don't have to pad out my ogres with piles and piles of goblins.

Part of the reason I picked ogres was because I needed less models to paint!

**scarletsquig**

Don't worry about the Ogre list, it is looking great, lots of new units, none of them goblins.

Armies with nothing but ogres are still 100% doable.

The disagreement was limited to Daedle and Alessio, the rest of us kept working. Everything is still on track. Not sure what happens after the beta testing, whether that will be handled internally or not.. it is up to Mantic

I don't really have a problem with their working methods, someone has to make the call on finalizing a set of rules to meet the print deadlines at some point.. I can see Daedle's position though considering the large amount of work he put into it (a lot of which is still in there!).

New rules and lists are looking great, think everyone will be very happy with them.

**Daedleh**

AlexHolker wrote:
Daedleh wrote:
That's not one that I've seen but it would have been rejected sharpish anyway because it doesn't scale with unit size...

It explicitly does scale with unit size, because it scales based on whatever value of (n) the unit possesses. Give a lone troll Regroup (1), a gang of three trolls Regroup (2) and a mob of six trolls Regroup (3).

...and goes against existing KoW principles such as Heal or the existing Regeneration.

The existing KoW principle isn't very good. Dice rolling should exist to introduce fog of war to the decision-making process, so that you cannot predict with absolute certainty what the results of your strategy will be. There is no strategy in regeneration - you always want your unit to regenerate, and it would regenerate anyway even if you didn't - so the rules should be written to resolve the ability as quickly and efficiently as possible.

No, it doesn't scale because you have to redefine n for each unit size. Like Elite and Vicious, one of the main design points was that the rule had to scale without being redefined for each unit size. Rather than switching to Elite (n), with n being the number of dice re-rolled, and making messy lists of special rules in the unit entry we instead went with a version that didn't have to be redefined for each size, but still scaled up.

I disagree with your second paragraph because otherwise we have to revisit multiple abilities in the game, such as Headstrong (and arguably Nerve tests), which should have an element of chance to them - something that is way outside of scope. I don't think regenerate should be a sure fire thing.

The issues to be resolved with Regeneration were;
1) points cost
2) being switched off with Zap/Breath
3) not scaling with unit size

Your rule solves neither 2 nor 3.

Regardless if it was presented then it would be discussed and dissected between the committee. Given that no-one brought it up then no-one felt it was even worth mentioning.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

The disagreement was limited to Daedle and Alessio, the rest of us kept working)

There are two statements in this sentence that are false.

**AlexHolker**

Daedleh wrote:
No, it doesn't scale because you have to redefine n for each unit size. Like Elite and Vicious, one of the main design points was that the rule had to scale without being redefined for each unit size. Rather than switching to Elite (n), with n being the number of dice re-rolled, and making messy lists of special rules in the unit entry we instead went with a version that didn't have to be redefined for each size, but still scaled up.

Look up the Abyssal Dwarf Decimators. I'll wait.

**Daedleh**

AlexHolker wrote:
Daedleh wrote:
No, it doesn't scale because you have to redefine n for each unit size. Like Elite and Vicious, one of the main design points was that the rule had to scale without being redefined for each unit size. Rather than switching to Elite (n), with n being the number of dice re-rolled, and making messy lists of special rules in the unit entry we instead went with a version that didn't have to be redefined for each size, but still scaled up.

Look up the Abyssal Dwarf Decimators. I'll wait.

Yep, which is one of the ones that we wanted to remove. I'm not much interested in discussing it with you anyway since it's all a moot point. I don't like your rule, plainly none of the rules committee liked it and Alessio... does his own thing.

**judgedoug**

I take it the argument is that it sucks to have different rules based on different unit sizes. Which I agree with. A unit type should have one special rule that will scale properly no matter what the unit size is. I hate having different rules for each size of unit within a unit type. It's clunky and awkward and lazy.

**RobertsMinis**

I was always told not to air my dirty laundry in public.

**adamsouza**

RobertsMinis wrote:
I was always told not to air my dirty laundry in public.

But, but, not only is it entertaining to watch, but it provides insight into what is going on behind closed doors...

Daedleh, I feels for you. I've playtested for over a dozen games and companies in the last 20 years, and nothing is more frusterating for them to ask you for feedback, you providing them with insightful feedback, that took you hours or weeks to compile, illustrating errors or pitfalls in their approach, them acknowledging you, and then pushing forward completely ignoring whatever you said.

**NTRabbit**

adamsouza wrote:

But, but, not only is it entertaining to watch, but it provides insight into what is going on behind closed doors...

It's also important for us, because these are rules that we (aside from $1 backers) have already paid for. It's in our interests to know if the rules are being turned into something that is different from what was promised.

