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.

Still hating the Hub rule.

I honestly think that if they keep trying to push it then they will kill any traction that the game might have.

Unfortunately, it seems very integral in the way the game works.

Might work better in a micro armor scale, but for 28mm... not so hot.

At the core, they want to move away from the miniatures representing individuals, to focus on the unit, but at this scale it is pretty inevitable.

The result of trying to have both a unit based game and having miniatures represent individual soldiers is an extremely awkward bastard. A compromise without merit.

Firefight has a better chance, since the Hub is only there pro tempor.

Please believe me when I say I want to like this game - I will likely back it for the miniatures alone.

But I really hope that they aren't too married to the Hub and unit bases that they are promoting right now - or that they are willing to have a minis only option in the Kickstarter, because I really do not like the main WP rules. (Still have hope for FF.)

The Auld Grump

I'm really hopping the hub mechanics doesn't appear in the firefight rules, it just does not seem to fit the scale.

The thing I'm most worried about is how firefight is going to be hamstrung by having to use the same mechanics as mass battles. The mass battle rules are specifically being designed to be simple and quick, which imho won't gel with the idea of individual casualty removal and stats. I fear firefight may have a difficult time during alpha testing, although mark can write some pretty decent rules.

heres a quote from mark on his blog:

First up is Mantic Games’ Warpath: Firefight (official announcement here). This is an interesting one, because rather than design a new game from scratch, I have the tricky job of taking a ruleset that’s been developed for quite some time, with substantial input from a hard core of fans, and develop a variation on the system. Essentially, I’m taking the large-scale, free-flowing strategic game and transforming it into a smaller-scale, squad-based tactical game. The brief, however, is to keep as many concepts as possible so that it’s familiar to existing players, while introducing lots of nuances and tactical elements to scratch that smaller-scale itch. No pressure then. This game will be developed during the forthcoming Kickstarter, with feedback from fans coming in even as I write, which is a very different way of working for me!

It sounded like they might be considering dropping the hub idea and just have the whole unit on a multibase for the Warpath rules, like KoW, since they are now doing Firefight.

I really hope this is the case.

Different tastes and all but the concept vehicles are not attractive to me at all. Maybe I'll be more convinced later, in the flesh as it were.

I despise the hub rules, clunky and a bit confusing to me; especially the hubs with other hubs thing (maybe that part has changed since I last looked? )

Most likely thing that will happen is no hubs for Warpath and unit stands as standard, with something entirely different for Firefight.

Two rulesets mean hey can ditch the odd blend of single figures and units that the team/hub system represented.

 scarletsquig wrote:
Most likely thing that will happen is no hubs for Warpath and unit stands as standard, with something entirely different for Firefight.

Two rulesets mean hey can ditch the odd blend of single figures and units that the team/hub system represented.

That would be ideal!

Yeah, as long as I can do some kind of multibase that's viable for warpath that allows me to remove my dudes for firefight, I'll be appeased. Multibase seems clearer than the hubs too. When you're talking over 100 models, even little 4-5 man teams don't add up to much on their own and could readily be absorbed into the 20-man blobs or whatever.

Having started to really consider doing some serious multibasing for Kings of War, I'm alright with the idea of doing similar for Warpath.

As long as I can pop them off for Firefight or Deadzone (which means using magnets most likely) I'm totally fine with this.

Easier than dealing with hubs and whatnot.

I'm definitely not alright with magnetizing a horde army. It's expensive and time consuming enough without having to glue down 150 pairs of magnets. Especially since you'll need to make sure the polarity matches so the stands don't have to have exactly the right figure in exactly the right slot.

It is really starting to feel like these guys are fumbling their way through hoping to hit on something that works. While I don't like the hub system and won't play the game if it uses it, Mantic are allowing a few too many cooks in the kitchen so to speak by opening this up so loosely to public feedback. It doesn't become game design by virtue of intelligent design at that point it becomes design by the most vocal and active. It's kinda hard to respect that IMO.

