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.

 Kalamadea wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Multibasing in 28mm is ridiculous.

5-man teams could look better by just saying you have X individual units that have to stay within 4" of each other.

2-man teams are nonsense and if it comes to that - I would just not even deploy the mooks. These 3 models are a unit of 6, done.

That's the entire problem with the proposed system, there is NO reason to deploy mooks at all. Even in 5 man teams, if everything is handled by the team leader and if there's no removal mechanic for individuals, just buy your one guy and use the other 4 as 4 more "teams", it's all the same except your money goes 400% farther and you only have to paint 1/5th of the models to play the exact same game. As has been said, this sounds like the worst of all options with no upside. It works so well in KoW because most armies, whether for KoW or other fantasy/historical games, are already practically multibased already. In fact it helped to solve an issue in WHFB where you bought models individually but they were essentially just wound markers on what was essentially a multibase to begin with.

A lot of people get excited by the prospect of seeing hundreds of miniatures arrayed in battle on the tabletop. You could look at the success of 40k Apocalypse for this, or many, many other historical games over the years for examples of this. As such, I don't think it's just a case of 'but, why don't you just use one miniature, lol' because if we start down that route, you could make the argument that counters or tokens await. Visual spectacle is a massive appeal of wargaming.

What I think they are trying to do with this ruleset is make it possible to play in a set period of time, while having that massive miniature count. It's a difficult balance between abstraction and making the game relate on a squad level. Is it possible? Arguably 40k has tried to do this for the past few editions, with limited success.

What I do think is plain to see (based on comments I have read here) is that, while multi-basing is pretty much a requirement for mass-battle fantasy or historical systems, people are for whatever reason unable to accept this as something that is done for sci-fi games. From reading through this aspect of the rules, I think Mantic have got a very difficult balancing act and are trying to appease both camps, perhaps with the thought that ultimately players will come to the (probably correct) conclusion that moving a 100+ miniatures a turn separately is nuts, and will ultimately decide to multibase if given the opportunity.

I'm still reading through the rules here (and maybe someone with more experience of Warpath 1 and 2 will be better positioned to comment than I) but this is the design brief that's written at the start of these alpha rules. What Mantic are trying to achieve here:

While the rules themselves are still mutable, there are some things that aren’t – the criteria for what we want to achieve with this game.
To put you in the right mind-set, here are our key aims for this game:

- Playable in 30-120 minutes with 30-150 miniatures per side on a 6x4 board.
- Simple unit-based core mechanics for fast and intuitive gameplay. The base unit in the game should be a team rather than an individual figure.
- The game should present tactical dilemmas about what to do and when – it should avoid obvious choices.
- The focus of the game should be suppression, manoeuvrability, capturing terrain and objectives, and of course shooting.
Melee should be less frequent, but when it happens it should be very brutal and over quickly.
· Armies should have a combined arms approach with an interesting mix of infantry, armour and support units, but in different combinations for different factions.
· The game should include mechanics for interfering with the sequence of play, providing more choice without adding complexity.

There are secondary goals, but these are the main ones. Hopefully you’ll agree that these have been met.

 Kalamadea wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
As an additional thought and at the risk of being positive about something for once, maybe Warpath as-written but with single-models would make a decent skirmish level game?

I think so. Just make the BRK stat a single number which is how many points of damage the unit takes before removing a casualty - 1 for regular infantry models - and most of the system would work brilliantly and be an excellent Sci-Fi game. Suppression would have to be played around with since it's based on teams and the current BRK values, but that's not insurmountable. I really like the way the rest of the game works - shooting, terrain, assault, movement are all great - but the hub/team concept just kills it stone dead for me.

 Pacific wrote:
[
What I do think is plain to see (based on comments I have read here) is that, while multi-basing is pretty much a requirement for mass-battle fantasy or historical systems, people are for whatever reason unable to accept this as something that is done for sci-fi games

That is simply because in fantasy games, and for historical up to ACW era, battles are often pitched, on open fields and are to all intents and purposes, fights of attrition. Meanwhile, sci fi combat and modern battles are far more fluid; individuals dart in and out of building and cover, they have no formation beyond rermaining in proximity, and basically, units are much more organic. They can change in size and density, they can adapt far better than a solid block of troops, and are typically smaller.