**Daedleh**

For me it's more comments like this;

privateer4hire wrote:
While I appreciate the work Rules Committee has put in, much of the proposed change seems unnecessary to me. Hoping that AC does have the veto in case he thinks the game is getting too complicated or otherwise going off course.

that I feel a pathological need to correct

I've seen similar sentiments dotted around the web pre-emptively putting the blame for the... stranger... decisions on the committee when that's really not the case.

**Eilif**

adamsouza wrote:
RobertsMinis wrote:
I was always told not to air my dirty laundry in public.

But, but, not only is it entertaining to watch, but it provides insight into what is going on behind closed doors...

Daedleh, I feels for you. I've playtested for over a dozen games and companies in the last 20 years, and nothing is more frusterating for them to ask you for feedback, you providing them with insightful feedback, that took you hours or weeks to compile, illustrating errors or pitfalls in their approach, them acknowledging you, and then pushing forward completely ignoring whatever you said.

I guess it speaks well of Mantic that you all weren't required to assent to NDA's, but I'm still catching the scent of "bad form" in the laundry airing here.

Adamsouza,
It may be frustrating and it might even be unwarranted (none of us not on the team can likely judge this well), but surely every playtester has to realize that their particular point of view might not -in the end- jive with the vision of the author or the company. If one can't deal with having your ideas rejected, then playtesting might not be the best activity for them to engage in.

I've only been in involved in playtesting a few times and I'd estimate that less than half the time I made any real difference in the rules. Still, I just enjoyed being part of the process and even if my ideas were rejected, I at least got the chance to offer them to the author.

**privateer4hire**

Daedleh wrote:
For me it's more comments like this;

privateer4hire wrote:
While I appreciate the work Rules Committee has put in, much of the proposed change seems unnecessary to me. Hoping that AC does have the veto in case he thinks the game is getting too complicated or otherwise going off course.

that I feel a pathological need to correct

I've seen similar sentiments dotted around the web pre-emptively putting the blame for the... stranger... decisions on the committee when that's really not the case.

Nope, I'm not pre-emptively blaming RC. They've done their bit, some of which I disagree with.
If I don't like the final rules when they're published, Alessio will own that as the lead designer/author.

**carlos13th**

Daedleh wrote:
Mymearan wrote:
That doesn't seem like the best relationship between two parties that are supposed to help each other?

Not really. Me and Alessio in particular didn't get along because I'm blunt with my feedback and have an extremely high standard of quality for rules. I wanted to make sure that 2nd was as tight and well written as Warmachine (I know the style of game is not to everyones taste but the quality of rules is second to none), while Alessio is much more of a "gentlemans" gamer and believes that any disputes should be resolved by the players, rather than by clarity of the rules. My constant picking over exact wording and bluntness didn't go down well.

I should clarify that when I say all large infantry armies, I mean all existing collections. The changes would have made nearly all existing armies illegal and would have put LI armies at a significant disadvantage in general.

Interestingly there is an article in wargames illistrated recently where Alessio talks about pretty much getting outright offended by proposed rules changes to his rule sets. He later goes on to say that it's sometimes a necessary evil but he genuinly seemed to hate criticism if his writing.

**Baragash**

Eilif wrote:
adamsouza wrote:
RobertsMinis wrote:
I was always told not to air my dirty laundry in public.

But, but, not only is it entertaining to watch, but it provides insight into what is going on behind closed doors...

Daedleh, I feels for you. I've playtested for over a dozen games and companies in the last 20 years, and nothing is more frusterating for them to ask you for feedback, you providing them with insightful feedback, that took you hours or weeks to compile, illustrating errors or pitfalls in their approach, them acknowledging you, and then pushing forward completely ignoring whatever you said.

I guess it speaks well of Mantic that you all weren't required to assent to NDA's, but I'm still catching the scent of "bad form" in the laundry airing here.

We did sign NDAs.

**Daedleh**

Baragash wrote:
Eilif wrote:
adamsouza wrote:
RobertsMinis wrote:
I was always told not to air my dirty laundry in public.

But, but, not only is it entertaining to watch, but it provides insight into what is going on behind closed doors...

Daedleh, I feels for you. I've playtested for over a dozen games and companies in the last 20 years, and nothing is more frusterating for them to ask you for feedback, you providing them with insightful feedback, that took you hours or weeks to compile, illustrating errors or pitfalls in their approach, them acknowledging you, and then pushing forward completely ignoring whatever you said.

I guess it speaks well of Mantic that you all weren't required to assent to NDA's, but I'm still catching the scent of "bad form" in the laundry airing here.

