Switch Theme:

Mantic Games - Warpath Universe News and Rumours  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in au
Screaming Shining Spear





Adelaide, Australia

Because sci fi + mass battle + 28mm don't go together, plus there are options between skirmish and mass battle - what we argued for was just such a thing, called company level. It's about 40-60 guys plus a tank per side at most. If you look on the Mantic forum, one of the Warpath rules committee guys has just listed games of 60-100 a side as being "typical", not even maximum, so you can see how serious a disconnect there is.

Mass battle scifi belongs in smaller scales like 6mm and 10mm, or 15mm at a push, where you can actually have massive armies without overwhelimg a 6x4 table and preventing the sort of modern-plus warfare the genre demands.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/05/25 10:37:21


   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut





I actually looked at the Mantic forum, and saw someone suggest you try playing a game before stating that it categorically doesn't work.

The playtest board up at Mantic is 4' x 3'. Played with about 50 plague and half as many enforcers. I've played a much earlier version of the rules with 80 models on my side on a 6x4 board. There was space to maneuvere. there was space to put the rules print out on the edge, too.

I think that what's going on here is that you don't like the game offered. That's 100% fine, but it doesn't suddenly invalidate it on your say so. If you don't like 28mm mass battles then you won't like this game. If I read Warpath and wanted a small scale zombie-skirmish, then I'd be disappointed, but it wouldn't be down to the game, but rather my own expectations.
   
Made in au
Screaming Shining Spear





Adelaide, Australia

It really doesn't matter what the rules are, how many 28mm minis fit onto a table is a function independent of the rules you're using them with.

   
Made in gb
Novice Knight Errant Pilot






Heres a quote from matt gilbert on the mantic forums explaining the game size

I think it’s worth clearing up a misconception which seems to have muddied the waters.

“Warpath is a mass-battle game”. Correct, but what does that mean? It means, that the game itself has the ability to play mass-battles built into its “DNA” from the start – that it should be able to scale from smaller platoon and company sized engagements right up to multi-table, using-all-your-model battles without significant, or indeed (hopefully) any changes and still work just as well. This has been one of Ronnie's design goals for a very long time.

It does not mean that players are expected to be fielding 250 models per side each on a 6x4 table with wall to wall units and nowhere to move. Quite rightly, we all know that isn't going to work.

Some of the typical lists I've been playing with during playtesting in what I’d consider a “normal” game have been (roughly… I can’t recall everything):


8 Jet bikes
2 striders
Orbital commander
6 peace keepers
5 pathfinders
30-40 enforcers (mix of team types in themed units (e.g. unit of 2 teams of assault enforcers).


10 valkyrs
1 battle tank
1 or 2 jotunns
5 or 10 forge guard
30-35 steel warriors in various team configs
1 or 2 iron ancestors


Two max units of 3rd gens (60 models) – mix of different team types
20-30 zombies
Pair of units with 2 3rd gen teams inc. mortars
1 aberation
Pair of terratons
1 1st gen
2 units of 6 2nd gens
1 battle tank

Enforcers and FF are at the elite and therefore lower model count end of the scale, and plague are at the other, horde end.

I’ll try and dig out some pictures of games in action and they show what I’d expect from a typical game size on a 6x4.

Hopefully this will help clear up the confusion.



The part ive bolded explains why the wp 2.0 rules were abanddoned to return to the wp 1.0 kow in space rules

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/05/25 11:50:05



http://thelaughterofthedamned.blogspot.co.uk/
 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





West Michigan, deep in Whitebread, USA

I dunno if they are going to convert many players when the "standard" armies are even larger than in 40K.



"By this point I'm convinced 100% that every single race in the 40k universe have somehow tapped into the ork ability to just have their tech work because they think it should."  
   
Made in au
Screaming Shining Spear





Adelaide, Australia

They won;t convert any at all, they're making a game people have already told them twice that they don't want

   
Made in gb
Smokin' Skorcha Driver





To be fair, it is a game that some people want. Some people do look at 40k and wish it could be even bigger. I'm not convinced that it's the majority of people, but if Mantic want to go after a niche audience then they're of course free to do so. I'll certainly be looking at other 28mm Sci-Fi games instead, and look to a reasonable scale for "mass battles".
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Myrtle Creek, OR

 NTRabbit wrote:
...
Clearly that promise was dropped, because all we got was the multibase mass battle ruleset with no genuine capacity to scale down to the level most people wanted.


