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.

I'm cautiously optimistic about these rules. I haven't read them yet, as I don't have access and I'll respect the paywall for now, but I think I understand what they're trying for.

The rules are a bit wonky, but it is because they are trying to serve two nearly opposed masters: the desire for large scale, mass combat, and the need for games to resolve quickly. Nobody thinks that 40k is a great set of rules, but on of its biggest flaws was a complete lack of consideration for speed of play. The problem is, I don't think 40k artificially created the market for huge games. I think a lot of gamers like the idea of putting down a full company of space marines, or a 200+ model horde of orks, and really slog it out. Apocolypse was a success, while similar iniatives like Cityfight and Planetstrike were not, because those are the games people like to play.

In a way, the multi-basing/team elements of Warpath solve one of the great dilemmas for industrial/modern/sci-fi gaming: how to handle damage. It's generally understood that since WWII, squad support weapons, such as machine guns, provide the real firepower of units. Games have replicated that, although generally toned down. Even in armies like Imperial Guard, lasgunners are more effective, compared to the heavy/special, than say a typical WWII rifle squad. Even so, unless you have complex wound allocation rules to prevent it, the last three models in an IG (or SM) squad will be the sarge, the plasma gun, and the lascannon.

In this regard, what Warpath does is sort of elegant. Instead of fiddling about with wound allocation rules, or complex army constructions rules such as "for every 10 boys, one may be armed with a Big Shoota or Rokkit," and instead focuses on teams. I heard the word "quantum" earlier in the thread, and that's not a bad way to think of it. So a 10 man squad is either at full strength, half strength, or destroyed, and a half strength squad is not going to have both heavy weapons plus the sarge.

The cost of that, of course, is that it reduces the non-hub models (I'm assuming that much of the time, heavy weapon troopers will be the hub) to window dressing, in a very tangible sense. And if the rules favor hiding grunts, that will lead to silliness.

The other factor to consider is that in a far future sci-fi game, which adds a lot of fantasy/space opera elements, the reality of squad heavy weapons doing the real work can often be reduced. Look at 40k: sure, IG are very much built around heavy/special weapons, and SM/CSM to an extent, but Orks don't cry too much if they loose their big shootas, and Nids/tau/eldar don't use them much or at all! In those armies, the basic troopers have more effective weapons, and either don't carry support weapons, or they are more of a bonus than the star of the show.

So, I like the idea, I think the implementation might be a bit wonky, especially with cascading coherency issues, but its a reasonably good solution to the problem of tracking damage/effectiveness without getting too much into bookkeeping.

My one suggestion, as a complete outsider, would be to get rid of the concept of specific teams and coherency. Build squads up from teams, but allow them to be deployed, moved, and shot all mix together. When a squad takes enough damage to lose a team, than the player must still remove a full team. This will make things simpler, although it does in theory allow an understrength squad to cover as much area as a full strength.

Anyways, to sum up: I like where they are going, and I think they can get there. It might not be the game that everybody wants, but I think there is a market for crazy big games that don't take all day to play.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 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.

Does anyone think the goodness or badness of the rules will make a bit of difference when it comes to the KS?

I submit, the lesson Mantic will learn from the KS is that they can continue to use KS as a vital part of their business plan and folks will throw boat loads of money at them, and then add a couple more boat loads during the pledge manager. Mantic will end up sending pounds and pounds of plastic figures out.

And how fun or good the rules are will not make much difference at all.

From the comments possed by mantic on the mantic forum it appears that there will be another set of rules for smaller indepth engagements, somewhere between deadzone and warpath mass battles. It will be interesting how it turns out.

I'm down for the hard plastic goodies, I rarely get to play anyway. I think I *could* be ok with unit/element bases, but I'd have to find something clear that I could slot my bases into to...


So if you have 3-4 hubs with models that have to stay in coherency of the hubs, and the hubs have to stay in coherency to eachother like a larger abstracted unit... does the 3-4 hub... "thing" all shoot at the same target? If not, why keep them together, but then it sounds like playing 40k with 20-model units with extra rules.

Just been skimming though, so don't mind me if it was a dumb question

Sounds like some interesting developments. I like the idea of the squads at least superficially but I'll have to check out the more detailed rules when I get a chance.