Basically, fixed multi-basing doesn't mesh, visually or mechanically, with futuristic combat.

Hmmm. The team-based thing sounds weird, but I'm hearing things third-hand during an Alpha. As an Epic fan, I do see potential in it. Having to deal with individuals in the ever-growing battle scale of 40K is what finally turned me off of it a few years back. I often wondered, "Why bother with single Space Marines when a tactical squad is 8 bolter attacks, plus a heavy and special weapon attack?"

We've been promised a huge open playtest period, and given what I just saw the rules committee do with Kings of War, I still hold hope that this will turn into something awesome by the time the Kickstarter rolls around.

I can just about see why they want to do it, but I think it will be a major failure on the table if only because of the inbuild prejudice many gamers have about it,

and if not many people are playing because of this, attracting the people who aren't bothered is much harder as there are fewer opponents out there

that said I can't see them changing it now, they've had plenty of critisim already on a variety of forums whenever the multi basing idea came up and from the sounds of it that's still there in a 'well it's technically optional' sort of way

and when have mantic ever dumped something they've spent money and effort on even when it would probably have been for the best ...(1st goblin sprue and most of the Basileans I'm looking at you here)

I'd agree that multi basing isn't Ideal unless the models are removable because I'll probably play deadzone most out of the two. But I do understand the reasons for doing it this way. The way it's written would work for huge battles a lot better than having to move tons of single models. Single models are preferable with 30ish models per side but does not scale up well at all. That being said heavy infantry in my opinion need to be reworked. The fact that you can abstract away a unit into 1 model means that it's less of a financial burden for people/kids just getting into it. Also I hate not having painted up models on the table which will be hard to avoid at 50+ models on the table but with multi-basing I can do one unit per team to start then fill in the missing models as I paint them. removing single casualties is also something that doesn't scale well in my opinion.

A lot of neat ideas in there. The suppression mechanic/economy seems really interesting and has got me pretty excited!

The charge reactions seems to me to lend more depth to a melee units strategy of attack rather than whatever is close/dies quickest.

The faction command orders give a bit more flavour to the armies something I found lacking in the last edition of warpath. I still need to reread the command dice section as I haven't really gotten to grips with it.

Vehicle squadrons basically inform me of what the purpose of this ruleset is, mass battles.
It seems that I will be able to play at the level I want (1500pts and up) without it bogging down into
an all afternoon game, which is important to me.

As for representing the teams/hubs I'd like to see some examples before I form an opinion.

Finally I'd like to point out a few things
A) The rules are in alpha which for video games means that some features aren't present or haven't been fleshed out.
B) A rule committee exists telling me that yes there is some room for the community to have their say which is more than other mass battle games have going for it.
C)Most things are going to get repackaged to better fit with the new deadzone and warpath force organization. So I would wait on trying to build an army out of the DS stuff.

EDIT: single-basing is still an option. all moving is done from your leader and so is shooting if I'm reading it right. Coherency is the only thing that changes(not much I'd imagine in practice as models had to stay together anyway).

 Paradigm wrote:

 Pacific wrote:
[
What I do think is plain to see (based on comments I have read here) is that, while multi-basing is pretty much a requirement for mass-battle fantasy or historical systems, people are for whatever reason unable to accept this as something that is done for sci-fi games

That is simply because in fantasy games, and for historical up to ACW era, battles are often pitched, on open fields and are to all intents and purposes, fights of attrition. Meanwhile, sci fi combat and modern battles are far more fluid; individuals dart in and out of building and cover, they have no formation beyond remaining in proximity, and basically, units are much more organic. They can change in size and density, they can adapt far better than a solid block of troops, and are typically smaller.

Basically, fixed multi-basing doesn't mesh, visually or mechanically, with futuristic combat.

Absolutely, and that can work for fantasy as well. Say what you want about the Cronfrontation Age of Ragnorok game (the prepainted part being a huge point of contention), but the ruleset handles midieval fantasy melee combat perfectly fine without ranked troops. You can have 10-man units of single-based models fighting other sized units just fine if that's what you want to base your ruleset on. In fact it's easier to develop "pile in" melee mechanics for individually based troop units becoming engaged than it is to govern how close melee affects the meeting and movement of opposing blocks of troops.


I'm actually surprised more fantasy games don't use individual models rather than just mimicking Warhammer Fantasy's Napoleonic blocks.

