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.

Agreed.
I'm really bad with rules, but KoW is one of the only games I've read through and immediately thought "oh, I get this!". We started playing and to my surprise when other players asked a rules question, I usually had the answer.

Also, EasyArmy has a really handy free army builder
http://kow.easyarmy.com
though I still haven't figured out how to save lists.

Nice, and thanks! We might just try a game tonight, or at least the setup.

I'm feeling the thing that will throw me the most is the one mentioned upthread, the whole "not removing casualties" thing.

That was one of the easiest things for me to get used to. The hardest part was the changes to hit/wound/save and sometimes misreading things like Def 5+ or 6+ as worse than a 3+ because of it.

And I still keep calling the "Nerve" stat Leadership.

Az, I'm still convinced Terminators have a 3+ save on 2D6.

Once you know something, you KNOW it. Y'know?!

Oh yeah. I know exactly what you mean.

Heh... I am also in the 'What's your Leader... Nerve' camp.

Old habits die hard.

The Auld Grump

You know, for those having an issue with not removing models, can I just suggest that there is nothing preventing you from doing it arbitrarily for fluff/aesthetic sake.

We've been playing a ton around here, and have just taken to removing a few models from a movement-tray as you get closer to breaking. It isn't a rule, but does add a visual cue (in addition to your counters of course) as to the general "state" a unit is in, at a glance.

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:
You know, for those having an issue with not removing models, can I just suggest that there is nothing preventing you from doing it arbitrarily for fluff/aesthetic sake.

We've been playing a ton around here, and have just taken to removing a few models from a movement-tray as you get closer to breaking. It isn't a rule, but does add a visual cue (in addition to your counters of course) as to the general "state" a unit is in, at a glance.

In actual practice, I have not run into a lot of people that really object to not removing models.

Or, more accurately, folks that still complain after discovering that they can get in two games instead of just one.... It does not take folks all that long to adjust.

I hear a lot more complaining about not being able to put heroes in units.

The Auld Grump

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
In actual practice, I have not run into a lot of people that really object to not removing models.

Or, more accurately, folks that still complain after discovering that they can get in two games instead of just one.... It does not take folks all that long to adjust.

I hear a lot more complaining about not being able to put heroes in units.

The Auld Grump

I've also not heard that complaint, though to be fair, folks who come to KoW are usually looking for a game that's less complicated, not "as" complicated.

As for the heroes-in-units, I've not heard that, but I can feasily see the complaint coming from the GW-raised. It's actually one of the best things about KoW. In general the usefulness of units is based on how you use them (maneuver, etc) in the game, not how you buff them with heroes and such.

 Eilif wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
In actual practice, I have not run into a lot of people that really object to not removing models.

Or, more accurately, folks that still complain after discovering that they can get in two games instead of just one.... It does not take folks all that long to adjust.

I hear a lot more complaining about not being able to put heroes in units.

The Auld Grump

I've also not heard that complaint, though to be fair, folks who come to KoW are usually looking for a game that's less complicated, not "as" complicated.

As for the heroes-in-units, I've not heard that, but I can feasily see the complaint coming from the GW-raised. It's actually one of the best things about KoW. In general the usefulness of units is based on how you use them (maneuver, etc) in the game, not how you buff them with heroes and such.

I must admit I was initially apprehensive about the no-removal thing, and the whole Damage/Nerve system in general, but what it does in practice is keep the game looking epic until the last turn, whereas in The Other Game, you end up with 40-model trays with 6 guys on, and just the remnants of units hanging on. Instead of going from battlelines to skirmishing forces, it stays grand until the end.

As for the heroes-in-units thing, one idea I've been toying with is basically Magical Articact=character. Particularly for my own perspective on KoW (as a Mass Battle system for LotR), adding an Artifact is as good a way to add flavour to a unit as any. In the GW LotR mass battle system, most Heroes bring abilities rather than extreme combat prowess, so I'm just going to start using the character minis as 'artefacts'. There are items to boost or add most things you'd want to, so they make a nice sub for character traits. Maybe not the WFB-style super-killy character, but those are pretty ridiculous anyway.