I'm betting it's more like Mantic are pointing at Deadzone as the skirmish level version so all they are on the hook for to the fans is the Big Battles version currently being developed.

On the Big Battles front, maybe they need to go Warlord's Bolt Action Tank War route (in addition to specialty dice to allow a larger spread of stats).
http://www.warlordgames.com/preview-tank-war-supplement-for-bolt-action/

For the unitiated, Bolt Action started as a reinforced platoon level game with 40-60-ish infantry per side and maybe one armored vehicle.
Tank War lets players field much more armor than that ---- think of the walkers and that Enforcer assault flyer bouncing around the tabletop---and might be a good model for expanding WP 3.0 into the turly large scale fights we're after.

Thread Slayer 
   
Made in us
Loyal Necron Lychguard






Palm Beach, FL

 NobodyXY wrote:

Overwatch was the one thing I personally wanted to see brought over from DZ. How was the Charge Reaction in play? I can't wait to play a game but life conspires against me


Charge Reactions were very key. There was a unit of Tactical Enforcers in a fortified building, and though Blaze away actions they held back a Gen 1 for two turns. They also Shot at a full strength Zombie horde and killed half of them before they got it. This was key, as the half squad of Zombies inflicted 7 points of damage by the end of the combat - just one more and the Enforcers would have wiped. Instead the Zombies were wiped. Combat is extremely fast and brutal, I love it.

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:
 MasterSlowPoke wrote:
You guys are being really silly by overreacting to something you haven't even read yet. Multibasing is not even close to being required. (...) The other models still matter!

 NobodyXY wrote:
I'd honestly like a Quote from the rulebook stating that multi-basing is mandatory or even mentioned. Again don't multibase if you don't want to.

We all understand that multibasing isn't literally required in the rules.

But it's like your town saying "Sure you can park on this street, but first you need to get a permit from this building between the hours of 11 and 2 on a Tuesday, and then once you park there you still have to feed the parking meter every half hour". It's legal but it's discouraged.

Individually basing your models is fine and legal but it's clearly not how the game is intended to be played. The rules are set up to make the game run fast and smooth, but keeping track of team coherency within units is the opposite of smooth, especially when the individual models you're moving around are almost meaningless anyway. Furthermore, the way weapon power is worked out is by team as well, with only a loose link to what your models are armed with or how many there are. Having the individual models floating around makes that more difficult because you have to first visually figure out who is on what team, then remember what that team's stats are while ignoring the visual cues of what your individual models have. Again, the way the weapon rules are intended to work it's much faster and easier to multibase, and having individual models actually makes it counter-intuitive.

Anyway, I'll stop beating a dead horse. Multibasing isn't even a bad thing, I'm sure it would play better in a big game. It's just that I personally would not want to get involved in another 28mm game that more or less required play at such a huge scale - I'll stick with Epic: Armageddon and DzC for multibased mass battle games. But understand that while we know multibasing is not required, it's highly encouraged by the rules. I think Mantic should be more up front about that, but I suppose they're afraid of scaring off more players.


Have you actually read a single rule?
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Myrtle Creek, OR

 AegisGrimm wrote:
I dunno if they are going to convert many players when the "standard" armies are even larger than in 40K.


But Mantic's strength is their cheap minis. You can buy, for example, 20 orx marauders for $35 MSRP. And since most on-line retailers cut that by a good 10-30% I'm finding them for $28.
That's a shade over a buck a miniature! If you buy stuff from their KS campaigns you can get stuff for under a buck---sometimes signficantly under a buck.

I'm thinking Epic 40k scale battles are going to be possible with this version of the rules esp. if you do go the route of optional multi-basing to make movement easier.
There are several Armageddon level events in most of the larger venues where I've lived over the past 10 years. There's clearly a market that wants to fill the table with their collections and get to game every gun and tank and grunt they have available.

I wonder if Mantic have any plans for upscaling the Epic bases for 28mm. You could line up, say, 5 guys on such a base (two troops on either side of the hub) and then move out lickety split. Set up and take down time as well as movement get super quick that way. Plus making them that sort of rectangular base (or squares with a pattern of troops like pips on the '5' side of a 6-sider) would appeal to fans of Epic.

Thread Slayer 
   
Made in gb
Joined the Military for Authentic Experience





On an Express Elevator to Hell!!

