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.

They said they should have all invites out by the 20th. If you don't have it by then, contact them. It's all in the latest update.

 scarletsquig wrote:
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.

Did the Horde-sized Ogre unit that was mooted become a thing? 6x2 or some other number/formation?

It's up, I already locked in my pledge.

http://pledgemanager.manticdigital.com/kingsofwar/pledgemanager/user_login

I think you may need a "token", from Mantic, unless you've doen the Dungeon Saga one.

I went in for the Forces of the Abyss Mega army and RuleBooks. I can't see then fething up the game enough that I wouldn't play it. I like the current version and I thought all the rumored rules changes, the ones on the quick sheet at least, were pretty solid.

 Azazelx wrote:

 scarletsquig wrote:
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.

Did the Horde-sized Ogre unit that was mooted become a thing? 6x2 or some other number/formation?

It is a thing

 Baragash wrote:

 Azazelx wrote:

 scarletsquig wrote:
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.

Did the Horde-sized Ogre unit that was mooted become a thing? 6x2 or some other number/formation?

It is a thing

 Gallahad wrote:
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.?

While I'm not aware of anything for KoW, here is Daedle's rewrite for Warpath: https://manticforum.com/forum/warpath/warpath-rules-discussion/212107-warpath-2-51

It is really good as an evolution of the current rules, although nowhere close to what 3.0 will be.

Also, I probably don't have the whole picture regarding the rules committee drama since I stayed out of it. Shame to lose Daedle though since he put most of the work in and had most of the best new ideas which made it in.

It was all a very last minute change that took a lot of effort on our part to get points balanced and proofread within the given deadline. The end result is far better with the committee's input than without, you just have to take a look at the Deadzone or Dreadball Xtreme rulebook to see what a poorly-proofread, rushed-to-printers rulebook looks like.

I'm fairly confident in Deadle's ability to get in the few real changes that KoW needed (LOS, WM stuff), so any other refinements are just icing on the cake.

My biggest problem at the end was the change to every single units' statlines that was put through just a couple of weeks before the rules were locked down and without any consultation or feedback from the committee. I feel that the changes are well outside the scope of the project (evolution, not revolution) and were introduced too late to realistically balance the game in time for the print deadline. While the changes are relatively minor, I feel that they upset the statline balance of the game too much, such as the balance between what are currently Large Infantry troops and regular Infantry regiments. Points can of course balance units out considerably, but there's still a lot to be said for the balance just of statlines.

I was also not happy with some of the changes being made to the army lists that we submitted (e.g. ignoring our proposed replacements Utterly Spineless and the Basilean rules, and replacing the Ogre rules with an overpowered one) - we had already considered and discarded the printed solutions, and for good reason. The Ogre one in particular really upset the good balance we'd achieved between the hard hitting heavy cavalry and the durable-in-a-protracted-fight large infantry (it was also practically a KoW version of the WHFB Ogres' special rule), though I do understand that one in particular has been reversed after similar outcries from the rest of the committee. Utterly Spineless and the alignment-specific Basilean one is still in there, despite near universal dislike in the community and our strong recommendations to replace them.

I started going down the previous route of reverting changes, before realising just how futile it all was. Even if I were successful then the game would just be changed elsewhere instead, such as when I successfully got the change to Large Infantry army selection overruled, only to see the units in question nerfed into uselessness. If some of these changes had been put through at the very start of the project then the committee would have at least been able to heavily playtest them and readjust to the new baselines/meta, but with just over two months to go before final submissions I do not believe the game can be sufficiently playtested to survive a ~5 year edition, so I quit the committee and asked that my name not be put down for rules development since I cannot personally guarantee the quality of them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 scarletsquig wrote:



While I'm not aware of anything for KoW, here is Daedle's rewrite for Warpath: https://manticforum.com/forum/warpath/warpath-rules-discussion/212107-warpath-2-51

It is really good as an evolution of the current rules, although nowhere close to what 3.0 will be..