I like the idea of character minis to reflect magical artifacts. Makes sense for both the feel of the game and reminding you and your opponent of what unit has what. Would also be a nice excuse to paint up some fun character minis.

I have been playing KOW historicals recently... the character rules are annoying in a celts vs romans game... but We've figured it out
I love this set of rules

Thanks
Austin

 Eilif wrote:
I like the idea of character minis to reflect magical artifacts. Makes sense for both the feel of the game and reminding you and your opponent of what unit has what. Would also be a nice excuse to paint up some fun character minis.

And/ most of them are simple/cheap enough that they add flavour to a unit without making it just a bunker for Heroes like in other games. For example, you want a shooty hero in your block of Elf archers? Throw in Piercing Arrows and get P(4) on one of your dice. Want the a slicy CC hero? Blades of slashing, +1 attack, or for a killy one, Mace of Crushing for +1CS.

So far...we did LOTR GW using Kings of war Rules. That was very fun. also lastnight, we got in a game of 6mm fantasy with kings of war rules. That was even better. Just converted all inch to cent.

That army builder linked a few posts is a really great one. Minor flaws not being able to add banners or special gear, but for a general army with all your special rules is perfect.

 Eilif wrote:
As for the heroes-in-units, I've not heard that, but I can feasily see the complaint coming from the GW-raised. It's actually one of the best things about KoW. In general the usefulness of units is based on how you use them (maneuver, etc) in the game, not how you buff them with heroes and such.

But then heroes basically act as a close combat buff scuttling about on it's own, and have no other real role except for generals doing the GW-esque leadership/nerve 'buff bubble'. The lack of any real command and control in KoW was one of the biggest factors that made me wander off to see what else was available, and see that while some other games also have the potential for superman commanders, they contribute more than raw killy power (whether in or out of units) and the games are no less tactical than KoW.

 Vermis wrote:

 Eilif wrote:
As for the heroes-in-units, I've not heard that, but I can feasily see the complaint coming from the GW-raised. It's actually one of the best things about KoW. In general the usefulness of units is based on how you use them (maneuver, etc) in the game, not how you buff them with heroes and such.

But then heroes basically act as a close combat buff scuttling about on it's own, and have no other real role except for generals doing the GW-esque leadership/nerve 'buff bubble'. The lack of any real command and control in KoW was one of the biggest factors that made me wander off to see what else was available, and see that while some other games also have the potential for superman commanders, they contribute more than raw killy power (whether in or out of units) and the games are no less tactical than KoW.

While I can certainly see your point about heroes only being either Mage, Condensed-Troop or Nerve-Re-roll-on-legs, I honestly prefer that to the 'billion special rules/magic items/abilities' way of doing it. Heroes should never be as capable in combat in a Fantasy setting* as a regiment of armed/trained fighters, as in the clash of shieldwalls, no matter how good you are with that magic sword, you're still not breaking a formation or cutting a swathe through the enemy yourself (and if you do, you then get cut off and killed to death). Similarly, I don't like the idea of Mages wrecking whole armies, the KoW simple Zap, Heal and Surge spells are enough really, especially with the expanded Zap rules from Basalien Legacy.

I wouldn't mind seeing expanded Commander rules, for example Commanders being able to hand out Elite, Vicious, ect (kind of like IG Orders in 40k) to nearby units, but ultimately I don't think the game suffers for downplaying heroes. They are still useful as additional attacks in a Charge or to tie up/block units, and capable in an of themselves as much as they should be.

*Sci-fi is different, simply as a) the numbers involved are typically less, b) they can have tech that makes it possible, and c) formations are looser, therefore easier to take on alone.

I wish heroes could be attached... mostly because chariots and cavalry would really benefit from the punch packed by what heroes can do.

Thanks
Austin

 Vermis wrote:
. The lack of any real command and control in KoW was one of the biggest factors that made me wander off to see what else was available.

That's a fair point. One of our members has actually talked about bolting a command mechanic onto KoW, so if we work something out I'll post it here. Kings of War is simple enough that it's not hard to house-rule and add-on but if you're looking for a game with more command mechanics, there are certainly lots of options available.

