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.

Disappointed in the art for the Necromancer. I don't like it. Dwarf looks awesome though.

How will the units be organised now then? Will it be like WHFB with Lords,Heroes,Core,Special & Rare?

Pretty sure they're sticking with the infantry, cavalry, hero/monster and war engine they have now. Haven't indicated otherwise.

Regiment, Horde, Troop, Hero, Monster, War Machine are the FoC descriptors.

Infantry, Cavalry, Large Infantry, Large Cavalry, Monster, War Machine are the unit types.

Heroes have a unit type Hero/{one of the above}

I'd like to see the 'hero' type changed to 'hero (cavalry)' or something like that (whichever unit type is relevant), to put an end to the people who come onto the Mantic rules forum asking why their opponent's mounted hero doesn't get the -1 in combat for charging their spearmen.

Cheers for that Baragash.

 Riquende wrote:
I'd like to see the 'hero' type changed to 'hero (cavalry)' or something like that (whichever unit type is relevant), to put an end to the people who come onto the Mantic rules forum asking why their opponent's mounted hero doesn't get the -1 in combat for charging their spearmen.

It's a good thing that's what I said then

GrimDork wrote:I dunno I think some of the regular KoW players hereabouts have reported playing fun games in the 500-600 point range, correct me if I'm wrong guys. I think if you're playing mass battles regiment-based combat game, a larger size is better of course, but KoW seems to run pretty well at various sizes.

I agree with your sentiments, but just to clarify what I'm going to say below, despite what Mantic says, if unless counting each miniature as more than one soldier, the units that Mantic calls a Reigment" (20 figs) is actually a "Troop" or "Platoon" (15-30 men) The entire army in a standard sized game is at the "Company" level (80-200 men or so). A Battalion is at least 300 figures and Regiment typically denotes 1000 men or more!

It's all fantasy of course, but just for clarity...

Mezmaron wrote:
I hear most games are 1000 points minimum. I'm wondering if the Dwarf Starter army will get me there, and if not, how much more I would need to add (maybe just Blaine?).
Thanks - Mez

I've asked this question myself. Some folks seem to have fun at the 650 point level. What I've gathered from their reports it seems that it's best to trend toward smaller units and also to house-rule-out certain uber-powerful combos.

For our group, we found that the game really becomes fun at the 1000 point level or above. At that point, the options for maneuvering and taking a variety of units really open up. My preferred range is 1500-2000. For smaller size battles, my preference is to take a ruleset that is designed with that size battle in mind. "Of Gods and Mortals" is a mythological Song of Blades variant from Osprey that actually works really well for Fantasy combat with "God" a couple of "Heroes" and a few units of "Mortals". I encourage folks not to tie themselves so tightly to one ruleset that they miss other opportunities. I play Song of Blades (warband size), Of Gods and Mortals (platoons level) and Kings of War (Company level and above). They are all aimed at different game "scopes" and I enjoy them all.

All this said, I think bigger battles are better, but KoW a fun enough game that you'll probably enjoy smaller battles as you build your army.

 agnosto wrote:
Off topic but on the topic of trebuchet..

RAFM has this for $15.95, I don't know what the quality is like...

The RAFM one is smaller. I'll dig up a pic of the Old Glory trebuchet next to minis. It's pretty much accurately scaled.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 sukura636 wrote:

 AlexHolker wrote:

decker_cky wrote:
Honestly, I think that resculpting the men-at-arms and goblins (include weapon options for both) would be a great investment in goodwill. Ideally, resculpt them and include a single sprue for free with the basic pledge level as a "money where your mouth is" option.

Redoing the goblins isn't a bad idea, but tooling the Men at Arms was already stupid the first time. Money spent redoing the Men at Arms is money not spent on another, more deserving kit.

I'm not sure I follow.

Because only rare deviants like me would ever want a fantasy human army that wasn't 100% historical.