Clarity; that's an evolution of my original 2.5 rules written by WeedyElf, since his games group have been playing it a lot and I was occupied with KoW development. 2.51 has my full blessing of course and I like the changes he's made so far. It might be a project to return to at a later date once I finish my current batch of terrain commissions, if just as an editor to tidy up some of his amendments and also to have a go at properly laying it out rulebook wise

So, should I just stick with my fist edition KOW book, then? Is there a FAQ or errata that makes 1st edition better enough to warrant skipping 2.0 altogether?

If it matters, I would likely be playing against friends and family using the lists Azazelx has written for 1st edition armies.

(I might also play with some local gamers, too, but they seem chill.)

I suspect 2nd will be better than 1st, just not up to my personal standards. My frustrations with the development process also crushed my enjoyment of the game - the last minute changes were just the proverbial straw. If nothing else, the fluff should be substantially improved.

 Daedleh wrote:
I suspect 2nd will be better than 1st, just not up to my personal standards. My frustrations with the development process also crushed my enjoyment of the game - the last minute changes were just the proverbial straw. If nothing else, the fluff should be substantially improved.

So it's a matter of 2.0 being an incremental upgrade to 1.0 instead of the polished masterpiece you had hoped it would be?

 judgedoug wrote:

 Daedleh wrote:
I suspect 2nd will be better than 1st, just not up to my personal standards. My frustrations with the development process also crushed my enjoyment of the game - the last minute changes were just the proverbial straw. If nothing else, the fluff should be substantially improved.

So it's a matter of 2.0 being an incremental upgrade to 1.0 instead of the polished masterpiece you had hoped it would be?

I though he said that it wasn't an incremental upgrade so much as Alessio making changes just for their own sake.

Wow.. some pretty damning stuff there!

Some behind the scenes stuff that I guess normally you wouldn't get to hear about.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:

 Daedleh wrote:
I suspect 2nd will be better than 1st, just not up to my personal standards. My frustrations with the development process also crushed my enjoyment of the game - the last minute changes were just the proverbial straw. If nothing else, the fluff should be substantially improved.

So it's a matter of 2.0 being an incremental upgrade to 1.0 instead of the polished masterpiece you had hoped it would be?

I though he said that it wasn't an incremental upgrade so much as Alessio making changes just for their own sake.

Well, taking the previous vitriol into account, that conclusion: "I suspect 2nd will be better than 1st" seems like fairly high praise

Man, to hear all this *after* I had locked in my pledge... Doesn't really inspire me with confidence in what I have purchased.

To be honest, Kings of War is a nearly flawless game. If Daedle's goal was 100% perfect, and KoW is already 95% perfect, then it sounds like we'll be at least getting a 96 or 97% perfect game.

My big issue with V1 is the balance. I'm a competitive player. No, that doesn't mean I'm WAAC or that I don't appreciate casual/narrative gaming (me and Matt Gilbert were co-writing a narrative gaming/campaigns expansion before I quit), just that unless the situation is inappropriate then it is a game between me and my opponent - I aim to win and will use my best tactics and strategies, while meticulously planning the synergy of my army list. I play hard and expect my opponent to do the same.

Believe me when I say that I am aware of at least two game breaking loopholes in the 1st ed rules that aren't widely known, that would make me nigh unbeatable unless someone else used the same. I do not use them, but maybe after all the 1st ed tournaments are finished I'll write them up. One of them was still in 2nd, though a little toned down from what is in 1st. It was a cause of friction between me and Alessio when I just would. not. stop. telling. him. to. fix. it. already.

I should point out that despite this, I've been mainly using Ogres for the past 2 years despite the regiments being plain worse than a regiment of knights, while also being more expensive.

I hate that Knights are a flat out better choice than Ogres. I hate that Elohi are so broken that tournaments have severely limited their use. I hate that artillery is so ludicrously good. I hate that Obsidian Golem/Ankgor spam is nearly an auto-win button.

My number one priority for V2 was balance. I'm not deluded enough to think that perfect balance is achievable, but I wanted it close enough that there is never a "default" option where one unit is just plain better than another, no dud units which are utterly useless (hello KoM Scouts), no dominant style of army list and that no slight remaining imbalance is enough to overcome player skill.

With the upheaval of the baseline stats I don't think that can be achieved. I like most of the new additions; TLOS is an abomination that punishes players for modelling (shock horror! A competitive player thinks the hobby aspect is just as important as the game ), the new spells add flavour and the tweaks here and there add a lot of character while not straying away from what made the core rules of KoW great.