 NTRabbit wrote:
Because sci fi + mass battle + 28mm don't go together, plus there are options between skirmish and mass battle - what we argued for was just such a thing, called company level. It's about 40-60 guys plus a tank per side at most. If you look on the Mantic forum, one of the Warpath rules committee guys has just listed games of 60-100 a side as being "typical", not even maximum, so you can see how serious a disconnect there is.

Mass battle scifi belongs in smaller scales like 6mm and 10mm, or 15mm at a push, where you can actually have massive armies without overwhelimg a 6x4 table and preventing the sort of modern-plus warfare the genre demands.


I have lost count the number of times I have heard "no-one other than GW does a mass battle sci-fi game with the same number of minis on the tabletop as 40k'. There is clearly some market there and Mantic must recognise this.

I agree with you, I definitely think this mass of combatants works better with smaller scales. I find it hilarious that we have artillery in games of even 15mm scale like FoW, let alone in 28mm where you have ICMB size missiles that must literally be powered by elastic bands and land on a unit 20m away. But, that doesn't change the fact that 40k is still the biggest selling sci-fi game, and this is obviously what a lot of people want to play at that scale and troop volume.

A big problem 40k has is that it's ruleset has evolved from a smaller-scale skirmish game, when you had far fewer miniatures on the tabletop, and un-willingness to redesign the core mechanics as the model count has grown have now made the game exceedingly clunky at high points values. Mantic has the advantage of being able to start their ruleset from scratch, so it can work quickly and easily at that scale, and grab a lot of the gamers who are becoming disenchanted with 40k's rule system, pricing to play or whatever.

Once again NTRabbit, I completely agree with you about scaling. But, I can recognise that this is a potentially massive market for Mantic if they can hit it right. Ronnie Renton is an incredibly shrewd guy, they wouldn't be doing this if they thought there was not the potential for big sales out of it.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/05/25 16:13:02


Epic 30K&40K! A new players guide, contributors welcome https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/751316.page
Small but perfectly formed! A Great Crusade Epic 6mm project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/694411.page

 
   
Made in si
Foxy Wildborne







 NobodyXY wrote:
Nothing is stopping you from kitting out your models as WYSIWYG.


The team stats prevent WYSIWYG, unless you want to have guys dual-wielding support weapons plus basic weapons.

Posters on ignore list: 36

40k Potica Edition - 40k patch with reactions, suppression and all that good stuff. Feedback thread here.

Gangs of Nu Ork - Necromunda / Gorkamorka expansion supporting all faction. Feedback thread here
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




Tampa, FL

They will convert people if they make rules that correctly support the scale unlike 40k. Although honestly I find 28mm mass anything to be too large. Should have been 20mm or something. But it's meant to appeal to 40k players so 28mm+

- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame 
   
Made in us
Major




In a van down by the river

Having now skimmed the rules, I do have to say that claiming individual models matter looks to be picking an edge case (intervening, non-adjacent terrain) and calling it the norm. In comparison to most of the platoon-level battle games, the individuals don't matter really, but in a mass-battle system that's fine. The rules are an inverse of 40k; they're awesome for a larger-scale engagement at a glance, but just a huge amount of abstraction for that middle of the road affair so I'm not certain they scale down that well. Even so, it makes for a faster game, which is good in some situations, but I worry that it will be an unfulfilling affair without the scale of models it was intended to work with. Time will tell on that count.

Taken on their own rather than as a 40k company-level replacement, they seem to be very good rules, and I can respect, if not completely agree with, the decision by Mantic to do something different. The various mechanics (or lack of, in the case of template weapons) should make for a very streamlined affair. The only thing missing is if you're going to center around fire-teams, you need to include a rule for splitting units. As an example from FoW, teams can be left behind and continue to function normally unless they want to move, in which case it must be directly back into coherence. For squads that have support teams, this is very thematic and appropriate as you can leave a heavy weapon to provide covering fire for your advancing troops, or just as a pillbox if you want. If multi-basing is going to be logically, if not physically, enforced, then they might as well leverage the benefit of being able to split up units during battle rather than before.

For an alpha they're fairly decent. Whether the market truly wants it will be seen, and then we'll learn if Mantic has built a nice sports car that's in demand by many, or one of the world's better unicycles where the market is somewhat limited.
   