Yeah, I'm not sure where the "just use historicals" thing comes from. Basileans look like nothing out of history. They look like D&D style fantasy soldiers.

 Baragash wrote:

 Riquende wrote:
I'd like to see the 'hero' type changed to 'hero (cavalry)' or something like that (whichever unit type is relevant), to put an end to the people who come onto the Mantic rules forum asking why their opponent's mounted hero doesn't get the -1 in combat for charging their spearmen.

It's a good thing that's what I said then

Oh is that confirmed? I know it's been raised on the Mantic forum a few times, hadn't seen Daedle post it though.

 Eilif wrote:

Mezmaron wrote:
I hear most games are 1000 points minimum. I'm wondering if the Dwarf Starter army will get me there, and if not, how much more I would need to add (maybe just Blaine?).
Thanks - Mez

GrimDork wrote:I dunno I think some of the regular KoW players hereabouts have reported playing fun games in the 500-600 point range, correct me if I'm wrong guys. I think if you're playing mass battles regiment-based combat game, a larger size is better of course, but KoW seems to run pretty well at various sizes.

For our group, we found that the game really becomes fun at the 1000 point level or above. At that point, the options for maneuvering and taking a variety of units really open up. My preferred range is 1500-2000.

KoW is fine for small battles (sub 750) but really shines when you're at 2k and above. 1000 is more of a learning game, and is fine to play, but after a game or two of that and you realize how simple and tactical the rules are, you will want to immediately start expanding.

 Vermis wrote:
No, seriously, Deadleh, ScarletSquig, anyone else with a connection to Mantic: get someone to buy, beg, borrow or steal copies of these fine books (and maybe these ones too) for your concept artist and get him to rework that dorkosaur. It's maybe just a step or two above the drakons, from where I'm sitting.
Tell him to ignore those Parka Blog ads promising to teach the secrets of drawing Power Girl's boobs, too. He's had enough of that kind of instruction already, from the looks of things. The KoW art direction is increasingly looking like 'Warhammer as seen by Rob Liefeld', and it's drilling a hole through my brain.

(Oh, and scythes aren't just wide pointy axes, either. Ironically the weapon in the stretch goal silhouette shown earlier looks more like an axe than what the Mantic orcs are carrying...)

I really like a lot of what Heath Foley has done for Mantic. He has a talent for devising iconic, bold designs that have made the Enforcers far more credible super-soldiers than GW's Space Marines, and made a success of the Forge Fathers rather than the comparatively absurd-looking Squats.

Unlike Liefeld, he also understands restraint and balance in design, rather than amping up every detail ad absurdum to be EXTREME!!!

I'm not saying all of Heath's designs are winners, but by and large most of them are in my book, and I believe Foley is behind all of Mantic's best sculpts.

All that said, lizards and their avian offshoots have a specific body type that needs to be referenced, even when they're being twisted to fantasy purposes, or else they end up looking silly. The Blaine dino seems to be based on a Velociraptor, and interestingly, in this case the perspective of the drawing makes it hard to tell if Heath is referencing one of the most important physical traits or not.

That being the legs. Humans have two long bones leading from the hip to the foot; birds and upright reptiles (dinosaurs) have 3, adding in the tarsometatarsus.







As I said, due to the perspective he chose, it's hard to tell exactly what Heath's doing with the legs. The recessive shading on the lower leg seems to indicate that Heath's dino has tarsometatarsi, but it could be clearer. I hope that it's fully apparent to whoever translates the 2-D concept into a 3-D sculpt.

If on the other hand his concept isn't meant to have tarsometatarsi, it needs 'em. Badly.

Tarsometatarsi. I never thought I'd get the chance to type that word so many times.

I imagine something that large and complex is going to get more than just the single front on concept piece for the sculptor to work from.