I don't think that balance issues can be nipped in the bud before release, and I believe that there will be a dominant playstyle/unit type spam that emerges that tournaments will need to start comping. From what I know, I suspect it'll be large infantry troop spam but obviously it's too early to tell.

For me, I associate the frustrations of development with the game now so don't enjoy it. Maybe I'll be fine with it in a couple of years. Maybe the committee will do an even more outstanding job than they've already done with balancing and I will sing from the high heavens about how wrong I am. My biggest reason for posting these gripes is seeing someone belittle the rules committee and insinuate that they're responsible for taking the project off-course, making unnecessary additions etc since the RC has done a phenomenal job at keeping the project on track.

If you were happy with the balance of 1st ed, then you will be happy with 2nd. If you were happy with the character of 1st ed, then you will be happier with 2nd. If you had a group of friends who were happy to repoint things if/when something turns out to be too cheap or too expensive then you will be very happy with 2nd.

 judgedoug wrote:
To be honest, Kings of War is a nearly flawless game. If Daedle's goal was 100% perfect, and KoW is already 95% perfect, then it sounds like we'll be at least getting a 96 or 97% perfect game.

What if I only want a 72% flawless game?

It might be important for one of my friends to 'know' that losing doesn't necessarily mean he is a bad player (and by extension a bad person). A perfect game will remove the uncertainty of loserdom.

 Daedleh wrote:

If you were happy with the balance of 1st ed, then you will be happy with 2nd. If you were happy with the character of 1st ed, then you will be happier with 2nd. If you had a group of friends who were happy to repoint things if/when something turns out to be too cheap or too expensive then you will be very happy with 2nd.

Well, then, thank you very much for all the effort you put into KoW 2. I can't imagine how frustrating it is to aim to perfect your favorite ruleset and be shot down time and again. But I'm pretty confident now that, in no small part of your own, KoW 2 will be at least better than KoW 1, even if not achieving the lofty goals you had set out for it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
It might be important for one of my friends to 'know' that losing doesn't necessarily mean he is a bad player (and by extension a bad person). A perfect game will remove the uncertainty of loserdom.

So you specifically want it to be perfect so that when your friends do lose to you, you can, in fact, exclaim how much of a terrible person they indeed are and that you have proven it beyond a shadow of a doubt?

 judgedoug wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
It might be important for one of my friends to 'know' that losing doesn't necessarily mean he is a bad player (and by extension a bad person). A perfect game will remove the uncertainty of loserdom.

So you specifically want it to be perfect so that when your friends do lose to you, you can, in fact, exclaim how much of a terrible person they indeed are and that you have proven it beyond a shadow of a doubt?

No, that's my best friend who plays like that. He and another friend play those mindgames all the time. They ruined chess and monopoly for the greater group, and have been thrown out of Best Buy numerous times for heated Mario Kart-related drama. Whenever we play competitive games, I usually play to lose quickly or to boost my wife's faction at the expense of others. Two player games can work, as long as they both feel the game isn't 'serious'.

I do want to play KoW a lot, but not with them, at least not at the same time.

I have to say that I'm not especially encouraged by the fact that Alessio seems to be cowboying his way through KoW 2 (at a rate of one day per week, no less). Changing unit profiles too late to rebalance them (and points) before a print deadline just sounds fething stupid, as does the wholesale binning and ignoring of what seems like meticulously playtested fixes.

Something like that can really unbalance the game, and probably wouldn't help the officially unofficial WHFB lists (and alienating Daedle seems to be a bad idea, if he's contributed as much as everyone seems to agree on.)

Daedle - you might want to publish those exploits ASAP. Waiting for the tourneys to finish seems like it will result in them making it through to the next edition as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

No, that's my best friend who plays like that. He and another friend play those mindgames all the time.
I do want to play KoW a lot, but not with them, at least not at the same time.

Set them up in a game against one another, both with premade, subpar army lists. See if you can turn them both off it, so they lose all interest!

And Best Buy? Mario Kart? Are they adults standing at the demo machine carrying on like teenagers?