 GrimDork wrote:
I'm down for the hard plastic goodies, I rarely get to play anyway. I think I *could* be ok with unit/element bases, but I'd have to find something clear that I could slot my bases into to...


So if you have 3-4 hubs with models that have to stay in coherency of the hubs, and the hubs have to stay in coherency to eachother like a larger abstracted unit... does the 3-4 hub... "thing" all shoot at the same target? If not, why keep them together, but then it sounds like playing 40k with 20-model units with extra rules.

Just been skimming though, so don't mind me if it was a dumb question

All teams in a unit must shoot at the same target. Range is measured from the hub, not from the individual models so hub placement is key (i.e - they'll always be at the front of a unit; which is fine IMO).

Yes, moving a Warpath unit is indeed more complex than moving a 40k unit, which is why a lot of us are saying that multi-basing will be required for smooth play, even if not strictly mandatory by the rules.

It sounds somewhere between 40k and WM. Instead of the full unit (or combat squad) shooting at a single target of each individual making a separate shot, it sounds like it's being chunked up in small groups. I haven't read it: that's just what I've surmised from this thread. No opinion yet, since I haven't played yet. But it seems a bummer that so many people are disliking these rules so far. Is this a rules strike out for them? Would be a serious bummer if it is.

After all the "you hate Warpath because you've never played anything other than 40k" flak that was going on here a few days ago, I have to say that, ironically, it seems to me that Warpath3 was compiled by some Mantic intern whose entire wargaming experience consists of Warpath1, Deadzone and 40k. Warpath3 is a mish-mash of these 3 systems and clearly uninformed of anything else in the industry.

 Daedleh wrote:
Come off it. You know that people are using multibasing to refer to the whole-fireteams-removal mechanics. Being deliberately obtuse is doing wonders for your image.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
I am mostly just stating my opinion that having a unit in any game be represented by a single large base with several models on it makes interactions with that unit and nearly any sort of detailed terrain horribly clunky

No, Daedleh, but I wish that was the case.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mort wrote:
Could you go ahead and play with single-minis without the large bases, and just keep them close together as if they were on the large base, and proceed? This would allow you to position them on differen elevations (which might be clunky with big bases/trays...

The requirement that you have large bases full of models is entirely a fiction. Nowhere do the rules say that. It was invented and then repeated. In fact, the rules specifically state that for multi-model movement trays: These are entirely optional (rules alpha pdf page 4)

Movement trays are also completely optional for KoW. Doesnt mean using them isnt vastly easier than trying to keep the models seperate.

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:
It's just money spent to make your game look cool, and time spent moving around models that aren't even wound markers; they literally may as well not be there. The teams are functionally identical to individual models within a unit and you may as well save yourself the money and play them using single models.

This has been the case within wargaming since the late 1800's and is one of the direct reasons of the rise of popularity of hex and counter wargames including modern warfare such as Squad Leader. One chit represents one functional unit (squad or fireteam). Most 1/72 and smaller games use element basing, where you can discard all miniatures and use a piece of paper.

Much like how many of us used to play 40k with cardboard circles and coke cans back in our early teens when we couldn't afford to buy a lot of models.

They're toy soldiers, action figures without kung fu grip.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tyr13 wrote:
Movement trays are also completely optional for KoW. Doesnt mean using them isnt vastly easier than trying to keep the models seperate.

What is this argument? Units have a footprint size in Kings of War - that is part of the rules. A Regiment is 100mm x 80mm. Of course movement trays are optional in Kings of War - however each individual player wishes to achieve the 100mm x 80mm footprint for that regiment is entirely up to that player. Using brownies is also optional in Kings of War - as long as that brownie is 100mm x 80mm then it can certainly be a regiment.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Yes, moving a Warpath unit is indeed more complex than moving a 40k unit, which is why a lot of us are saying that multi-basing will be required for smooth play, even if not strictly mandatory by the rules.

How people (usually) move units in 40k:

Measure and place the front rank and rear rank of models. Kind of put the rest of models wherever, or measure each if it's really going to matter.

How you move in Warpath:

Measure and place the hubs. Kind of put the rest of models wherever.

How is it more complex?

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:

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.

That is 100% incorrect.

The only part of the entire alpha rules that even mentions multi-basing is this line on page 4.