I don't usually advise against magnets, but there are some relatively easy ways to make 25mm holes in thin card/board/plasticard into which you can slot your minis' bases. Think display bases or stuff like the warbases company produces.

Magnets are cool too though, and much space such future.

@MLaw, so it's the urban dictionary of wargaming? Kind of scary when you think of it that way...


I think if you're gonna magnetize large units it becomes more economical to get some kind of thin sheet steel as the base material and add the magnets under the model's bases alone. Sill it's effort. Depending on the shape(s) that the units may be deployed in, I think I'll probably be going with the one inch punch route like I'm doing for removable elements in my KoW units.

 GrimDork wrote:
I don't usually advise against magnets, but there are some relatively easy ways to make 25mm holes in thin card/board/plasticard into which you can slot your minis' bases. Think display bases or stuff like the warbases company produces.

Magnets are cool too though, and much space such future.

@MLaw, so it's the urban dictionary of wargaming? Kind of scary when you think of it that way...


I think if you're gonna magnetize large units it becomes more economical to get some kind of thin sheet steel as the base material and add the magnets under the model's bases alone. Sill it's effort. Depending on the shape(s) that the units may be deployed in, I think I'll probably be going with the one inch punch route like I'm doing for removable elements in my KoW units.

Armorcast (I think) had 5x bases for round bases. I think they were sized for the 25mm GW style slotta though so I am not sure if Mantic's will have the same footprint.
Ah yes.. here it is. They also have a 3x strip. http://www.armorcast.com/acmt002-5-hole-move-display-bases-%284-pieces%29?search=base

Now that I think of it, I saw someone selling MDF unit bases like this too..

The facebook group has been asking for votes on what people are looking forward to more, firefight or warpath and it's split pretty much evenly (firefight has a slight edge)

so much as a lot of use don't like the hub idea there seem to be a substantial number who do

(I wonder what the split is like between 'serious' players who'll exploit the hubs while bemoaning their complications and the less serious who just want to push some minis around a table?)

You don't have to magnetize your whole army, just the minis you also need in other games.

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
The facebook group has been asking for votes on what people are looking forward to more, firefight or warpath and it's split pretty much evenly (firefight has a slight edge)

so much as a lot of use don't like the hub idea there seem to be a substantial number who do

(I wonder what the split is like between 'serious' players who'll exploit the hubs while bemoaning their complications and the less serious who just want to push some minis around a table?)

I don't think that generalization is necessarily fair. From a tactical standpoint hubs/stands are dumb at 28mm. What happens when you want your guys to file down an alleyway? How will they crowd onto a roof? If there is an area with scatter terrain you can't really optimize your movement and positioning for cover based on that. IMO, it just dumbs the whole thing down. It works with smaller scales because the figures and terrain are smaller and a) it's impractical and kinda difficult to pick up little 6mm or 15mm guys like that. You can damage them and they're fiddly. Even with that, I still prefer Gruntz though for 15mm, primarily because it does not use stands. For 6mm yes.. I'm all in on stands but I do understand why people want/use them in 15mm too.

Outside of that, when you abstract units into nothing more than big blobs, you might as well cut out a circle of felt and drop a dice on it to be your unit. I get it, this is for mass combat but making it clunkier is not going to speed it up.

Anyway.. it is interesting to see that the split is that even. I don't know where this poll is but I'll find it and add my vote to the thumbs down towards hubs.

To be fair I'm more interested in firefight so if they add multibasing as almost mandatory to mass battles It won't affect me, so I wouldnt want to vote down the idea if thats what people want from the larger games.

I'd be interested to give it a fair chance but I know it's not really how I want to game.

Regarding scenery you actually remove the bases when they occupy a building so that wouldn't cause too many problems with positioning minatures.