However, I don't think such mechanics were ever in the cards for KoW. The KoW designers seem to value streamlined play as much as tactical play and adding additional mechanics would have been counter to that balance. Of course, the beauty of not being married to one rule system is that you can always try something else. KoW ticks all the boxes for me for company level fantasy combat, but if it ever get's too simple for us I don't think we'll have any qualms about jumping to a new system.

 Eilif wrote:

 Vermis wrote:
. The lack of any real command and control in KoW was one of the biggest factors that made me wander off to see what else was available.

That's a fair point. One of our members has actually talked about bolting a command mechanic onto KoW, so if we work something out I'll post it here. Kings of War is simple enough that it's not hard to house-rule and add-on but if you're looking for a game with more command mechanics, there are certainly lots of options available.

However, I don't think such mechanics were ever in the cards for KoW. The KoW designers seem to value streamlined play as much as tactical play and adding additional mechanics would have been counter to that balance. Of course, the beauty of not being married to one rule system is that you can always try something else. KoW ticks all the boxes for me for company level fantasy combat, but if it ever get's too simple for us I don't think we'll have any qualms about jumping to a new system.

We arbitrarily use a command system. We label commanders as inferior,average,superior. Then you roll a die for each unit. If they are inferior, they fail the command on 1-3, average 1-2. superior 1.... if they don't fail, they obey.

Thanks
Austin

 Eilif wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
In actual practice, I have not run into a lot of people that really object to not removing models.

Or, more accurately, folks that still complain after discovering that they can get in two games instead of just one.... It does not take folks all that long to adjust.

I hear a lot more complaining about not being able to put heroes in units.

The Auld Grump

I've also not heard that complaint, though to be fair, folks who come to KoW are usually looking for a game that's less complicated, not "as" complicated.

As for the heroes-in-units, I've not heard that, but I can easily see the complaint coming from the GW-raised. It's actually one of the best things about KoW. In general the usefulness of units is based on how you use them (maneuver, etc) in the game, not how you buff them with heroes and such.

The thing is that heroes, generals, and officers... should be allowed bodyguards or to join the units that they are supposedly commanding. Such has been the case since before the annals of history.

Generals do not give a mechanical advantage in KoW - that part is played by the player.

But the loss of the general in battle could be devastating.

I would be more inclined to separate the roles of Heroes and Commanders - with Heroes being handled either the way that they are now, or being allowed small bodyguards. The likes of letting Hercules or Achilles loose on the battlefield. Roland would be an example of Hero with Retinue (and gobs of the best magic items in mythology... seriously, Durandel makes Excalibur look like a letter opener).

Commanders should grant bonuses to their unit - most typically a small increase to Nerve and either Melee, Ranged, and/or Defense. (And I do mean a small bonus....)

The Auld Grump

*EDIT* I guess I have to make it clear - I do not want to imitate the Warhammer hero rule mechanics - where all of a hero's abilities are added to the unit he joins.

Heroes with Retinues should be treated as Units - and should not be able to join units on the fly. (And if the Hero with Retinue is the General... and the unit is removed from the table... maybe all units with LoS should make a Nerve check?)

And commanders should be a unit upgrade, and nothing more.

 Vermis wrote:
The lack of any real command and control in KoW was one of the biggest factors that made me wander off to see what else was available.

I am actually very happy there is no command mechanic.

I dont play wargames just to roll dice to see if I am allowed to move my models, i like to just move them

I played 1 game of Warmaster where a unit of knights stayed in my deployment zone for the entire game failing every command test while the rest of the army was across the board, is that supposed to be realism? "hey guys arnt we supposed to be joining the battle or something? Nah! The general keeps waving at us because hes just a friendly sort of guy."

I never played another game, it was just stupid.

Losing your general should be important though... as it is, characters really dont do much. They buff a bit, do a bit o damage, thats it. And running around on your own is pretty silly. (as is one guy taking out a unit of ten others... itd be hard to swallow if he took them out one by one, but as a unit...)

Its pretty much the one part of the rules I dont like. Its far too focussed on the warhammery "leaders kill stuff, but better" view of things. Just because you command an army doesnt make you a better fighter. You could even go so far as to say it does the opposite. If youre brooding over strategies in your command tent all day, you dont have much time left for training...