 Azazelx wrote:
Daedle - you might want to publish those exploits ASAP. Waiting for the tourneys to finish seems like it will result in them making it through to the next edition as well.

The first one was fixed straight away, and was actually resolved in fixes designed to solve other minor issues so that's not a problem.

The biggest issue with the second rule has been resolved (no more turn one charges to nearly any unit on the board, regardless of range), however it is still a "shade of grey". There's a situation which is blatantly meant to be covered by the rule, and then there are several situations which are blatant exploits that no sane person would either try or not rule against as a tournament judge. However there's no hard line between what is acceptable and when someone needs a dreadsock to the face.

This is one of the differences between me and Alessio - I think that the rule adds nothing to the game so should just be removed for streamlining (though my exact wording was "silly" which did NOT go down well ) whereas Alessio feels that it's a fluffy rule that adds character and if someone tried to exploit it then just don't play them. If there's a disagreement then call a judge over or 4+ it.

I didn't think this was an acceptable answer especially considering that the rule is covered elsewhere, albeit in a less fluffy way.

I hate when 'Fluffiness' gets in the way of good rules.

 Daedleh wrote:

Spoiler:

My big issue with V1 is the balance. I'm a competitive player. No, that doesn't mean I'm WAAC or that I don't appreciate casual/narrative gaming (me and Matt Gilbert were co-writing a narrative gaming/campaigns expansion before I quit), just that unless the situation is inappropriate then it is a game between me and my opponent - I aim to win and will use my best tactics and strategies, while meticulously planning the synergy of my army list. I play hard and expect my opponent to do the same.

Believe me when I say that I am aware of at least two game breaking loopholes in the 1st ed rules that aren't widely known, that would make me nigh unbeatable unless someone else used the same. I do not use them, but maybe after all the 1st ed tournaments are finished I'll write them up. One of them was still in 2nd, though a little toned down from what is in 1st. It was a cause of friction between me and Alessio when I just would. not. stop. telling. him. to. fix. it. already.

I should point out that despite this, I've been mainly using Ogres for the past 2 years despite the regiments being plain worse than a regiment of knights, while also being more expensive.

I hate that Knights are a flat out better choice than Ogres. I hate that Elohi are so broken that tournaments have severely limited their use. I hate that artillery is so ludicrously good. I hate that Obsidian Golem/Ankgor spam is nearly an auto-win button.

My number one priority for V2 was balance. I'm not deluded enough to think that perfect balance is achievable, but I wanted it close enough that there is never a "default" option where one unit is just plain better than another, no dud units which are utterly useless (hello KoM Scouts), no dominant style of army list and that no slight remaining imbalance is enough to overcome player skill.

With the upheaval of the baseline stats I don't think that can be achieved. I like most of the new additions; TLOS is an abomination that punishes players for modelling (shock horror! A competitive player thinks the hobby aspect is just as important as the game ), the new spells add flavour and the tweaks here and there add a lot of character while not straying away from what made the core rules of KoW great.

I don't think that balance issues can be nipped in the bud before release, and I believe that there will be a dominant playstyle/unit type spam that emerges that tournaments will need to start comping. From what I know, I suspect it'll be large infantry troop spam but obviously it's too early to tell.

For me, I associate the frustrations of development with the game now so don't enjoy it. Maybe I'll be fine with it in a couple of years. Maybe the committee will do an even more outstanding job than they've already done with balancing and I will sing from the high heavens about how wrong I am. My biggest reason for posting these gripes is seeing someone belittle the rules committee and insinuate that they're responsible for taking the project off-course, making unnecessary additions etc since the RC has done a phenomenal job at keeping the project on track.

If you were happy with the balance of 1st ed, then you will be happy with 2nd. If you were happy with the character of 1st ed, then you will be happier with 2nd. If you had a group of friends who were happy to repoint things if/when something turns out to be too cheap or too expensive then you will be very happy with 2nd

.