It's just very obvious that Mantic is aiming for giant armies on boards with very little terrain density. Shooting galleries, as it were.

 NobodyXY wrote:
. Single models are preferable with 30ish models per side but does not scale up well at all.

Fair enough. But if they want to abstract away from the single model, why not just treat units as the smallest organisational unit for game-play purposes?

The problem is that this "team"-rule is, for all intents and purposes, the equivalent of the way single models work in games like 40K. Except that it is represented on the battlefield in a visually less appealing 2-5 multi-model-multibase-gaming piece instead of a single-model gaming piece.

It's all the clunkiness of 40K within-unit-micromanagement with break-limits and what not (which need to be tracked separately, instead of just using models as "wound counters") with all the visual awkwardness of using Epic/DZC-style infantry multibases scaled up to 28mm.

I'll reserve judgement until I can read the rules for myself, but what I'm hearing is wholly unappealing; to the point of lowering my planned spend on DeadZone: Infestation. As was said, it's currently sounding like the worst of both worlds wherein you're better off doing as suggested and replacing "teams" with "models" and calling it a day. It might not look as nice or "epic" on the tabletop, but it's a damn sight easier on wallet and painting queue for an identical experience.

To be fair to the concept, I would agree that if you go to the Apocalypse-level model counts that multi-basing is a good idea because you're going to be working with things that remove entire squads of troopers at a time and the abstraction of the simulation makes it appropriate. Infantry isn't the focus of the battle so much as the things carrying those huge weapons. I can also agree that detailed record keeping such as found in skirmish games becomes tedious once you go past a dozen or so models on a side. There's a very hefty gulf between those two points, and I don't think the rules as I've heard presented (which may be inaccurate) do that model count justice. As some have already stated, it sounds like being different just for the sake of being different with no actual benefit being delivered to the gamer or the consumer.

Could be wrong, but it's a very bad first impression thus far.

Wonderwolf wrote:

 NobodyXY wrote:
. Single models are preferable with 30ish models per side but does not scale up well at all.

Fair enough. But if they want to abstract away from the single model, why not just treat units as the smallest organisational unit for game-play purposes?

The problem is that this "team"-rule is, for all intents and purposes, the equivalent of the way single models work in games like 40K. Except that it is represented on the battlefield in a visually less appealing 2-5 multi-model-multibase-gaming piece instead of a single-model gaming piece.

It's all the clunkiness of 40K within-unit-micromanagement with break-limits and what not (which need to be tracked separately, instead of just using models as "wound counters") with all the visual awkwardness of using Epic/DZC-style infantry multibases scaled up to 28mm.

I think the purpose is to allow a unit to have more than two states, Dead or Alive. Having wound tokens instead would mean that like last ed a unit fight at full strength until it's dead, which isn't Ideal either. At least this way you get a sense of damage done. Suppression also play a heavy part in this too. From my perspective and reading the alpha rules in full I got the sense that They wanted a better representation of battle damage/fatigue without single model wounds to allow for scaling.

visual awkwardness is sort of a personal preference but there has been mention of movement trays I believe. Which I'll probably make anyways. It seems the best of both worlds because you could take them out and set them up 'manually' if that would work out better. I probably won't go multibase only and will rather opt for a middle of the road approach.

The multi basing stuff made me a bit grumpy yesterday but after sleeping on it I better see its merit. especially after watching some kings of war and 40k battle reports lately I'd rather be able to watch someone play a full game right in front of me in an hour rather than spend that same hour getting a half-hearted bottom/top of the turn update.

 NobodyXY wrote:

Wonderwolf wrote:

 NobodyXY wrote:
. Single models are preferable with 30ish models per side but does not scale up well at all.

Fair enough. But if they want to abstract away from the single model, why not just treat units as the smallest organisational unit for game-play purposes?

The problem is that this "team"-rule is, for all intents and purposes, the equivalent of the way single models work in games like 40K. Except that it is represented on the battlefield in a visually less appealing 2-5 multi-model-multibase-gaming piece instead of a single-model gaming piece.

It's all the clunkiness of 40K within-unit-micromanagement with break-limits and what not (which need to be tracked separately, instead of just using models as "wound counters") with all the visual awkwardness of using Epic/DZC-style infantry multibases scaled up to 28mm.