Made in au
Screaming Shining Spear





Adelaide, Australia

In a nutshell - Mantic decided to pick a set of rules that would work at their starting point and scale up well, which is perfectly fine.

The problem is they picked a ludicrously high starting point as their 'baseline', and the rules just do not scale down well at all. They seem to be compounding this by refusing to recognise that platoon and company level games exist, and insist that anyone wanting smaller than their baseline of wall to wall multibase units actually wants a skirmish game, so should go play Deadzone instead.

Until someone drives that into their brains, things aren't going to change, and that disappoints me because I had been looking forward to this.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/05/25 16:52:57


   
Made in us
Loyal Necron Lychguard






Palm Beach, FL

 Krinsath wrote:
Having now skimmed the rules, I do have to say that claiming individual models matter looks to be picking an edge case (intervening, non-adjacent terrain) and calling it the norm.


Movement, shoot and assault are edge cases? You can't move within 1" of individual models. You measure from your hub to the an enemy individual model for shooting. When assaulting, you move your hub into base contact with any enemy model.
   
Made in se
Dakka Veteran






 NTRabbit wrote:
Because sci fi + mass battle + 28mm don't go together,


The biggest wargame on the market begs to differ

I love 6-15mm stuff, but I wont deny that from what I have seen people want 28mm miniatures AND big games. As far as I know other company has delivered on that yet (most of GWs competitors seem to be either skirmish or slightly bigger) and I think there is money to be made for the company that can challenge GW on their own turf. We will have to see how it works out for Mantic.
   
Made in au
Screaming Shining Spear





Adelaide, Australia

 ulgurstasta wrote:

The biggest wargame on the market begs to differ


What? No it doesn't, it perfectly demonstrates how bad it is, and the discontent with that and other issues appears in every rumour and release thread.

   
Made in us
Major




In a van down by the river

Again, a hub with a 3" diameter base would cover nearly all of the same scenarios from a mechanics viewpoint. The extra 4 models are merely there for spectacle at that point; there's no actual game purpose being served by their presence other than to give you something extra to fiddle with and, in limited cases be able to game for an advantage with terrain (which obviously is dictated by type and density of terrain available, a topic so varied out there as to be moot for discussion). Spectacle is fine, but realize it's a good chunk of wasted space and effort if there's no actual purpose to their presence such as line of sight vis a vis wound allocation or unique characteristics in assault (shooting sometimes qualifies when we look to 40k and other systems, but again, such an edge case it's not worth mentioning in comparison).

If a hub can see a single member of a unit and are in range, they can hit *all* of the members of that unit regardless of formation. If the target has to remove a team, they remove it based on the unit at the owning player's discretion. If I can see your *unit*, I can theoretically kill any team; this is a two-edged sword because while you don't have to fiddle with "who can see who" you do lose a bit of "realism" when a team 8" back (the maximal team distance with a 3 team unit) from the team barely in range gets wiped out because it'd be more advantageous to leave the targeted team on the table. Obviously you can break out the hand-wavium at that point to say it's the other teams shifting down the line and recovering the special equipment (if any) of the team that was wiped-out-but-is-still-there, but even then it's a bit thin.

To reiterate, those are mass-battle level abstractions that work well enough when you have potentially hundreds of models on the table. You don't want to get down into the weeds on some of the details with that much "stuff" going on or you'll never get through the game. However, there is the middle ground between squad (DeadZone) and company+ (WarPath alpha) that still seems under-served.
   
Made in ca
Three Color Minimum






AegisGrimm wrote:I dunno if they are going to convert many players when the "standard" armies are even larger than in 40K.

Standard games for as per the aplha rules are 30 for enforcers 80 ish for plague. Explain how thats a huge army.

NTRabbit wrote:They won;t convert any at all, they're making a game people have already told them twice that they don't want

They won't convert You. You don't speak for everyone. kinda interesting that the only mention of dual rulesets comes from you, with no evidence to back it up either. I guess will just take you at your word.

MasterSlowPoke wrote:
 NobodyXY wrote:

Overwatch was the one thing I personally wanted to see brought over from DZ. How was the Charge Reaction in play? I can't wait to play a game but life conspires against me


Charge Reactions were very key. There was a unit of Tactical Enforcers in a fortified building, and though Blaze away actions they held back a Gen 1 for two turns. They also Shot at a full strength Zombie horde and killed half of them before they got it. This was key, as the half squad of Zombies inflicted 7 points of damage by the end of the combat - just one more and the Enforcers would have wiped. Instead the Zombies were wiped. Combat is extremely fast and brutal, I love it.