Mantic Unit Stands - For
convenience during gameplay,
Mantic make a range of unit stands
designed to hold the correct
number of miniatures for each type
of unit available – each one holds
a single team. These are entirely
optional, but they can make for
a quicker game as you can move
entire units in one go, and more
clearly see what each of your units
is made up of.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MasterSlowPoke wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Yes, moving a Warpath unit is indeed more complex than moving a 40k unit, which is why a lot of us are saying that multi-basing will be required for smooth play, even if not strictly mandatory by the rules.

How people (usually) move units in 40k:

Measure and place the front rank and rear rank of models. Kind of put the rest of models wherever, or measure each if it's really going to matter.

How you move in Warpath:

Measure and place the hubs. Kind of put the rest of models wherever.

How is it more complex?

You have it correct. Cloud measurement is quicker.

range/shooting -
Cloud: measure from one model.
Individual: measure from Z models.
result: Individual takes Z times as long.

movement -
Cloud: measure from one model. Move Z models.
Individual: measure from each model, move that model, repeat Z times.
result: Cloud takes measurement * Z + movement * Z length of time. Individual takes measurement * 1 + movement * Z length of time.

Cloud-based is demonstrably faster.

Basic cloud movement is faster, however moving your groups within a unit then checking each groups individual models are in coherency with the correct hub will take longer. You cant just move all the hubs then place any old figures from the units around them due to the team structure. Of course it would be quicker if the groups were all on one base, so you didint have to worry about keeping your groups together within the units.Hence why it appears that mutibasing is going to be pretty much mandatory for fast gameplay.

Multibases (movement trays) were entirely unnecessary in KoW. But I use them because they're much easier. It really sounds like that's the setup here with the bases too. And honestly...who cares how many models you put on the bases? It's your game: do what you want. That extends to most games, really. I could play X-Wing without the ships, Warhammer without the marines (or elves or skaven, etc), Warmachine without anything other than a marked circular piece of paper. How basing becomes an argument in the Mantic thread when every other game could handle having the exact same thing done just seems like an opportunity for another dig: "you guys didn't make the improvements I wanted that other companies didn't do! Mantic Almost!!"

If the rules stink for play and are overly fiddly and complicated to the point of being difficult to play, then they screwed up. But if the problem is their idea on basing when other companies get a free pass, that's BS.

Again, I haven't read the rules yet: I'm only commenting on people getting pissy over something you can do in LITERALLY every other minis game out there with a piece of paper, empty movement trays with dice for wounds and coke cans.

Do you know what else is quicker?

Player A rolls 1 dice.
Player B rolls 1 dice.

The person with the highest score wins the game.

That is demonstrably quicker than cloud based measurements. Therefore it's better right?

Quicker != better, and Bigger != better.

 Daedleh wrote:
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".

Personally, I like the look of 1500 to 2000 point 40k games, I just want it to be _playable_.

It is the same reason I abandoned Warhammer Fantasy for Kings of War - games done in a manageable amount of time (and effectively, to KoW's credit, games double the size of WHFB done in half the time)

40k is just an awful, awful ruleset for anything above skirmish - zero elegance and every individual model having it's own stats, weapons, and special rules (and special rules for those weapons). It is eminently playable at Kill-Team and Necromunda levels, as that is how Rogue Trader was designed. It is impossible to scale up from a skirmish game to platoon or larger without massive slowdowns.

Being able to play a normal 40k sized game or larger, in half the time, without the "Warhammer fatigue" headache afterwards, is an entirely admirable design goal.

Using cloud-based units has been the norm in most platoon and higher games for the last ten to twenty years that has done the same thing. How does one do platoon, company, and larger level games? Abstraction. What is the real reason that individual members of a squad in 40k have to move and shoot individually? How often has it really and truly mattered? In the few instances that it did matter, was it worth it versus the time spend measuring and moving and shooting each model individually? Abstraction says NO. It's not. Move X models and shoot X models all with a single measurement. Only the leader model matters for that purpose. The silhouette of the "cloud" absolutely does matter in terms of cover, and such, (which is why Warpath is most decidedly NOT a multibase game, btw), but in order for games to be played in a reasonable amount of time, MEASURE ONCE.