I think the purpose is to allow a unit to have more than two states, Dead or Alive. Having wound tokens instead would mean that like last ed a unit fight at full strength until it's dead, which isn't Ideal either. At least this way you get a sense of damage done. Suppression also play a heavy part in this too. From my perspective and reading the alpha rules in full I got the sense that They wanted a better representation of battle damage/fatigue without single units so to allow for scaling.

visual awkwardness is sort of a personal preference but there has been mention of movement trays I believe. Which I'll probably make anyways. It seems the best of both worlds because you could take them out and set them up 'manually' if that would work out better. I probably won't go multibase only and will rather opt for a middle of the road approach.

The multi basing stuff made me a bit grumpy yesterday but after sleeping on it I better see its merit. especially after watching some kings of war and 40k battle reports lately I'd rather be able to watch someone play a full game right in front of me in an hour rather than spend that same hour getting a half-hearted bottom/top of the turn update.

Ok. But none of the rules change if you'd use a single model as the "game piece" that designates a "team" on the table as opposed to the current mutlibase-idea.

It's not "faster" or "more streamlined" than the exact same game that uses single models in place of the multibases, so claims that it would be more conductive to larger battles seems a bit misleading.

It scales to larger games as well or as badly as playing Warhammer 40K and simply replacing each single model with 3 models (or 5 or 10) and removing 3 models (or 5 or 10) every time your opponent inflicts an unsaved wound on you, instead of just one.

Wonderwolf wrote:

 NobodyXY wrote:

Wonderwolf wrote:

 NobodyXY wrote:
. Single models are preferable with 30ish models per side but does not scale up well at all.

Fair enough. But if they want to abstract away from the single model, why not just treat units as the smallest organisational unit for game-play purposes?

The problem is that this "team"-rule is, for all intents and purposes, the equivalent of the way single models work in games like 40K. Except that it is represented on the battlefield in a visually less appealing 2-5 multi-model-multibase-gaming piece instead of a single-model gaming piece.

It's all the clunkiness of 40K within-unit-micromanagement with break-limits and what not (which need to be tracked separately, instead of just using models as "wound counters") with all the visual awkwardness of using Epic/DZC-style infantry multibases scaled up to 28mm.

I think the purpose is to allow a unit to have more than two states, Dead or Alive. Having wound tokens instead would mean that like last ed a unit fight at full strength until it's dead, which isn't Ideal either. At least this way you get a sense of damage done. Suppression also play a heavy part in this too. From my perspective and reading the alpha rules in full I got the sense that They wanted a better representation of battle damage/fatigue without single units so to allow for scaling.

visual awkwardness is sort of a personal preference but there has been mention of movement trays I believe. Which I'll probably make anyways. It seems the best of both worlds because you could take them out and set them up 'manually' if that would work out better. I probably won't go multibase only and will rather opt for a middle of the road approach.

The multi basing stuff made me a bit grumpy yesterday but after sleeping on it I better see its merit. especially after watching some kings of war and 40k battle reports lately I'd rather be able to watch someone play a full game right in front of me in an hour rather than spend that same hour getting a half-hearted bottom/top of the turn update.

Ok. But none of the rules change if you'd use a single model as the "game piece" that designates a "team" on the table as opposed to the current mutlibase-idea.

It's not "faster" or "more streamlined" than the exact same game that uses single models in place of the multibases, so claims that it would be more conductive to larger battles seems a bit misleading.

It scales to larger games as well or as badly as playing Warhammer 40K and simply replacing each single model with 3 models (or 5 or 10) and removing 3 models (or 5 or 10) every time your opponent inflicts an unsaved wound on you, instead of just one.

The difference would be one of aesthetics but still stands. To play a 50+ model 40k game will take X hours. To play a 50+ WP game will take Y hours. X is greater than Y is essentially what I'm saying. You can go either way 1 model per team or 5 per team and It would play the same. You can't do that in 40k because their is no abstraction. a 55 model force is x points always for 40k. with warpath it's "a y model force is x points" allowing for more scalability. Apologies if I'm being unclear.

Mymearan wrote:
So squads within squads? That seems needlessly complicated...

Sort of like the US Marines who pioneered the most effective infantry formation in the world.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I love the hysteria, someone says "multi-basing" and everyone assumes the rules are multi-basing. It's not.