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:
 MasterSlowPoke wrote:
You guys are being really silly by overreacting to something you haven't even read yet. Multibasing is not even close to being required. (...) The other models still matter!

 NobodyXY wrote:
I'd honestly like a Quote from the rulebook stating that multi-basing is mandatory or even mentioned. Again don't multibase if you don't want to.

We all understand that multibasing isn't literally required in the rules.

But it's like your town saying "Sure you can park on this street, but first you need to get a permit from this building between the hours of 11 and 2 on a Tuesday, and then once you park there you still have to feed the parking meter every half hour". It's legal but it's discouraged.

Individually basing your models is fine and legal but it's clearly not how the game is intended to be played. The rules are set up to make the game run fast and smooth, but keeping track of team coherency within units is the opposite of smooth, especially when the individual models you're moving around are almost meaningless anyway. Furthermore, the way weapon power is worked out is by team as well, with only a loose link to what your models are armed with or how many there are. Having the individual models floating around makes that more difficult because you have to first visually figure out who is on what team, then remember what that team's stats are while ignoring the visual cues of what your individual models have. Again, the way the weapon rules are intended to work it's much faster and easier to multibase, and having individual models actually makes it counter-intuitive.

Anyway, I'll stop beating a dead horse. Multibasing isn't even a bad thing, I'm sure it would play better in a big game. It's just that I personally would not want to get involved in another 28mm game that more or less required play at such a huge scale - I'll stick with Epic: Armageddon and DzC for multibased mass battle games. But understand that while we know multibasing is not required, it's highly encouraged by the rules. I think Mantic should be more up front about that, but I suppose they're afraid of scaring off more players.


Have you actually read a single rule?


Its good to hear that charge reactions have the weight I imagined. Thanks for writing that out!

lord_blackfang wrote:
 NobodyXY wrote:
Nothing is stopping you from kitting out your models as WYSIWYG.


The team stats prevent WYSIWYG, unless you want to have guys dual-wielding support weapons plus basic weapons.

Becuase no model in history has carried a main weapon and a side arm.
NTRabbit wrote:In a nutshell - Mantic decided to pick a set of rules that would work at their starting point and scale up well, which is perfectly fine.

The problem is they picked a ludicrously high starting point as their 'baseline', and the rules just do not scale down well at all. They seem to be compounding this by refusing to recognise that platoon and company level games exist, and insist that anyone wanting smaller than their baseline of wall to wall multibase units actually wants a skirmish game, so should go play Deadzone instead.

Until someone drives that into their brains, things aren't going to change, and that disappoints me because I had been looking forward to this.


You're disappointed becuase mantic didn't do what you wanted. Their baseline is 30 enforcer models as per my probably too long post yesterday. that's what we have from the alpha. Again you can play it at any scale you want. It does scale down even if it shouldn't have to because of DZ. I've mentioned 1 way in which it would work. Not that you care about any of that clearly. Appologies if I come off as hostile. I too am looking forward to WP and testing it at several scales. Do you plan to play a test game? I'd like to see your thoughts after if you do. I do, heck I'll even play it at whatever scale you want and come back and be as honest as I can as to it's viability at that scale.

After reading through my posts I do have the sound of a Huge fanboy who couldn't see fault even if it exists. I'd like to point out my opinion on deadzone to counter the overly positive nature of my posts.
Spoiler for sort of off topic.
Spoiler:
Deadzone is first and formost counter heavy. Many times while playing I wished I had a better way to organize the various conditions and variables a model has and in my opinion that should have been rectified before the first KS shipped. Restic is pretty bad for standard troops but works well for elites or models with low counts. The campaign section wasn't even half as fleshed out as it should have been and was clearly rushed.. The rebels balance is bad from a gameplay perspective even if it makes sense from a fluff perspective. The amount of terrain needed is fine for large buildings and the like, but scatter terrain needs are almost to much of a choir during clean up. Builiding multi-level buildings
with accessable interiors is near impossible unless you like the ruin set and I don't.