I expect any modern platoon-level or higher ruleset to use it, as has most of them in the past decade. AT-43 was a previously mentioned example (and a fantastic ruleset).

The only reason Bolt Action works on a per-model basis is because each model has one stat - it's experience level. But it also doesn't work at higher levels (greater than 1500 points - or about 2 reinforced infantry platoons - for infantry battles).

Establishing point/cloud-based measurement immediately allows the game to operate much, much faster than 40k and other individual-measurement games, and has the added benefit of allowing larger games in the same length of time as a smaller 40k-style game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedleh wrote:
Do you know what else is quicker?

Player A rolls 1 dice.
Player B rolls 1 dice.

The person with the highest score wins the game.

That is demonstrably quicker than cloud based measurements. Therefore it's better right?

Quicker != better, and Bigger != better.

By that logic, you guys should discard all of your Kings of War 2 rules for the above system as well.

Just as individual casualty removal was garbage for Warhammer (as much as I loved the six glorious years of Warhammer 6's reign), individual model measurement/etc has been garbage for anything above Infinity/WMH level skirmish since since Andy Chambers and Jervis Johnson included 80 models in the 40k 2nd edition box set.

I'm struggling to understand whether you're deliberately misunderstanding people or not.

No-one at any point ever in this thread has praised 40k. No-one has said that they want the game to be 40k mk2. No-one has said that they want a game as big as, if not larger, than 40k while being as complicated as 40k. Your entire last post was arguing against a strawman.

 Daedleh wrote:
I'm struggling to understand whether you're deliberately misunderstanding people or not.

No-one at any point ever in this thread has praised 40k. No-one has said that they want the game to be 40k mk2. No-one has said that they want a game as big as, if not larger, than 40k while being as complicated as 40k. Your entire last post was arguing against a strawman.

I am using 40k as a baseline as it is the system most people are familiar with. I'm not arguing with anyone about 40k.

You spent an entire post arguing to no-one about how much 40k sucks.

Do you realise that when people are referring to multibasing that they're referring to the cloud based mechanics that you're so valiantly defending? That maybe not everyone wants that level of abstraction and do want the "grit" of individual casualty removal?

Cloud movement is all fine and dandy when it's actually cloud movement, which Warpath 3 isn't. Warpath 3 is some sort of Venn Diagram movement where you have to manage up to 6 (in the alpha army list) subgroups, making sure that each of the 24 mooks is in coherency with his hub, which must be in coherency with other hubs. Hence the implicit requirement for multibasing, which you continue to willfully ignore just because it isn't spelled out for you.

 Daedleh wrote:
You spent an entire post arguing to no-one about how much 40k sucks.

Do you realise that when people are referring to multibasing that they're referring to the cloud based mechanics that you're so valiantly defending? That maybe not everyone wants that level of abstraction and do want the "grit" of individual casualty removal?

Indeed! The level of detail and the feeling that every model matters that I love about 40k, and one of the biggest reasons I'm not a fan of this level of abstraction in WP3 (and also WP1. WP2_hit the balance best, but still doesn't beat 40k). If it were 15mm or smaller, it would make perfect sense, but 28mm minis as literally nothing more than an indication of how much space the unit takes up seems like a complete waste. Add to that the seemingly pointless team/hub mechanics and I just can't find anything appealing about these rules. They represent, to me, a huge step back from the really quite good WP2.

 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.

I cannot imagine the hell that a game must be in individually measuring figures in a company level game. Three 30-40 man platoons plus a headquarters element and company level support options would mean over 120 figures per side, each with their own stats/special rules/movement. Well, actually, I can, as three weeks ago I ran the Battle of Berlin which pitted 80 Soviets (that recycled, so probably around 160 by the end of the game) against approx 60 Germans, plus tanks on each side, and it took 7 hours. In Bolt Action. Which is perhaps the quickest to play 28mm ruleset on the market.

As has been pointed out by other users on this same thread, point/cloud based games can be played with a single model - or chit, for hex and counter point-based games, such as Squad Leader - which makes point/cloud games actually far easier to scale down (the stats are given to a single representation model or chit or what-have-you) versus a traditional 40k-style game (again, used for comparison purposes, and in this case, I mean: games where individual models are measured independently, have their own stat lines, and a host of special rules) - which cannot scale up _without_ abstraction.