Everyone here is used to 40k, which is the worst system for sci-fi mass infantry battles ever designed.

Warpath is just using "cloud" formations, where only the leader model matters, for measuring and movement, etc., which is the first basis for an elegant ruleset without needless complications. This is not some new-fangled concept, it's been used in dozens of rulesets for over a decade, and is the only way to have a manageable game when model count is greater than Infinity/WMH.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedleh wrote:
people will multibase their teams

No


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Ugh. Multi-base units

No


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Multibasing in 28mm

No


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NobodyXY wrote:
I'd agree that multi basing isn't Ideal

No


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just so everyone understands

THERE IS NO MULTI-BASING

Amusingly enough, 40K has used multibasing for years: Imperial Guard Heavy Weapons Teams.
Anyway, I'll reserve judgement until after the rules go public, and preferably when they're also in something more than a barebones Alpha version. To completely dismiss and/or hate on a game that is in its Alpha state is premature. Changes will certainly be made, and it is important to try things first to see what works and what doesn't.

Actually, I'm mistaken - Stargrunt II uses unit-clouds for movement and range purposes (measuring from the center of a unit formation), and that was released in 1996. SG2 is a rules triumph, and is now free! Thanks GZG http://downloads.groundzerogames.co.uk/sgii.pdf
I believe either Andy Chambers or Jervis Johnson stated that during the development of 40k3 they used SG2 as their inspiration for rules elegance.

And, of course, Tomorrow's War is the direct descendant of SG2.

Both of the rulesets are superior to individual model movement/range/blah, because they are designed as squad-level combat games, whereas 40k has it's roots in 10-20 model skirmish combat... and never grew out of those rules concepts, despite emphasizing a five-fold or more increase in model count in army list construction.

Just so everyone understands

THERE IS NO MULTI-BASING

Mantic has been experimenting with the idea and how it would work in practice.

Here's a quote:

- Is there a minimum base size for multibased teams? We were going over the pros and cons of multibasing and different formations, and got to the point where we were wondering if there was some specific minimum size a multibase or movement tool had to be for the regular and large infantry teams?

MANTIC: We've had a lot of debates on this one and haven't come up with a definitive answer yet as there are so many variables to think about. A common concern has been whether we want a team to fit within a piece of our plastic scenery, in which case about 70x70mm would be the maximum. However, this would only work for regular Infantry - Large Infantry can't fit on a base that size. I've been working to a size of around 60mm x 90mm for my testing, which is a base that fits both regular and large infantry, and is the same depth as the base of a massive infantry figure. It also has a little room for some cool diorama goodness . This isn't final though, so don't go getting anything made just yet.

https://manticforum.com/forum/warpath/warpath-rules-discussion/228601-warpath-alpha-feedback-thread

It isn't Required. The rules don't mention basing as far as I noticed.

Wonderwolf wrote:
It's not "faster" or "more streamlined" than the exact same game that uses single models in place of the multibases, so claims that it would be more conductive to larger battles seems a bit misleading.

That is demonstrably false. When a unit requires a single measurement for it's movement, or for it's range, or for whatever purpose, it is X times faster than 40k-style individual measurement, where X is the number of models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NobodyXY wrote:

Just so everyone understands

THERE IS NO MULTI-BASING

Mantic has been experimenting with the idea and how it would work in practice.

Here's a quote:

- Is there a minimum base size for multibased teams? We were going over the pros and cons of multibasing and different formations, and got to the point where we were wondering if there was some specific minimum size a multibase or movement tool had to be for the regular and large infantry teams?

MANTIC: We've had a lot of debates on this one and haven't come up with a definitive answer yet as there are so many variables to think about. A common concern has been whether we want a team to fit within a piece of our plastic scenery, in which case about 70x70mm would be the maximum. However, this would only work for regular Infantry - Large Infantry can't fit on a base that size. I've been working to a size of around 60mm x 90mm for my testing, which is a base that fits both regular and large infantry, and is the same depth as the base of a massive infantry figure. It also has a little room for some cool diorama goodness . This isn't final though, so don't go getting anything made just yet.

https://manticforum.com/forum/warpath/warpath-rules-discussion/228601-warpath-alpha-feedback-thread

And is the exact same as Bolt Action, 40k, Kings of War, etc - where there is no requirement for multi-basing. (but people do it anyways on weapons teams and such, or regiments in KoW, to make life easier).
Warlord even sells multi-bases for Bolt Action: http://us-store.warlordgames.com/collections/bases/products/bolt-action-squad-bases and http://us-store.warlordgames.com/collections/bases/products/bolt-action-support-bases
You can certainly multi-base your squads if you want. But just like this Warpath alpha, there is no requirement for multi-basing.