To use multibasing effectively you have to do like other multibased 28mm games... and use next to no terrain. Which seems like the antithesis to a fun and cinematic large scale sci-if game. Removing the bases when you enter terrain seems quite unpractical if you consider the amount of terrain I would like to see on the table.

 MLaw wrote:
I'm definitely not alright with magnetizing a horde army. It's expensive and time consuming enough without having to glue down 150 pairs of magnets. Especially since you'll need to make sure the polarity matches so the stands don't have to have exactly the right figure in exactly the right slot.

It is really starting to feel like these guys are fumbling their way through hoping to hit on something that works. While I don't like the hub system and won't play the game if it uses it, Mantic are allowing a few too many cooks in the kitchen so to speak by opening this up so loosely to public feedback. It doesn't become game design by virtue of intelligent design at that point it becomes design by the most vocal and active. It's kinda hard to respect that IMO.

Last I checked the steel plate any sensible implementation of such hubs would use does not generally have much of a magnetic polarity.

Aside from that, when polarity even matters you generally just have all magnets stuck together as a long cylinder (somehow they tend to do that. somehow ) and just glue the end of the cylinder to a base, slide off the other magnets (minus the one you just glued on) and do the same thing to the next 49 or so bases. Use cyanoacrylate and zipkicker and mark the non-glue-ey end of the stick-o-magnets with a bit of electrical tape and you'll be checking polarity all of three to five times for 150 models. That is, again, if polarity even matters.

Magnetizing is one of those things which seems like a pain until you spend aprox 5 min working out a sensible workflow before you start

 TheWaspinator wrote:
Forge Father technology should have detachable metal beards as thrown weapons.

Exhalted!

 MLaw wrote:

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
The facebook group has been asking for votes on what people are looking forward to more, firefight or warpath and it's split pretty much evenly (firefight has a slight edge)

so much as a lot of use don't like the hub idea there seem to be a substantial number who do

(I wonder what the split is like between 'serious' players who'll exploit the hubs while bemoaning their complications and the less serious who just want to push some minis around a table?)

I don't think that generalization is necessarily fair. From a tactical standpoint hubs/stands are dumb at 28mm. What happens when you want your guys to file down an alleyway? How will they crowd onto a roof? If there is an area with scatter terrain you can't really optimize your movement and positioning for cover based on that. IMO, it just dumbs the whole thing down. It works with smaller scales because the figures and terrain are smaller and a) it's impractical and kinda difficult to pick up little 6mm or 15mm guys like that. You can damage them and they're fiddly. Even with that, I still prefer Gruntz though for 15mm, primarily because it does not use stands. For 6mm yes.. I'm all in on stands but I do understand why people want/use them in 15mm too.

Outside of that, when you abstract units into nothing more than big blobs, you might as well cut out a circle of felt and drop a dice on it to be your unit. I get it, this is for mass combat but making it clunkier is not going to speed it up.

Anyway.. it is interesting to see that the split is that even. I don't know where this poll is but I'll find it and add my vote to the thumbs down towards hubs.

I certainly don't know if the split would break down like that, that's I said wrote as a question (although my suspicion is there would be some trend in that direction). I was pretty surprised by the vote as I expected firefight to win by miles, but whether it's hubs or just projected game size warpath seems to have plenty of support too

here's the group if you want to give it a try https://www.facebook.com/groups/mantic.madness/

 Bolognesus wrote:

Last I checked the steel plate any sensible implementation of such hubs would use does not generally have much of a magnetic polarity.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/h6xqr6ogl8f1wsc/2015-09-03%2023.13.02.jpg?dl=0

I can lift the entire tray by two minis. Could do it with one if not for torque. You just have to know what to ask for in the shop.

 Bolognesus wrote:

 MLaw wrote:
I'm definitely not alright with magnetizing a horde army. It's expensive and time consuming enough without having to glue down 150 pairs of magnets. Especially since you'll need to make sure the polarity matches so the stands don't have to have exactly the right figure in exactly the right slot.