Im interested then in what you thought of Allessio's piece in WI about tournament games and tournament gamers and "balance". It wasnt exactly positive. He was supposed to come to our BA tournament last November, and we had spoken to him at Derby just the month previous and he was a bit...short, shall we say...with us about our rules pack. He didn't seem overly happy that we had done our own scenarios and had clarified some bits and pieces (all of which are issues the community are aware of). He seemed to have a big problem with the whole thing. In the end he cried off and didn't come. Given the lead in timesfor magazine articles I couldnt help but feel that I took some of the hit from the blast of his WI piece. It didnt feel nice, I will tell you that.
Is this something you encountered when doing the KOW stuff?

Edit: we're about to run our 5th sold out BA tournament, so I must be doing something right.

This is really funny considering Alessio was the chief agent of dumbing down GW's games for the sake of tournament balance.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
This is really funny considering Alessio was the chief agent of dumbing down GW's games for the sake of tournament balance.

Yeah, I found it odd as well as I had always taken Alessio to be a much more simple rules over complicated fluffy stuff kinda guy. Perhaps he's mellowing in his old age. Haha. Of course there is also the option of the middle ground. I mean if you want a perfectly balanced rule set there is always chess...

 Pete Melvin wrote:

 Daedleh wrote:

Spoiler:

My big issue with V1 is the balance. I'm a competitive player. No, that doesn't mean I'm WAAC or that I don't appreciate casual/narrative gaming (me and Matt Gilbert were co-writing a narrative gaming/campaigns expansion before I quit), just that unless the situation is inappropriate then it is a game between me and my opponent - I aim to win and will use my best tactics and strategies, while meticulously planning the synergy of my army list. I play hard and expect my opponent to do the same.

Believe me when I say that I am aware of at least two game breaking loopholes in the 1st ed rules that aren't widely known, that would make me nigh unbeatable unless someone else used the same. I do not use them, but maybe after all the 1st ed tournaments are finished I'll write them up. One of them was still in 2nd, though a little toned down from what is in 1st. It was a cause of friction between me and Alessio when I just would. not. stop. telling. him. to. fix. it. already.

I should point out that despite this, I've been mainly using Ogres for the past 2 years despite the regiments being plain worse than a regiment of knights, while also being more expensive.

I hate that Knights are a flat out better choice than Ogres. I hate that Elohi are so broken that tournaments have severely limited their use. I hate that artillery is so ludicrously good. I hate that Obsidian Golem/Ankgor spam is nearly an auto-win button.

My number one priority for V2 was balance. I'm not deluded enough to think that perfect balance is achievable, but I wanted it close enough that there is never a "default" option where one unit is just plain better than another, no dud units which are utterly useless (hello KoM Scouts), no dominant style of army list and that no slight remaining imbalance is enough to overcome player skill.

With the upheaval of the baseline stats I don't think that can be achieved. I like most of the new additions; TLOS is an abomination that punishes players for modelling (shock horror! A competitive player thinks the hobby aspect is just as important as the game ), the new spells add flavour and the tweaks here and there add a lot of character while not straying away from what made the core rules of KoW great.

I don't think that balance issues can be nipped in the bud before release, and I believe that there will be a dominant playstyle/unit type spam that emerges that tournaments will need to start comping. From what I know, I suspect it'll be large infantry troop spam but obviously it's too early to tell.

For me, I associate the frustrations of development with the game now so don't enjoy it. Maybe I'll be fine with it in a couple of years. Maybe the committee will do an even more outstanding job than they've already done with balancing and I will sing from the high heavens about how wrong I am. My biggest reason for posting these gripes is seeing someone belittle the rules committee and insinuate that they're responsible for taking the project off-course, making unnecessary additions etc since the RC has done a phenomenal job at keeping the project on track.

If you were happy with the balance of 1st ed, then you will be happy with 2nd. If you were happy with the character of 1st ed, then you will be happier with 2nd. If you had a group of friends who were happy to repoint things if/when something turns out to be too cheap or too expensive then you will be very happy with 2nd

.

Im interested then in what you thought of Allessio's piece in WI about tournament games and tournament gamers and "balance". It wasnt exactly positive. He was supposed to come to our BA tournament last November, and we had spoken to him at Derby just the month previous and he was a bit...short, shall we say...with us about our rules pack. He didn't seem overly happy that we had done our own scenarios and had clarified some bits and pieces (all of which are issues the community are aware of). He seemed to have a big problem with the whole thing. In the end he cried off and didn't come. Given the lead in timesfor magazine articles I couldnt help but feel that I took some of the hit from the blast of his WI piece. It didnt feel nice, I will tell you that.
Is this something you encountered when doing the KOW stuff?