Notice the cover rules still uses number of models for unit's cover state. "If more than half of the models in the unit are partially or completely obscured by another unit or piece of terrain, the unit is in cover and anyone targeting the unit will suffer penalties when Shooting." Per-model determination of unit cover defeats any benefit of a multi-based ruleset.

 judgedoug wrote:

Wonderwolf wrote:
It's not "faster" or "more streamlined" than the exact same game that uses single models in place of the multibases, so claims that it would be more conductive to larger battles seems a bit misleading.

That is demonstrably false. When a unit requires a single measurement for it's movement, or for it's range, or for whatever purpose, it is X times faster than 40k-style individual measurement, where X is the number of models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NobodyXY wrote:

Just so everyone understands

THERE IS NO MULTI-BASING

Mantic has been experimenting with the idea and how it would work in practice.

Here's a quote:

- Is there a minimum base size for multibased teams? We were going over the pros and cons of multibasing and different formations, and got to the point where we were wondering if there was some specific minimum size a multibase or movement tool had to be for the regular and large infantry teams?

MANTIC: We've had a lot of debates on this one and haven't come up with a definitive answer yet as there are so many variables to think about. A common concern has been whether we want a team to fit within a piece of our plastic scenery, in which case about 70x70mm would be the maximum. However, this would only work for regular Infantry - Large Infantry can't fit on a base that size. I've been working to a size of around 60mm x 90mm for my testing, which is a base that fits both regular and large infantry, and is the same depth as the base of a massive infantry figure. It also has a little room for some cool diorama goodness . This isn't final though, so don't go getting anything made just yet.

https://manticforum.com/forum/warpath/warpath-rules-discussion/228601-warpath-alpha-feedback-thread

And is the exact same as Bolt Action, 40k, Kings of War, etc - where there is no requirement for multi-basing. (but people do it anyways on weapons teams and such, or regiments in KoW, to make life easier).

Notice the cover rules still uses number of models for unit's cover state. "If more than half of the models in the unit are partially or completely obscured by another unit or piece of terrain, the unit is in cover and anyone targeting the unit will suffer penalties when Shooting."

Yeah I'm basically agreeing with you but with the caveat that you can multibase if you choose and that there are positives and negatives to both approaches.

I know the rules are in Alpha but this is what is sounds like to me

Warpath V1 = mutlibase like KOW.

Warpath v2 = we heard you don't like multibase so we got rid of it

Warpath Alpha = back to multibase rules, but not going to call them that.

 NobodyXY wrote:
Yeah I'm basically agreeing with you but with the caveat that you can multibase if you choose and that there are positives and negatives to both approaches.

The only positive to bultibasing in any of the games I listed (and also in Warpath3 alpha) is that it makes them easier to physically pick up when deploying them or when picking up after a game. In all other cases sometimes it's really annoying deploying my heavy artillery in Bolt Action because of the big scenic multibase I put it on.

I'm reading a lot of the AAR for Warpath3 alpha and how the team/unit mechanic works and it's quite exciting.
I've yet to encounter a ruleset that fully captures how fireteams in squads works - in real life - and it sounds like Warpath3 may do just that.
(have not played yet, just read the rules)

for example, USMC:
- A squad is made up of three fire teams, in addition to a Corporal or Sergeant as squad leader. A squad is capable of integrating a variety of attachments from a weapons platoon.
- A fire team is the basic element of the ground combat element. It consists of four Marines: the team leader/grenadier (M4/M16 with M203), one rifleman (M4/M16), one assistant light machine gunner (M4/M16), and one light machine gunner (M249 SAW Light Machine Gun). The team leader is typically a Lance Corporal or Corporal.

The fire teams are autonomous units but function as part of the squad. This allows a squad to achieve an objective by providing it's own fire, maneouver, and assault elements, of which every fireteam is equally suited - allowing any element within a squad to function and adapt to whatever situation is required of them.