Let me put it this way. When you start a ruleset design philosophy with the idea that a set of stats is representational for an element - whatever that element means - no matter how many models, etc - you can abstract that up or down with ease. The "element" has these characteristics... whether than element is a fireteam of 4 models at 1/72 or an entire platoon at 3mm pico-scale.

When you start a ruleset design philosphy with the idea that a set of stats is representational 1:1 for a single model - so individual characteristics and such - it is much harder to apply the same stats at a higher level. Again, using 40k as an example as it's most recognizable, not as an attack on 40k, Since each warrior within a Space Marine Squad can have individual equipment, how can one easily abstract the squad as a single element within the current framework of 40k's rules?

If its cloud movement with teams of 5 guys then I am all for that. If that team of five guys is part of a larger team of 15-20 guys who all have to stick within x distance of one another I am not a fan.

 judgedoug wrote:

 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.

I cannot imagine the hell that a game must be in individually measuring figures in a company level game. Three 30-40 man platoons plus a headquarters element and company level support options would mean over 120 figures per side, each with their own stats/special rules/movement. Well, actually, I can, as three weeks ago I ran the Battle of Berlin which pitted 80 Soviets (that recycled, so probably around 160 by the end of the game) against approx 60 Germans, plus tanks on each side, and it took 7 hours. In Bolt Action. Which is perhaps the quickest to play 28mm ruleset on the market.

As has been pointed out by other users on this same thread, point/cloud based games can be played with a single model - or chit, for hex and counter point-based games, such as Squad Leader - which makes point/cloud games actually far easier to scale down (the stats are given to a single representation model or chit or what-have-you) versus a traditional 40k-style game (again, used for comparison purposes, and in this case, I mean: games where individual models are measured independently, have their own stat lines, and a host of special rules) - which cannot scale up _without_ abstraction.

Let me put it this way. When you start a ruleset design philosophy with the idea that a set of stats is representational for an element - whatever that element means - no matter how many models, etc - you can abstract that up or down with ease. The "element" has these characteristics... whether than element is a fireteam of 4 models at 1/72 or an entire platoon at 3mm pico-scale.

When you start a ruleset design philosphy with the idea that a set of stats is representational 1:1 for a single model - so individual characteristics and such - it is much harder to apply the same stats at a higher level. Again, using 40k as an example as it's most recognizable, not as an attack on 40k, Since each warrior within a Space Marine Squad can have individual equipment, how can one easily abstract the squad as a single element within the current framework of 40k's rules?

Judgedog, what were your thoughts on wp 2.0 then, with its individual stat lines and weapons, and individual figure removal. Considering it had cloud movement and played pretty fast. It seemed to me a vast improvement on wp 1.0 and I wish 3.0 had followed its lead.

 judgedoug wrote:
Since each warrior within a Space Marine Squad can have individual equipment, how can one easily abstract the squad as a single element within the current framework of 40k's rules?

You don't, but why do you need to? Those rules are designed for 28mm minis on a 1:1 basis, so expecting them to work for, say, 1/72 minis on a 1:5 basis is somewhat pointless. Yes, some rulesets can handle it, but there's nothing wrong with designing a game with a single scale and scope in mind, especially when that game is largely a vehicle to sell minis of that kind.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Cloud movement is all fine and dandy when it's actually cloud movement, which Warpath 3 isn't. Warpath 3 is some sort of Venn Diagram movement where you have to manage up to 6 (in the alpha army list) subgroups, making sure that each of the 24 mooks is in coherency with his hub, which must be in coherency with other hubs. Hence the implicit requirement for multibasing, which you continue to willfully ignore just because it isn't spelled out for you.

I also think the sub-units is not ideal - but I have not argued for them (I mentioned a few days ago I am intrigued or excited or something about a ruleset which represents actual fireteams within units, which most platoon/company games ignore). I argue for abstraction and element-based gaming - "cloud" and point-based units... not because I "think" it may be better, but because I've been playing rulesets at the 28mm level for years that use it and it is superior for anything larger than skirmish. I'm basing my opinion of experience and rules elegance versus "I don't think this will work because I have never played anything like it" which is where most of the dislike for clouds seems to be coming from.

Really? You're still pushing that angle?

 Daedleh wrote:
You spent an entire post arguing to no-one about how much 40k sucks.