For what it's worth, I like the army standard bearer rules. I plan to base a large banner along with a commander and horn blower or drummer for my samurai army, as that's essentially how they were deployed historically.

 Paradigm wrote:

 Eilif wrote:
I like the idea of character minis to reflect magical artifacts. Makes sense for both the feel of the game and reminding you and your opponent of what unit has what. Would also be a nice excuse to paint up some fun character minis.

And/ most of them are simple/cheap enough that they add flavour to a unit without making it just a bunker for Heroes like in other games. For example, you want a shooty hero in your block of Elf archers? Throw in Piercing Arrows and get P(4) on one of your dice. Want the a slicy CC hero? Blades of slashing, +1 attack, or for a killy one, Mace of Crushing for +1CS.

That's a really nice and elegant idea for heroes. I like it.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
Heroes with Retinues should be treated as Units

I proposed this in the Committee for KoW2, didn't get any traction. I did discuss it with Ronnie at the last Open Day, so I hope to push it into the siege/campaign supplement. It will likely only be bodyguard equivalent units + general equivalent character eg Palace Guard + Elf King, Foot Guard + General, Iron Guard + Dwarf King etc.

I'll be honest, I'm fine with just making the assumption that the hero in question does have a retinue that we're just not seeing at that scale (much like my regiments of 400 spearmen seem to have just 20 actual models on the table... well, 17...)

I've never imagined that guy is actually running around by himself.

 Riquende wrote:
I'll be honest, I'm fine with just making the assumption that the hero in question does have a retinue that we're just not seeing at that scale (much like my regiments of 400 spearmen seem to have just 20 actual models on the table... well, 17...)

I've never imagined that guy is actually running around by himself.

Am I misremembering something? I thought that was either implicitly or explicitly stated somewhere in the rules already...

Valete,

JohnS

 Tyr13 wrote:
Losing your general should be important though... as it is, characters really dont do much. They buff a bit, do a bit o damage, that's it. And running around on your own is pretty silly. (as is one guy taking out a unit of ten others... it'd be hard to swallow if he took them out one by one, but as a unit...)

Its pretty much the one part of the rules I don't like. Its far too focused on the warhammery "leaders kill stuff, but better" view of things. Just because you command an army doesn't make you a better fighter. You could even go so far as to say it does the opposite. If you're brooding over strategies in your command tent all day, you don't have much time left for training...

And he died on his 'orse, with his 'awk on his 'and! (From the Battle of 'Astings by Marriott Edgar.)

Or, more famously 'A horse! A horse! My kingdom for a horse!'. (Or, in Black Adder 'Here horsie, horsie, horsie! )

I believe that Richard III was the last King of England to die in battle.

One of the mechanics that I did like from GW was Strategy Rating - where there was a mechanical advantage to a good general that was not tied to how good he was at killing things in person.

One of the Kingdoms of Men characters for KoW (The Captain) is another example of a leader that proves an advantage to his army beyond how good he is at hitting stuff.

The Auld Grump

Yeah, I've been using 'The Captain' (Boromir) in my KoM/Gondor army, and the extra D3+1 Vanguard moves is very handy indeed for taking position, shuffling to counter-deploy or just get a turn ahead on going for the enemy. I certainly wouldn't be averse to seeing more units like him (Unique or otherwise) in KoW that, while they are competent in CC (this is Fantasy, we need some heroes, they just shouldn't be soloing 30-man Hordes) also hand out some buffs either pre-game or in-game.

For example, a model that grants Elite to units within X", or can allow Inspiring to reroll Wavering results as well as Rout results.

 cygnnus wrote:

 Riquende wrote:
I'll be honest, I'm fine with just making the assumption that the hero in question does have a retinue that we're just not seeing at that scale (much like my regiments of 400 spearmen seem to have just 20 actual models on the table... well, 17...)

I've never imagined that guy is actually running around by himself.

Am I misremembering something? I thought that was either implicitly or explicitly stated somewhere in the rules already...

Valete,

JohnS

Nope.

Warhammer used to (may even still do), there was a section in WHF talking about how models and measurements were scaled to make it playable otherwise you'd need a car park just to have a realistic representation of a longbow.