This is one thing popular rulesets have never gotten right - 40k is the most notorious offender - because the first design consideration at the ground up is to ignore any actual aspects of real infantry tactics.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 adamsouza wrote:
I know the rules are in Alpha but this is what is sounds like to me

Warpath V1 = mutlibase like KOW.

Warpath v2 = we heard you don't like multibase so we got rid of it

Warpath Alpha = back to multibase rules, but not going to call them that.

So, in your mind, ANY ruleset that does not use individual model measurement for every aspect of a model's interactions is a "multibase game"?

I feel like I'm in a weird twilight zone where literally no one has ever played anything other than 40k and it's making me weep for the state of gaming

It sounds like the major design goal of Warpath is to allow you to place more models on the table than the rules can actually handle.

So I have a cleaner solution.

Play a skirmish game designed for 30 models. Then litter the table with a bunch of extra models that don't do anything. Remove a few every so often when the "real" models are killed. Done.

 judgedoug wrote:

I feel like I'm in a weird twilight zone where literally no one has ever played anything other than 40k and it's making me weep for the state of gaming

I'm with you, I've no real interest in playing, but the vested interest some people seem to have in getting the knives out for a game they haven't played seems odd. If I didn't recognise some of the names as long term and regular users, I'd even be discounting some of the posts as shilling.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Play a skirmish game designed for 30 models. Then litter the table with a bunch of extra models that don't do anything. Remove a few every so often when the "real" models are killed. Done.

You just described 40k, but you forgot the "5 hours" part.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Azreal13 wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:

I feel like I'm in a weird twilight zone where literally no one has ever played anything other than 40k and it's making me weep for the state of gaming

I'm with you, I've no real interest in playing, but the vested interest some people seem to have in getting the knives out for a game they haven't played

OR have even read the rules for, and are just making entirely absurd ridiculous assertions. "Someone said you have to smash your models with a hammer when they die." "I understand it might create a more tense environment, this new model-smashing mechanic, and force you to think more tactically, but this is just a bad design flaw." "GOOD JOB MANTIC WHY WOULD I BREAK MY MODELS" "Mantic... almost."

 Azreal13 wrote:
seems odd. If I didn't recognise some of the names as long term and regular users, I'd even be discounting some of the posts as shilling.

What's happened is that a game designed as the tactical combat portion of a friendly Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay-In-Space roleplaying game became really popular, and it's core design mechanics were never, ever changed. As it's game designers left over the years, they and the people they inspired all designed better game systems, with more elegance and abstraction and producing better results with less work... meanwhile, Space Warhammer never changed, and new players were added over the years, and Space Warhammer is all they've ever known.

Ah, we're back to the standard "40k sucks, everything else is automatically good, if you don't like something it must mean you like 40k better, and that makes you ignorant and/or stupid"

I'd pitch it more in the direction of "you're entitled to your opinion, but when you're basing it on incomplete information or a lack of knowledge, I retain the right to think your opinion's stupid" direction.

 Azreal13 wrote:
I'd pitch it more in the direction of "you're entitled to your opinion, but when you're basing it on incomplete information or a lack of knowledge, I retain the right to think your opinion's stupid" direction.

What you mean to say is, if you don't like an opinion, you assume it's based on ignorance. Classy. So how many game systems does one have to have under his belt to be allowed to have a legitimate opinion on Warpath?

No, seeing as the very early in development rules have only been made available behind a paywall as of today (?) I'm saying the odds of you having sufficient knowledge to be as critical as you are are fairly slim.

Nothing to do with your wargaming experience, now calm down you're in danger of breaching rule one for no reason other than I'm disagreeing with you.

Well if it's (making snap judgements based in incomplete or assumed information) good enough for every GW release that hits the forum why should Mantic get away with anything different

I'm sure any of us who were at all serious in thinking we'd consider playing warpath 2.0 will take another look when mantic release more rules info where we'll either confirm or revise our snap judgement

I would have to look at the rules myself before making a judgement. If the game handles squads/fireteams in a similar way to how Full Specturm Warrior handled them and makes suppression and flanking important I will be very tempted. I think Sabol trays with removable casualties is a good way to do unit basing or clouds where only the leader is important for Sci Fi.

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
Well if it's (making snap judgements based in incomplete or assumed information) good enough for every GW release that hits the forum why should Mantic get away with anything different

I think it's dumb when that happens too.