Okay, rewritten with no reference to 40k:


Personally, I like the look of company sized games in 28mm, I just want them to be _playable_.

It is the same reason I abandoned Warhammer Fantasy for Kings of War - games done in a manageable amount of time (and effectively, to KoW's credit, games double the size of WHFB done in half the time)

However, platoon to company sized games that use individual stats and measurements tends to be unplayable for anything above skirmish - with every individual model having it's own stats, weapons, and special rules (and special rules for those weapons). Those systems are impossible to scale up from a skirmish game to platoon or larger without massive slowdowns. There's really no "scaling" - by adding X number of units, the length of a game increases linearly to X. The only way to get playable platoon level games is by simplifying individual stats - this is what Bolt Action does, allowing players to get a game with 50 models per side done in an hour.

Using variations of cloud-based rules elements has been the norm in most platoon and higher games for the last ten to twenty years - the basic way to answer the question of "How does one do platoon, company, and larger level games?" is via Abstraction. What is the real reason that individual members of a squad in most platoon level games have to move and shoot individually? How often has it really and truly mattered? In the few instances that it did matter, was it worth it versus the time spend measuring and moving and shooting each model individually? Abstraction says NO. It's not. Move X models and shoot X models all with a single measurement. Only the leader model matters for that purpose. The silhouette of the "cloud" absolutely does matter in terms of cover, and such, (which is why Warpath is most decidedly NOT a multibase game, btw), but in order for games to be played in a reasonable amount of time, MEASURE ONCE.

I expect any modern platoon-level or higher ruleset to use it, as has most of them in the past decade. AT-43 was a previously mentioned example (and a fantastic ruleset).

The only reason Bolt Action works, compared to several other rulesets, on a per-model basis, at comparable or larger sized games, is because each model has one stat - it's experience level. But it also doesn't work at higher levels (greater than 1500 points - or about 2 reinforced infantry platoons - for infantry battles). I would love it if the forthcoming Bolt Action WW1 ruleset uses per-unit stats, as it will, almost by it's very definition, have to be a larger-scale game (in terms of model count)

Establishing point/cloud-based measurement immediately allows the game to operate much, much faster than traditional platoon to company sized games that use individual stats and measurements and other individual-measurement games, and has the added benefit of allowing larger games in the same length of time.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 edlowe wrote:
Judgedog, what were your thoughts on wp 2.0 then, with its individual stat lines and weapons, and individual figure removal. Considering it had cloud movement and played pretty fast. It seemed to me a vast improvement on wp 1.0 and I wish 3.0 had followed its lead.

I played it a few times, and it was fun. However, the movement and shooting were all from individual models, so it was still a little bogged down, though the small stat line made it certainly quicker.

Actually, I would be very interested in WP2 with point/cloud base measurements for movement and shooting. However, honestly, WP2's nerve system really needed to be redone entirely and a better pinning/suppression system put into place.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Paradigm wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:
Since each warrior within a Space Marine Squad can have individual equipment, how can one easily abstract the squad as a single element within the current framework of 40k's rules?

You don't, but why do you need to? Those rules are designed for 28mm minis on a 1:1 basis, so expecting them to work for, say, 1/72 minis on a 1:5 basis is somewhat pointless. Yes, some rulesets can handle it, but there's nothing wrong with designing a game with a single scale and scope in mind, especially when that game is largely a vehicle to sell minis of that kind.

That's kind of my point. A system that assigns attributes to a defined element (IE, per individual model) cannot be scaled up easily - hence the awkwardness and game-length of Apocalypse rulesets. Rogue Trader was designed as a skirmish game, and it's core design elements haven't changed since then. The larger style games that GW has been pushing reveal the incompatibilities with the ruleset to accomodate the desire. This is not specifically an attack on 40k, it's just what it is. Many games are like this - Infinity is designed as individual figures acting with their own stats, and the ruleset does that job admirably. My original argument as stated is that " When you start a ruleset design philosophy with the idea that a set of stats is representational for an element - whatever that element means - no matter how many models, etc - you can abstract that up or down with ease." as a counter to NTRabbit's assertion that a system that assigns attributes to an element (element being a a unit of any size) does not scale down, but my argument was that it does (and can scale up as well).