It is really starting to feel like these guys are fumbling their way through hoping to hit on something that works. While I don't like the hub system and won't play the game if it uses it, Mantic are allowing a few too many cooks in the kitchen so to speak by opening this up so loosely to public feedback. It doesn't become game design by virtue of intelligent design at that point it becomes design by the most vocal and active. It's kinda hard to respect that IMO.

Last I checked the steel plate any sensible implementation of such hubs would use does not generally have much of a magnetic polarity.

Aside from that, when polarity even matters you generally just have all magnets stuck together as a long cylinder (somehow they tend to do that. somehow ) and just glue the end of the cylinder to a base, slide off the other magnets (minus the one you just glued on) and do the same thing to the next 49 or so bases. Use cyanoacrylate and zipkicker and mark the non-glue-ey end of the stick-o-magnets with a bit of electrical tape and you'll be checking polarity all of three to five times for 150 models. That is, again, if polarity even matters.

Magnetizing is one of those things which seems like a pain until you spend aprox 5 min working out a sensible workflow before you start

I've magnetized plenty of things, just never a horde army by the base. Using metal for the trays is not something I want to do, even if it's something thin and light like kicker plates for doors or similar so I would be stuck doing two magnets. Your workflow does make sense (the sarcasm wasn't really necessary though) but again, it it really an extra step I would rather just not have to even consider, not to mention the extra cost.
I've other objections but this is one of those speak with your wallet type things. I think both sides of the discussion here have merit and the only way this will get sorted is by Mantic.. which sucks because it looks like that ship has sailed.

What you spend in time/complexity magnetizing and multibasing, you'll likely save in cost and for that matter, time storing and taking out minis.
Even if you're not willing to use steel trays, you could consider metallized rubber sheet (works like a treat) or even just use the same workflow as for the bases with the trays.

I'm confident you could literally do that 150 model army you mention in an average Saturday with time left over.

Still though, if multibasing isn't your thing (and for sci-fi 28mm I'd agree, tbh) that would be an entirely valid reason not to

It'd be cool if mantic made 4x4 mats and a 6x4 for FF and WP. No shredders in the 2.0 WP yet? or am I just blind? Jake's blog has a cryptic update about DZI on it. I was hoping to see some more in the way of details. Neat to see their veermyn studio models on a DZ board!

I put my fantasy ogre on metal trays from this guy:
http://shogunminiatures.com/

Love his trays. Economical and functional.

Personally I am hoping that the trays have the same depth as War of the Ring trays, so metal models shouldn't fall out of them and the models can just be dropped in, then taken out for FF games.

The Hubs concept honestly feels to me like an attempt to satisfy both camps and failing at both. The two versions would be better at sticking to what they're designed for and doing away with hubs altogether - Warpath with a single unit on a single base and Firefight with individual models.

For all the claims otherwise, Hubs really need some form of multi-basing or movement trays to handle efficiently without a ridiculous amount of measuring from hub leader to check coherency, then measuring between hubs for coherency etc.

I'm trying to think of the size a multibase could be in able not just to fit 5 minatures but maybe be able to slot in 5 25mm bases with reasonable space between them, maybe an 80mm round.

I definitely thing mass battle and ff should be 2 different games supported by common minatures and basing (maybe with slot in multibases) I'm still not massively convinced you can downscale a mass battle game with abstract power values to a individual based game, but I hope they succeed in making both games the best they can be.

These things have been around for a decade.
http://blotz.co.uk/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=24_26_71_38

 lord_blackfang wrote:
These things have been around for a decade.
http://blotz.co.uk/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=24_26_71_38

I've actually got some of the warbases ones, however I would assume the warpath ones would be a uniform shape in order to keep the rules simpler for movement and cover.

Makes me wonder if we'll see movement tray add ons like we did with Kings of War.

I'm curious if this will be a tight and restrained Mantic a la the last Kings of War campaign, or a balls to the wall lets toss everything at them type like the first Kings of War campaign.