Deadzone: Infestation from Mantic Games - Ends 4/6/2015 Plastic Forge Fathers funded!

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.

**timetowaste85**

Rich helped me out! I'm golden.

**GrimDork**

Woowoo!

I still can't decide what I'll be doing with my extra pledge credit. I forget exactly which pledge level I had or how much I spent overall, but I seem to remember the value $70. Probably what I pledged for steel warriors before thinking that I don't like painting big armies of stuff any more.

Its a lot of jetbikes, or a lot of steel warriors. Those seem to be the strongest kits so far unless the veermyn kits really shine.. and we may not even know that till after the PM.

**krystalking**

So, the full Enforcer Aircraft has been released on Mantic's blog, and it is amazing.
The Alpha rules are supposedly getting a general release soon, we'll have to wait and see.

**GrimDork**

The thing where beasts of war got them first was kind of... dumb? To me at least. I guess BoW does feature their products which probably helps mantic out so some kind of reciprocal backscratchery must be accounted for.

And what a dropship it is!

**BobtheInquisitor**

All the sharp, edges make it look like it's made out of Lego. Not a deal breaker, but less ideal than it would be with the HIPS enforcers' buttery-soft creases.

**Azazelx**

The rulebook will be available as a free PDF regardless. So I'll likely be using that for most everything anyway. The hardcover would be a thing that's just nice to have. Then again, it would probably be cheaper to buy via online retail, given the silly-expensive shipping price they slapped on it for those outside the UK/US.

**warboss**

For the most part, I like the dropship. The only thing I'd change is to make those end wing pieces either bigger like engines or just make them a slanted wing with the hardpoint underneath instead of the middle ground it currently is. YMMV.

**Azazelx**

Yeah, it looks decent. My point is that seems to have been the only new thing of any interest from the entire week.

**.Mikes.**

I'm loving the drop ship. I also like the modular approach to it: drop the troop comartment and replace it with ordnance, et voila, a whole new ship. It's like if the Tracy's had decided to stop being pussies and weaponised Thunderbird 2.

**krystalking**

So, I've been reading the Q&A for the Alpha rules, and I'm discovering something bad:
The Alpha rules require basing in teams.
For example, a squad of Corporation Marines might require two to five per base.
I personally don't think multi-basing works for sci-fi.

**.Mikes.**

It doesn't require multi basing.

**lord_blackfang**

It's just unplayable without it. But let's keep that wreck in the other thread.

**Baragash**

lord_blackfang wrote:
It's just unplayable without it. But let's keep that wreck in the other thread.

No matter how many times you assert this it still isn't true. It is also much quicker than moving the same amount of models in 40k.

That is not to say I necessarily believe that either the system or the alpha rules are any where near perfect, but the amount of gak I'm reading from people that haven't played several games with the rules is getting silly.

**Daedleh**

Why should people have to play several games before knowing they don't like it? If I have to take the choice between playing a game that uses mechanics I don't like several times before forming an opinion, or not wasting my time with it - guess what I'm going to do.

**Tyr13**

What Daedleh said. You cant sell a game on the basis of "Youll like it after a few games, trust me!". If your game isnt at least somewhat appealing from the get-go, youre not going to sell your game.

**krystalking**

Yeah, I think I'm sticking with my 1.0 and 2.0 rules hybrid, it's worked out well, and as one guy put it:
You'll win the fantasy fans, but the sci-fi guys will take it or leave it.

**.Mikes.**

Tyr13 wrote:
What Daedleh said. You cant sell a game on the basis of "Youll like it after a few games, trust me!".

Which is how many of us are already selling KoW to WH players.

Remember; the rules are in alpha and Mantic have requested feedback. Play a game or two and provide your thoughts to them. Help WP become a game you would like.

**Daedleh**

One of the frustrating things is that any kind of negative feedback is seen as trolling and "non-constructive".

I asked the question whether 28mm was really the right scale to be using for "mass battles" and Mantics response was for me to post constructive feedback. It seems like they're not interested in any feedback other than "wow this is great":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvc9_GDoWI4

**pretre**

Daedleh wrote:
One of the frustrating things is that any kind of negative feedback is seen as trolling and "non-constructive".

I asked the question whether 28mm was really the right scale to be using for "mass battles" and Mantics response was for me to post constructive feedback. It seems like they're not interested in any feedback other than "wow this is great":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvc9_GDoWI4

Well, considering they have a crud-ton of money sunk into 28mm miniatures, I doubt they are going to switch to another scale. I can see their point in that not being constructive as it requires them to throw out all the work of the last 5 years and start over.

**privateer4hire**

Daedleh wrote:
One of the frustrating things is that any kind of negative feedback is seen as trolling and "non-constructive".

I asked the question whether 28mm was really the right scale to be using for "mass battles" and Mantics response was for me to post constructive feedback. It seems like they're not interested in any feedback other than "wow this is great":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvc9_GDoWI4

Skip it. I'll just stick with playing Dreadball.

**agnosto**

Daedleh wrote:
One of the frustrating things is that any kind of negative feedback is seen as trolling and "non-constructive".

I asked the question whether 28mm was really the right scale to be using for "mass battles" and Mantics response was for me to post constructive feedback. It seems like they're not interested in any feedback other than "wow this is great":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvc9_GDoWI4

Well, at least a couple of the upper-management ARE former GW employees so......

**Compel**

Daedleh wrote:
One of the frustrating things is that any kind of negative feedback is seen as trolling and "non-constructive".

I wonder whether the answer of, "To be honest, no, but that's what the players want and what the market wants and we're a business, so, shrug" would have been seen as more acceptable by people.