Edit: we're about to run our 5th sold out BA tournament, so I must be doing something right.

I found it... interesting.

I thought that it might have been written after attending a KoW tournament where comp had been issued and some minor rule quibbles resolved in the tournament pack (e.g. LOS taken from a war engines crew rather than anywhere on the model). Given the proximity of events I suspect it might have been both (or more) which played into the article.

I personally think that good rules balance is more important for casual players than it is for tournament players.

Competitive players will see the broken units before buying them and min/max out a list to win.

Casual players won't see the units or armies that aren't effective and buy them anyway (and paint them up nicely)... and then become disheartened when they find that their army can't win a game due to poor balance.

I'm not saying this is the case with KoW, which is one of the games with better balance from Mantic, but it certainly applies to, for example, a new player starting Deadzone and picking up a Rebs starter because the minis look great, then losing 10 games in a row (no joke, this was actually my experience with Deadzone!).

It is up to those who can see the flaws to point them out, to make the game better for everyone... although this is often misinterpreted as a vocal minority seeking to make the game better for the select few that go to tournaments.

 Azazelx wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

No, that's my best friend who plays like that. He and another friend play those mindgames all the time.
I do want to play KoW a lot, but not with them, at least not at the same time.

Set them up in a game against one another, both with premade, subpar army lists. See if you can turn them both off it, so they lose all interest!

And Best Buy? Mario Kart? Are they adults standing at the demo machine carrying on like teenagers?

Setting them against each other is more of my desperate, last minute strategy. "Let them fight."

And yes, they would use the demo machines for hours and not buy anything. That's what they did when waiting for rush hour traffic to die down just about every weekday.

 scarletsquig wrote:
I personally think that good rules balance is more important for casual players than it is for tournament players.

Competitive players will see the broken units before buying them and min/max out a list to win.

Casual players won't see the units or armies that aren't effective and buy them anyway (and paint them up nicely)... and then become disheartened when they find that their army can't win a game due to poor balance.

I'm not saying this is the case with KoW, which is one of the games with better balance from Mantic, but it certainly applies to, for example, a new player starting Deadzone and picking up a Rebs starter because the minis look great, then losing 10 games in a row (no joke, this was actually my experience with Deadzone!).

It is up to those who can see the flaws to point them out, to make the game better for everyone... although this is often misinterpreted as a vocal minority seeking to make the game better for the select few that go to tournaments.

A majority of the broken units could have been fixed with point changes, the last year of the KoW UK Tourney scene has become really stagnated and top tier armies fall into the similar themes of knight/drakon/war engine/golem spam.

KoW was never as balanced as it claimed to be. The first Clash of Kings (The one with the £1000 first prize) was supposed to show how balanced the ruleset was at that point, but instead an army comp was almost brought in last minute. Luckily there wasn't any completely broken armies there, but the following tournaments people starting learning what was worth taking and what wasn't, the pathfinder rule comp fixed this for the most part but you'd still see people maxing out as many of the OP units as possible.

As for the next edition and what to look forward too...

Calvary is fixed.
Fliers are fixed.
Single fliers/large infantry are fixed.
Individuals are way less maneuverable (The tankier ones e.g. halfbreed champions only died if you let them and you could literally ping pong them between units with no danger to themselves).
Hordes should be much more attractive
War Engines are sorta fixed, though i disagree with them remaining on 1 die to hit when it's a potential for such a large amount of damage all decided through single die randomness. They're also still at a level where a lucky streak could change games, but at least they cost more.
If the RC did our jobs right then pretty much every option should be viable, at least from a point standpoint .

There are a few changes which will be revealed in the beta, which i have no idea why they were added, but they should be apparent to most people :p.

At this point though, I'd love for the beta to last as long as possible so this version is as balanced as can be, the best bet to iron out any issues that remain is to get solid and constructive feedback on the Mantic forums. Fingers crossed we can all start testing soon .