Mantic put out the cool ones. if you put out a stationary concept art pose, people complai8n that the pose is too static.

too true

If you look at the comments the succubi concept art has already worried some people who think those are the poses that will appear rather than art to base the sculpts off

 Riquende wrote:

 Baragash wrote:

 Riquende wrote:
I'd like to see the 'hero' type changed to 'hero (cavalry)' or something like that (whichever unit type is relevant), to put an end to the people who come onto the Mantic rules forum asking why their opponent's mounted hero doesn't get the -1 in combat for charging their spearmen.

It's a good thing that's what I said then

Oh is that confirmed? I know it's been raised on the Mantic forum a few times, hadn't seen Daedle post it though.

Baragash and ScarletSquig are on the rules committee too :-)

The thing about the Blaine artwork, in my simple understanding of moulding and casting models, I think the arms will have to change or be multipart to get the hands at that angle!

As Blaine is only going to be done in resin mutlipart and undercuts won't be a problem.

About the Blaine art: Im really just annoyed about two things:
1) the angel at which the arms attach. A raptor doesnt have that kind of mobility in the shoulders, the arms would be much more in line with the body;
2) The teeth. Teeth dont work that way. <.<

Not actual Dinosaur. I known someone will say "but suspension of disbelief", but it's a trans dimensional alien traveller riding a fantasy dinosaur. Logic went out the window long ago

I was gonna say the same, but people tend to be extremely stubborn when it comes to this kind of thing.

I would agree that Heath Foley is really a mixed bag. Some times he is good, some times he destroys a concept by adding something stupid, like the weapons and armour on the basileans (if we pretend that the bad sculpting and lousy manufacturing didn't happen). He might be good at drawing, but I am not so sure about his skills as a designer, Mantic could really use someone who functions as an art director.

 sukura636 wrote:
Not actual Dinosaur. I known someone will say "but suspension of disbelief", but it's a trans dimensional alien traveller riding a fantasy dinosaur. Logic went out the window long ago

Theropod anatomy is more alien than Blaine's beast. But the face sells it as a non-dino, so I guess it all comes down to how the sculptor interprets the art.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jorny wrote:
I would agree that Heath Foley is really a mixed bag. Some times he is good, some times he destroys a concept by adding something stupid, like the weapons and armour on the basileans (if we pretend that the bad sculpting and lousy manufacturing didn't happen).

The weapons and the armor are what make the Basileans, and are the only good parts of the Men-at-Arms sprue. Do you just have a problem with them because they aren't boring historically accurate?

I kind of like my derpy faced MAA guys, to be honest. My kids do too. I've been thinking of painting a few more up now that my Darkllands hydra guys are almost finished.

I actually wish they were a bit more fantastically embellished. I think that might help separate them from the typical historical looking guys.

I might have to scour ebay for a few more cheap sprues.

The weapons and the armor are what make the Basileans, and are the only good parts of the Men-at-Arms sprue. Do you just have a problem with them because they aren't boring historically accurate?

I have no problem with fantasy weapons and armour, I have a problem with bad fantasy weapons. The vizors on the helmets do not look very good. The "hole" on top of the shield is to big and ruins the otherwise nice wings. I also think that the sword with wing shaped crossguard is badly proportioned. The polearms are fine, and the banner top is quite nice. The lances for the mounted paladins just look stupid and just have too much crap added to them. One of the naginatas for the Chorse-riders also looks good as a concept, the one without the stupid circle below the blade.

Well I'm hoping that they don't make Blaine's mount look like Yoshi the same way GW did for Malus Darkblade on Spite. Was not impressed.

Only complaint I have about the Dino's hands is that they aren't holding a weapon.

I mean really, who wouldn't arm their Dino-mount?

 Phobos wrote:
Only complaint I have about the Dino's hands is that they aren't holding a weapon.

I mean really, who wouldn't arm their Dino-mount?

Yeah, especially as they're already..

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Phobos wrote:
Only complaint I have about the Dino's hands is that they aren't holding a weapon.

I mean really, who wouldn't arm their Dino-mount?

Yeah, especially as they're already..

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

^
Just about made my day