Let's move on to the DZI stuff. First and foremost I think mantic was wrong to listen to those who wished restic gone. Duties and other shipping related costs could go up for what I see as an inferior material for the purpose at hand. The enforcers really shouldn't have been the highlight of this kickstarter in my opinion. The alien races are far more interesting from a skirmish prospective. The rebel offering was pretty bad and I'm not sure what their future is. The jetbike is pretty clearly meant of WP even if I can be used for DZ. Finally backers should see any new DZ:I model before any other groups (BOW/ Open day folks). So thats my thoughts on deadzone to better help those who followed my down into the spoiler understand my perspective.

   
Made in gb
Novice Knight Errant Pilot






Managed to get a copy of the alpha rules off 4chan, been reading through them and they have confirmed all my fears.

They seem to be abstract to the point in which the models don't matter, you could play the game with sigle figures representing the groups and there would be no difference. In fact it would be a faster game with more room to maneuver and fit in the scenery better!

It really does feel like they are trying to replicate the success of kow, however what works in fantasy does not translaate into a scifi setting.

I had high hopes for warpath but I'm definitely considering my future options now. I'm so glad I only went in on dz:i for a dollar.

If these rules had been released (as was the original plan) during that ks it would have been a disaster.


http://thelaughterofthedamned.blogspot.co.uk/
 
   
Made in us
Loyal Necron Lychguard






Palm Beach, FL

 Krinsath wrote:
Again, a hub with a 3" diameter base would cover nearly all of the same scenarios from a mechanics viewpoint. The extra 4 models are merely there for spectacle at that point; there's no actual game purpose being served by their presence other than to give you something extra to fiddle with and, in limited cases be able to game for an advantage with terrain (which obviously is dictated by type and density of terrain available, a topic so varied out there as to be moot for discussion). Spectacle is fine, but realize it's a good chunk of wasted space and effort if there's no actual purpose to their presence such as line of sight vis a vis wound allocation or unique characteristics in assault (shooting sometimes qualifies when we look to 40k and other systems, but again, such an edge case it's not worth mentioning in comparison).


Yes, the game's quantum elements are based on a team, but multibasing like that will be nothing but a detriment to you. Most people in this thread are saying the non-hub models are inconsequential and that the game can be played with 10 hubs instead of 50 infantry, and that's simply not true. Like this guy:

 edlowe wrote:
They seem to be abstract to the point in which the models don't matter, you could play the game with sigle figures representing the groups and there would be no difference. In fact it would be a faster game with more room to maneuver and fit in the scenery better!


The other models do matter for line of sight, however - if you don't have LoS/have obstructed LoS to half the models in a squad they get a cover bonus. With a 175mm base like you're talking about you're going to have a tough time with LoS. You'd also have to draw LOS from the center of the giant hub base, and that would be very awkward.

I might make some 2-man dumbbell bases for the non-hubs in squads like zombies, but that's about the limit of what I'd want for multibasing.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/05/25 18:32:17


 
   
Made in gb
Smokin' Skorcha Driver





 NobodyXY wrote:
AegisGrimm wrote:I dunno if they are going to convert many players when the "standard" armies are even larger than in 40K.

Standard games for as per the aplha rules are 30 for enforcers 80 ish for plague. Explain how thats a huge army.

NTRabbit wrote:They won;t convert any at all, they're making a game people have already told them twice that they don't want

They won't convert You. You don't speak for everyone. kinda interesting that the only mention of dual rulesets comes from you, with no evidence to back it up either. I guess will just take you at your word.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghmqLdygFkw

3:20 onwards.

Also, they can say that the standard games are for 30 enforcers, that doesn't make it so. Equally they could claim that Deadzone handles mass battles - doesn't make it so. 30 enforcers with only a total of 6 teams is a laughably small force for the WP3 ruleset. That's only what - 3 units? Each of which can only ever take 1 casualty before being wiped out.
   
Made in us
Loyal Necron Lychguard






Palm Beach, FL

 Daedleh wrote:
Also, they can say that the standard games are for 30 enforcers, that doesn't make it so. Equally they could claim that Deadzone handles mass battles - doesn't make it so. 30 enforcers with only a total of 6 teams is a laughably small force for the WP3 ruleset. That's only what - 3 units? Each of which can only ever take 1 casualty before being wiped out.


The test army list has 25 enforcers in it, and after playing a game on a 4x6 with I'd say this is probably feels like 3/4 of a "full" sized 40k game, so 35-40 enforcers is probably 2000 point equivalent. 30 isn't far off if that's the target.
   