**timetowaste85**

Yeah, honestly saying the scale is a bad choice for the game when 28mm is what they wanted their scale to be...that's not really constructive. Rather, it's more like destructive criticism. Instead, you could have phrased it "this rule doesn't seem to convey to the 28mm scale too well, but if we make an adjustment here in X, it'll convey perfectly to the scale you aim to use." That would be constructive, and they'd be idiots calling it non-constructive.

And yes, if you convey it in that way and they brush it off, I'll wag my finger at them for ignoring CC if they haven't tried it already.

**darkPrince010**

Daedleh wrote:
One of the frustrating things is that any kind of negative feedback is seen as trolling and "non-constructive".

This has been my experience as well. Several aspects of and mechanics for WP seem to be oddly resilient to fan feedback, and it strikes me as very odd that they decided to throw the baby out with the bath water when they completely ignored the design aspects of WP1 and WP2 when formulating WP3.

**.Mikes.**

From the feedback thread on the main forum:

Hey everyone!

Wow, what a great response, and it's not even been a week yet . Thank you all so much for your comments, they are honestly much appreciated, whatever your opinion may be. For anyone who hasn't noticed, I have gone through the thread and added my responses directly into all of your posts so that the questions and answers are in one place for easy reference. I am really look forward to reading more. I would like to note that game reports such as the excellently detailed one from Bombad are unbelievably useful for me to understand exactly what people are experiencing. As most of the reports have stated, the game's mechanics may just surprise you, so it's well worth giving it a go. Of course, we need people to not be put off before they play, so I will be using all of the comments to refine how the game is written as well.

If any of you have seen comments posted elsewhere, please ask everyone to come and use this thread - if we can keep everything in one place it will ensure I don't miss anything vital.

Now, I think it's only fair that I address the elephant in the room - the concept of teams and the perceived issue of "multi-basing". I will repeat what I've said in the individual comments - this is a massively subjective issue, and it's an issue that I was aware of before I posted the rules. However, I wanted to gauge the response before addressing it. As it seems to have divided the community, I've got some solutions for us to look at.

This version of Warpath is a "mass-battle" game, with the abstraction that comes with such a thing. Personally, this is what I want to play, but it would be foolish of me to thing that this would work for everyone. While the rules do physically work at a "platoon/company-level" game of 30-50 figures per side, it is apparent that they don't provide the fix that people are looking for. This is of course a hobby, where people have invested time and money in their miniatures, and may want a simple and fast game whilst retaining the individuality of their soldiers.

As I say, I've had this in mind while developing the mass-battle rules, and therefore have made efforts to make the game as scalable as possible. As proof of concept, here in the office we've played some games of Deadzone, but using the Warpath rules. To scale the game down, I just moved the smallest playable unit from a team of five to a single figure, and adjusted the stats appropriately. Of course there were some other tweaks with regard to terrain, line of sight etc, but with just half a page of notes on what would change, it worked. You'll be pleased to hear that the mechanics scale down just fine...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my reading of the feedback on the non-team-related mechanics of the game is mostly positive, so would I be right in thinking that taking these mechanics and translating them into a game with individual casualty removal would fix the perceived problems? Essentially, each team within a unit would be replaced by a model with the appropriate statline, but otherwise the game would largely work the same. I won't go into too much detail here - let me know your thoughts and if that scratches the itch, so to speak, I'll get it written up and put out for feedback.

For those of you who do like what we've put out so far, don't despair. This new option is not a replacement. The "mass-battle" game will still remain as it is, and we will essentially create two sets of rules built off of the same engine, depending on what sort of game you're interested in. This was something that Ronnie has been planning for a while now - we want to have a solution for every gamer, whatever their poison, to transition from the other games out there and into the Warpath universe. Creating something that eases the transition for fans of mid-level battle games can only be a good thing, and who knows, those fans may even switch to the current rules from time to time when they want to play an apocalyptic battle with loads of soldiers on the board.

I'll stop waffling on now. Let me know what you think, and keep the questions coming.

Cheers guys!

Stew

**Talking Banana**

I wanted to ask here, because I may be remembering this wrong, but was there ever a statement during the Deadzone Infestation KS campaign that Lockdown pledges would not be charged more shipping than Quarantine pledges?

I've checked the KS front page and can't find any such guarantee, but somehow its in the back of my head. Am I making this up, or was this ever stated?

Just asking because the latest KS update seems to hint at a sizable shipping price increase for Lockdown pledges in particular.

**DaveC**

Nothing wrong with your memory (or mine

) - https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1744629938/deadzone-infestation-sci-fi-skirmish-game/posts/1186434

All in all, with the Plague Aberration funded and included, that gives you an exceptional $55 off pledging for Quarantine and all of the other items separately - that's the equivalent of one Industrial District and Gaming Mat for FREE - which will get better if more stretch goals are broken. Shipping costs for this package are also exactly the same as they are for Quarantine.

**Talking Banana**

Thanks for that, DaveC. Good to know I'm not losing my mind.

**GrimDork**

But the potentially stinky thing is that they also said the thing you're worried about today in the update. So I still dunno if that promise is gonna get honored. Guess we'll find out once all of the invites are out (they aren't all out right).

**Talking Banana**

I'm actually cautiously optimistic now that the promise will be kept. I don't have an official invite yet, but I went to the pledge manager site and had a poke around anyway.

Currently when I ring up a Lockdown pledge by itself it's registering $15 shipping to the USA, which is the same shipping price it gives for a Quarantine pledge to the USA.

Again, I'm just going to the website uninvited and clicking around (not hacking, anyone can do it by typing the address), so take this with a grain of salt. (https://pledgemanager.manticdigital.com/deadzone/)