We did sign NDAs.

And everything I've posted has been within the list of things that Alessio gave us permission to promote the game with

With my opinions on top, of course.

**adamsouza**

Eilif wrote:

Adamsouza,
It may be frustrating and it might even be unwarranted (none of us not on the team can likely judge this well), but surely every playtester has to realize that their particular point of view might not -in the end- jive with the vision of the author or the company. If one can't deal with having your ideas rejected, then playtesting might not be the best activity for them to engage in.

I've only been in involved in playtesting a few times and I'd estimate that less than half the time I made any real difference in the rules. Still, I just enjoyed being part of the process and even if my ideas were rejected, I at least got the chance to offer them to the author.

I understand what you are saying. The vast majority of play testing is just to catch various flaws and bring them to the attention of the designers and let them fix it. Occasionally though, you are tasked with more than that, and it's just frusterating when you realise that you've spent many more hours figuring something out than the original designer did, and they default to an "it's my ball" mentality.

Spoiler:

Not mentioning names, but I'll give you an example. For one game I was tasked with playtesting units to determine their points value and the interaction of their special rules. I would run anywhere from 9-15 battles, against various established units of an equal points value, and then teams, on a tabletop and create detailed battlereports. At the end I'd write up a summary and submit the batreps and summary, and make recomendations on adjusting point costs or abilities.
Then one day I got a unit to test that was about the equivalent of a Imperial Guard Commisar. The concept was similar except that he would execute any of his unit who failed to wound the enemy. The problems with that were 2 fold. First off, he was point costed the same as another command model with identical stats, who had a much better command trait. Secondly, in EVERY one of my battle reports he killed more of his own troops than the enemy ever did. Just imagine a Commisar who executed every Imperial Guardsman under his command any time they failed to wound something with their S3 gun, that's how bad it was.
So, I talked to the designer who wrote up the model. I told him that while it was fluffy, the ability triggered way too often, and was a huge liability, but it could be fun on a cheaper command model. At it's point cost it was vastly inferior to the other similar model, and I had bat reps to prove it. We discussed it and he agreed, then asked me what my recomendation was, lower the point cost or rewrite the ability. I actually had spent hours figuring out both an appropriate points cost for the existing ability and a toned down version of the ability and submitted both. After I had submitted my results, on the forums I had discovered there were 2 other play testers who had independantly reached a similar conclusion as well.
Later on, the unit was released absolutely unaltered. The same high point cost and gakky command ability.

I had apparently spent 20+ hours of my life playtesting a unit that a designer had spent minutes on, so he could ignore all of it.

I get that it was their game and they will do what they like, but it doesn't change how frusterating it is.

**Compel**

adamsouza wrote:

Later on, the unit was released absolutely unaltered. The same high point cost and gakky command ability.

I had apparently spent 20+ hours of my life playtesting a unit that a designer had spent minutes on, so he could ignore all of it.

I get that it was their game and they will do what they like, but it doesn't change how frusterating it is.

See, working in an IT background, both as a Software Developer and as a test user of products being written software developers, this just makes my teeth itch (not that it hasn't happened in software either...)

In any case, the vast majority of the time I've had developers come back and say 'no, can't do that', it's almost always for the reason of "we can't afford that / it's not part of the contract."

Very, very rarely, have I ever experienced the Developers (ruleswriter), put their foot down and say, "no, you, potential user of my product, (playtester) you're wrong and I'm correct, nah-nah-nah."

That being said, the 'blind the customer (EG Ronnie), who is actually paying for the product, with science' tactic can sometimes pay off.

**Gallahad**

What about some sort of a "Rules committee mod?" Can they stop you from releasing a pdf with "your" modified point values, unit rules, etc.?

I have never played Kings of War, but I would play the Rules Committee version based solely off of the passion and commitment to the quality of the rules that some of the members have voiced here.

I have found that most often rules writers/rulesets who identify as or for "gentlemen gamers" really just use the term to cover their half arsed approach to quality. You can have a fun set of rules that is also tightly written.

I went in for a dollar on the KOW 2.0 KS, but I just couldn't bring myself to buy anything after looking through the pledge manager. Absolutely zero of the concepts interested me. I'd hoped that on a second pass the lower infernals would tempt me, but they still look like goofy cartoon villains from the eighties.

**Azazelx**

What I find particularly interesting was that I had the exact same thought about a "RC Mod" - even to the name, this morning when I got into work after reading part of this thread on my phone on the way in.

**Compel**

On that subject... Is the pledge manager for KOW supposed to be open for the masses yet? Cause I've never got the email about anything more than 'there's some pilot users for the pledge manager...'