Made in ca
Three Color Minimum






 Daedleh wrote:
 NobodyXY wrote:
AegisGrimm wrote:I dunno if they are going to convert many players when the "standard" armies are even larger than in 40K.

Standard games for as per the aplha rules are 30 for enforcers 80 ish for plague. Explain how thats a huge army.

NTRabbit wrote:They won;t convert any at all, they're making a game people have already told them twice that they don't want

They won't convert You. You don't speak for everyone. kinda interesting that the only mention of dual rulesets comes from you, with no evidence to back it up either. I guess will just take you at your word.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghmqLdygFkw

3:20 onwards.

Also, they can say that the standard games are for 30 enforcers, that doesn't make it so. Equally they could claim that Deadzone handles mass battles - doesn't make it so. 30 enforcers with only a total of 6 teams is a laughably small force for the WP3 ruleset. That's only what - 3 units? Each of which can only ever take 1 casualty before being wiped out.


Thanks for verifying what NTRabbit has said! Has ronnie mentioned it since? Has he said that they're dropping the single model removal version? Did they explain it as it being rolled into 1 game?

30 enforcers can be up to 6 units if you wish. Generally it seems to be 1-2 as preference for enforcers. I would only field them that way to capitalize on suppression but it would be more risky.
giving you 3 units of enforcers + 1 unit of peacekeepers plus a walker seems a reasonable scale that I'll aim for unless I want to go really big.

a standard game is whatever the players decide isn't it? I mean if me and a friend decided to play at WP last ed 500pts that would be our standard. I assume that's why 40ks standard is 1500pts because that's what people like to play it at. What would be standard a tourneys would be up to the games organizers. I think personally doing a dual ruleset wouldn't be justifiable just from a development cost perspective. I do think that a clarification is needed but fear that It won't end the way you two(you and NTRabbit) want. It would be cool to have the option though!

Appologies NTRabbit if I seemed overly hostile or pushy.

To those who would see WP easier to scale down what would you do within the current rules, with the design goals in mind, to make WP more small scale friendly? That's where I'd like to see peoples thoughts are because that's how I'd probably approach it If I was dissatisfied with this ruleset approach.

EDIT: for clarification of standard game. oops!

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/05/25 18:51:40


   
Made in gb
Novice Knight Errant Pilot






 MasterSlowPoke wrote:
 Daedleh wrote:
Also, they can say that the standard games are for 30 enforcers, that doesn't make it so. Equally they could claim that Deadzone handles mass battles - doesn't make it so. 30 enforcers with only a total of 6 teams is a laughably small force for the WP3 ruleset. That's only what - 3 units? Each of which can only ever take 1 casualty before being wiped out.


The test army list has 25 enforcers in it, and after playing a game on a 4x6 with I'd say this is probably feels like 3/4 of a "full" sized 40k game, so 35-40 enforcers is probably 2000 point equivalent. 30 isn't far off if that's the target.


The design aims for the game from the Alpha rules states that the game is aimed for between 30 and 150 models, so average would be 75 a side for an average force.

Also noted in the document it states that the main body of these rules has been finished for a year and has already been playtested with more worked needed on the advanced rules and armylists but the main rules completed :(


http://thelaughterofthedamned.blogspot.co.uk/
 
   
Made in nl
Zealous Knight







Well, damn. That's no warpath for me, then.

Guessing once or becomes obvious even to them what a tiny handful of the intended audience will actually want this mess we'll see an in-between option at some point, though. It might not new called warpath, but it'll be there. Mantic might be many things but they will go where the money/customer base is to be found - in the end.
   
Made in us
Major




In a van down by the river

 MasterSlowPoke wrote:
Spoiler:
 Krinsath wrote:
Again, a hub with a 3" diameter base would cover nearly all of the same scenarios from a mechanics viewpoint. The extra 4 models are merely there for spectacle at that point; there's no actual game purpose being served by their presence other than to give you something extra to fiddle with and, in limited cases be able to game for an advantage with terrain (which obviously is dictated by type and density of terrain available, a topic so varied out there as to be moot for discussion). Spectacle is fine, but realize it's a good chunk of wasted space and effort if there's no actual purpose to their presence such as line of sight vis a vis wound allocation or unique characteristics in assault (shooting sometimes qualifies when we look to 40k and other systems, but again, such an edge case it's not worth mentioning in comparison).


Yes, the game's quantum elements are based on a team, but multibasing like that will be nothing but a detriment to you. Most people in this thread are saying the non-hub models are inconsequential and that the game can be played with 10 hubs instead of 50 infantry, and that's simply not true. Like this guy:

 edlowe wrote:
They seem to be abstract to the point in which the models don't matter, you could play the game with sigle figures representing the groups and there would be no difference. In fact it would be a faster game with more room to maneuver and fit in the scenery better!


The other models do matter for line of sight, however - if you don't have LoS/have obstructed LoS to half the models in a squad they get a cover bonus. With a 175mm base like you're talking about you're going to have a tough time with LoS. You'd also have to draw LOS from the center of the giant hub base, and that would be very awkward.

I might make some 2-man dumbbell bases for the non-hubs in squads like zombies, but that's about the limit of what I'd want for multibasing.


You seem to be having a great deal of problems separating the concept of physical multi-basing (the actual requirement to have the models on a shared base) and logical multi-basing (the rules dealing with a group of models as a single entity which will always exist in a confined area) and carrying on that argument. I am well aware that there is no technical requirement for them to share a base. The rules do, however, force you to deal with the abstraction of "fire-team" versus "soldier". You're not allowed to say "this group of 15 Enforcers is a unit" and make the determination of which groups of 5 are which team when removing casualties and/or splitting off a team; it really has to be clear who your hubs are at a minimum, and very likely you have denoted who the other 4 troopers are. At this point they are multi-based by the rules, even if they're still on individual bases.

Use a 2" base, put the hub anywhere within it (such as on the side) and say your opponent can draw LOS to any part of the base/half the base obscured is cover, and mechanically very little has changed with the game. Mantic even admits this to be the case in their comments to the effect of "of course you could just do that, but it wouldn't look as cool." I'm not disagreeing with Mantic's remark that it'd not look as nice, and that mass battles are in some degree about appearance. I just disagree with the approach to force mass-battle down to smaller battles, as much as I disagree with GW's taking a skirmish-y ruleset to a mass-battle arena. The abstractions and mechanics of one are not appropriate when changing to the other. It's sort of why those three bands of rules exist in most people's minds.

That Mantic stands to profit from a higher model count game is almost certainly a factor in their decision of where to focus, but given that they don't charge people three and four times for the rules like other companies in the market I can give that a bit more of a pass. It's not to the level of "write the rules to sell these models" just yet.
   
Made in gb
Smokin' Skorcha Driver





The next thing I heard since that video was a couple of months later where I was asked for my thoughts on the WP3 rules (albeit a bit earlier in development than those that have been released). I raised the same disappointed that NTRabbit and several others are doing, the same concerns that while the ruleset covers (urgh) *~MASS BATTLES~*, it doesn't cover platoon level engagements since it doesn't have the depth or the grit necessary for an interesting game.

The game might *technically* cover engagements between 30 models, but it has the same level of depth as a KoW game involving 30 models (3 troops). None.

It's not just me and NTRabbit. I've only met one person, other than Matt Gilbert, who will even try a multibasing sci-fi system. And they tried it with me and hated it just as much.

Ideally the rules would cover platoon level engagements at their core, with an amended rules section (maybe 2 pages, max) for mega battles which covered the hubs aspect of it. Like deciding on a points limit, players would say whether they want to play with the platoon or escalated rules. I did intend to write that following the feedback session with Mantic, but their stance made it perfectly clear that they weren't interested in any negative feedback. Their response to my concerns was that anyone who didn't want hundreds of infantry, flyers and titans in 28mm on a 6x4 table "just doesn't like fun".
   
Made in si
Foxy Wildborne







 Bolognesus wrote:
Well, damn. That's no warpath for me, then.

Guessing once or becomes obvious even to them what a tiny handful of the intended audience will actually want this mess we'll see an in-between option at some point, though. It might not new called warpath, but it'll be there. Mantic might be many things but they will go where the money/customer base is to be found - in the end.


The thing is, will they notice? I'm probably not alone in still being willing to throw many hundreds of monies at Mantic for a truckload of plastic troops and vehicles, even if I never play their game system.

Posters on ignore list: 36

40k Potica Edition - 40k patch with reactions, suppression and all that good stuff. Feedback thread here.

Gangs of Nu Ork - Necromunda / Gorkamorka expansion supporting all faction. Feedback thread here
   
 
Forum Index » News & Rumors
Go to: