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.

Metal jump packs on plastic minis! Nothing can go wrong.

 NTRabbit wrote:
Well we did try to tell them that multibasing a 28mm mass battle sci fi game would be a huge turn off for the majority, but they seem to have believed the Mantic forums were more representative than they actually are.

Hey everyone

I don't want to spoil the party or anything, so I'll try not to get involved with this thread :-P. However, I just wanted to let you know that we are fully aware that the Mantic fans on our own forums do not represent the player base as a whole. Our forum is just the most convenient place for us to collect and reply to feedback. That doesn't mean I don't read all of the posts on here (and everywhere else) and take them into account for rules and sculpting decisions - trust me, you are being heard :-).

I will be the first to admit that we don't get everything right, but we do listen, and we do try. We may not agree with all the feedback we get, and you may not all personally see why, but that doesn't mean we've made any decisions lightly, and it doesn't mean that there isn't a sufficient number of other people out there who do like what we do.

If you want to know anything specifically about the rules, question any decisions, or suggest alternatives, please head over to the feedback thread on the Mantic forum and I will answer you as best I can.

I'm probably getting in the way of the standard Dakka Mantic-bashing now, so I'll duck out and let you get on with it ;-).

Thanks guys!

Stew

Polonius wrote:
I find this really discouraging. How to base squads is a pretty core concept for the game, and I don't like that they'll be selling me a product that's incomplete.

Something that's funny when you write a rule isn't always funny when that model is played, but I'll take a "wait and see" approach. I think there's nothing wrong with a more light hearted approach, but "comedy" rules are usually code for "random dice rolling."

Yup. Hence my asking.

insaniak wrote:

RoninXiC wrote:
Isnt that like.. you know.. the whole point of a KS? To fund something that does not exist?

No, it's to fund something that the creator needs money to produce.

As a general rule, campaigns that are more fleshed out do better than those that are still just at the idea stage, as people can see what they are actually putting their money towards. So miniature campaigns with finished sculpts are more attractive than those with just sketches... And rulesets that are already written are going to be more attractive than a description of a ruleset that somebody is intending to start writing later...

Yup! It'd be nice if there was something along the lines of "here's what we've been working on. We just need funding to get it published!" rather than "Pfff, I dunno, dice or something lol here's a render of a bobble headed comedy space viking."

The worst thing is it seems to be working.

 MLaw wrote:
It seems to me that the people who are content with Mantic's stuff no matter what are the company's biggest problem :/

That's not really something unique to Mantic, however. Back when I played Warmahordes, complaining about anything on the PP forum was like walking through Harlem with a sign saying "I hate..." well, you know.

I'm not a big fan of a metal upgrade pack for the drop squad. After bjarg starnafall I was really looking forward to the hammerfist team and was hoping to see them get their own new sprue.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Metal jump packs on plastic minis! Nothing can go wrong.

Particularly with the big metal cannons on the arms, will balancing these guys be a problem?

 Vermonter wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Metal jump packs on plastic minis! Nothing can go wrong.

Particularly with the big metal cannons on the arms, will balancing these guys be a problem?

lol, did you ever build the old hybrid Stormboyz? I feel like it'll be something along those lines.

 keltikhoa wrote:
Can someone explain the multibasing issue?
I do not have much experience outside of 40K and do not use IG so the heavy weapons example eludes me a bit. They stated that the models will be able to be removed so the picture I have in my head (which is likely wrong) is something like this albeit much simpler


so am I wrong on what multibasing means? I do not really see this a bad thing. I have moved enough horde armies ( including positioning as to not be raped by templates etc) to want something like a movement tray that keeps you at optimal unit coherency.

I'm picturing more of something like this:





(not mine, I got the pictures here: http://28mmvictorianwarfare.blogspot.com/2011/03/last-stand-at-isandlwana.html all my AZW stuff is based on washers though I am looking at getting movement bases for them)

 Tyr13 wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:

40k also uses TLOS on an individual basis. Can't kill what you can't see!

Which was a mistake and a step backwards from 5th edition's vastly better LOS rules, IMO.

Wasnt 5th the first time they introduced TLOS? Pretty sure about that...

On topic, I wouldnt mind it for Firefight, but Warpath would have issues... especially if they dont go for standardized unit bases.

Here's a quote from 3rd:
"Sometimes it may be hard to tell if a line of sight is blocked or not, so players must stoop over the table for a 'model's eye view'. This is the best way to see if a line of sight exists."

3rd had all enemies, all vehicle block LOS but friendly units (that weren't vehicles) were transparent to your LOS.
Area terrain had LOS of 6".

 CptJake wrote:

Spoiler:

 keltikhoa wrote:
Can someone explain the multibasing issue?
I do not have much experience outside of 40K and do not use IG so the heavy weapons example eludes me a bit. They stated that the models will be able to be removed so the picture I have in my head (which is likely wrong) is something like this albeit much simpler


so am I wrong on what multibasing means? I do not really see this a bad thing. I have moved enough horde armies ( including positioning as to not be raped by templates etc) to want something like a movement tray that keeps you at optimal unit coherency.

I'm picturing more of something like this:





(not mine, I got the pictures here: http://28mmvictorianwarfare.blogspot.com/2011/03/last-stand-at-isandlwana.html all my AZW stuff is based on washers though I am looking at getting movement bases for them)

Thank you that is a better example. So why is this a bad thing? I am guessing there may be issues with fitting the entire thing in some places?

privateer4hire wrote:

 Tyr13 wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:

40k also uses TLOS on an individual basis. Can't kill what you can't see!

Which was a mistake and a step backwards from 5th edition's vastly better LOS rules, IMO.

Wasnt 5th the first time they introduced TLOS? Pretty sure about that...

On topic, I wouldnt mind it for Firefight, but Warpath would have issues... especially if they dont go for standardized unit bases.

Here's a quote from 3rd:
"Sometimes it may be hard to tell if a line of sight is blocked or not, so players must stoop over the table for a 'model's eye view'. This is the best way to see if a line of sight exists."

3rd had all enemies, all vehicle block LOS but friendly units (that weren't vehicles) were transparent to your LOS.
Area terrain had LOS of 6".

3.5 trial rules I believe had friendly units blocking LOS.


Back on topic -
Mantic is saying they hope to see a first draft of fire fight next week.
They're also saying it's not skirmish, which I think we pretty much already knew.
Also, that the starters for the forces will be the same starters across both Warpath games.

 Tyr13 wrote:
Wasnt 5th the first time they introduced TLOS? Pretty sure about that....

No. TLOS has formed the core of the LOS rules in 40K from the start - from Rogue Trader onwards. The specifics of how it is applied have varied, but it's always been there.

 keltikhoa wrote:
I have moved enough horde armies ( including positioning as to not be raped by templates etc) to want something like a movement tray that keeps you at optimal unit coherency.

The problem with that (and the primary complaint of Guard players) is that unless you're fighting on Planet Bowling Ball, moving around and through terrain is a nightmare. If you're having to constantly remove the models from the bases in order to move around terrain, why bother having the base to begin with?


And that's only the superficual issue anyway. The bigger issue is that either system (the hub, or the 'cram all the guys on a single base) removes any actual point in having multiple models anyway. If your 5 guys actually just represent a single entity in all respects, then they might as well just be represented on the table by a single model.

This is creating a larger scale game simply by adding a whole bunch of superfluous models to the table, which is less than ideal.

insaniak wrote:
And that's only the superficual issue anyway. The bigger issue is that either system (the hub, or the 'cram all the guys on a single base) removes any actual point in having multiple models anyway. If your 5 guys actually just represent a single entity in all respects, then they might as well just be represented on the table by a single model.

Ah now, it worked okay for Epic, DZC, FoW, BGK etc. I think in this case, your 'superficial' issue is the crux - it's a lot more unwieldy dancing in and through terrain with platters of 28-32mm minis, than smaller bases of the 6-15mm used for those games.

Yes, which is why those games all went with smaller scale figures.

 Vermis wrote:

insaniak wrote:
And that's only the superficual issue anyway. The bigger issue is that either system (the hub, or the 'cram all the guys on a single base) removes any actual point in having multiple models anyway. If your 5 guys actually just represent a single entity in all respects, then they might as well just be represented on the table by a single model.

Ah now, it worked okay for Epic, DZC, FoW, BGK etc. I think in this case, your 'superficial' issue is the crux - it's a lot more unwieldy dancing in and through terrain with platters of 28-32mm minis, than smaller bases of the 6-15mm used for those games.

It's not just the size of the figures/bases with the scale difference. I find that when you scale it down like that, things are spaced out quite a bit more. Even still, in epic, your units weren't just one mass of units, it was a number of stands. I've seen similar with many 15mm games.

 insaniak wrote:

The problem with that (and the primary complaint of Guard players) is that unless you're fighting on Planet Bowling Ball, moving around and through terrain is a nightmare. If you're having to constantly remove the models from the bases in order to move around terrain, why bother having the base to begin with?


And that's only the superficual issue anyway. The bigger issue is that either system (the hub, or the 'cram all the guys on a single base) removes any actual point in having multiple models anyway. If your 5 guys actually just represent a single entity in all respects, then they might as well just be represented on the table by a single model.

This is creating a larger scale game simply by adding a whole bunch of superfluous models to the table, which is less than ideal.

Ahh thank you, I begin to see the issue.
I have not played KoW but i have read the rules and as i understand it each model in a unit (other than special models) is basically just a wound counter, or max HP counter so to speak. this would not exactly be desirable to me but it would not necessarily be a deal breaker. It would allow opportunities to make scenic filler count as models similar to those done with WHF to make some cool display move trays, and there are many truly awesome looking ones of those around on dakka dakka. for example

If it makes the game play better, I'm all for multibases. Moving buckets of infantry around is a chore. Trying to get individual multibases into cover could be an issue, I'd be stupid to argue that. As with most rulesets, I'd really have to get this all down on the table and throw some dice at it before I can say one way or another if I like it. I'm willing to toss mantic ~$50 for the books (and really less than that if I get the bigger pledge full of models that I actively want) ahead of time on the hope that I'll like it. If I don't, nice bookshelf material at a bargain price lol

I will say though, as to the models being superfluous. That's just bs. At least as far as I'm concerned. I mean, you don't need those models, no. I'm not arguing that. You could just use one model, sure, though there are probably better rulesets if you really want to skirmish like that... but I'm talking about aesthetics. I don't want to play a game with a single model representing five, or hell, card counters instead of troopers. I want my five guys out there, even if them getting shot individually doesn't matter, even if they all shoot with one profile like they were a monstrous creature. From a painting and modeling standpoint (and my biggest hook for any hobby game) I want all of my guys. I play 28mm miniatures games because I like to paint the minis. I don't necessarily care if a specific dude gets shot by a specific other dude across the table, especially not when we both have closing with a hundred of them... but I do care that all of my guys are represented.

Mantic seems to think the multibase thing is the best way to do that with their ruleset, I'm gonna give them the benefit of the doubt and hope I don't get burned. Totally cool if others don't want to though.

Metal jetpack dwarfs are a conundrum. I don't need that many more forge fathers though I dunno if I want to spend $15 to upgrade 5 of my 10. Tricky prospect, they do look cool though.

 MLaw wrote:
Alex, you replied without exclamation marks, you're not the people I'm talking about.

As an aside..
If you were to be content with this.. or.. whatever the produced from the feedback of the people who weren't happy, then is there a problem with people who aren't happy giving feedback? What I was getting at is, there is a subset who attacks people for not liking the products rather than simply recognizing that some people like it and some don't. If people who would like to see something changed are not allowed to speak up, then how is Mantic supposed to further their product lines?

Again.. your response is mature and allows for the two of us to have differing opinions. That's not what I've found on the Mantic boards.

I've barely looked at rules for Warpath, but I'm a huge Enforcer nut. I'm in for those minis, and I think the drop ships are gorgeous. I've definitely raised my voice that the Basilean sisters are terribad, and MAAs need serious help, so I'm willing to call out if they screw up. But with TONS of people continuing to back them, and a small group of consistent people being upset, is their business model really that bad? It feels like the same argument with GW. You can't please everyone, and everyone should vote with their wallets. If you hate something, please, vote by not buying it (and offer constructive criticism of able). But don't assume just because you don't like something it's absolute crap.

I don't care a whit about the Veer'Myn. I won't say they're awful. Just that I don't care. And I won't support that product line. Pretty cut and dried really. But I will support the hell out of the Enforcer line. They're pretty much my favorite sci-fi troops on the market.

 GrimDork wrote:
I don't want to play a game with a single model representing five,

But that's just it - using this system, what you're actually doing is playing with five models representing 1.

What I prefer (and it sounds like you do to) is a system where 1 model represents 1 model.

Honestly I like skirmish games more than anything right now. The Pulp Alley rules, for instance, let me put maybe 4-10 dudes on the table and they're fast and fun while supporting basically anything I want to use. But I buy a lot of models. And I used to have much fun with 40k/whfb back in the day so part of me still likes dragging out all the boys at once.

I don't think I'll be terribly put out by having my 5 models represent one unit. But time will tell.

Except all five models in a team do still matter, because while you measure your range and LoS from your hub, you measure to any of the models in the opposing unit.

Is it really largely any different from 40K? You roll your whole unit's attacks/shots together, not each guy one a time (unless different weapons), and some might be out of range or LoS, but generally speaking, 10 Imperial dudesmen are rolling 10 dice. Isn't the whole point of Mantic's games to be faster, more streamlined than GW's? It's mostly the same end result, Squad A shoots Squad B, but just with measuring once instead of ten times.

For some time now I've felt that the scale of 40K has reached the point where the rules should change to resolve things on a unit basis, and not on an individual model basis.

That being said, I don't agree with multi-basing at 28mm scale (well, it does work in Fantasy, anyway), because of the whole interaction with terrain issue.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
But with TONS of people continuing to back them, and a small group of consistent people being upset, is their business model really that bad? It feels like the same argument with GW. You can't please everyone, and everyone should vote with their wallets.

It's not the same argument with GW because unlike Mantic, GW can say they have tons of people buying their product and not have it be a bald-faced lie. It's still wrong to think that GW's handling of 40k is good just because they haven't lost their market dominance yet, but it's flat out delusional to say the same of Warpath.

To me it's funny that the multi-base thing seems to be the way this is going but we're still seeing the previews and stuff as though they are going to be played individually.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Except all five models in a team do still matter, because while you measure your range and LoS from your hub, you measure to any of the models in the opposing unit.

Is it really largely any different from 40K? You roll your whole unit's attacks/shots together, not each guy one a time (unless different weapons), and some might be out of range or LoS, but generally speaking, 10 Imperial dudesmen are rolling 10 dice. Isn't the whole point of Mantic's games to be faster, more streamlined than GW's? It's mostly the same end result, Squad A shoots Squad B, but just with measuring once instead of ten times. .

The difference is that in 40K, as the unit takes casualties their effectiveness is reduced and their footprint changes. In Warpath, those 5 models remain as is up until the team takes sufficient damage to be removed as one. The unit suffers no ill-effects right up until the point where all 5 guys suddenly die together... In every way, those 5 models count as a single entity.


While I agree that 40K needs more of a unit-based orientation, this isn't the way to do it. 28mm gaming is (for me) all about the models... and so each model has to matter. There has to be some point in actually putting them on the table, and Warpath removes that point. There is functionally (rules-wise) no difference between putting a team of 5 on the table or putting a single model on the table... and the team of 5 is harder to actually play with, thanks to them all being on the same base.


Streamlining units can be much better done (IMO) simply by allowing LOS and range to and from any model in the unit, and allowing casualties to be removed from anywhere in the unit, with either 40K-style unit coherency or a defined footprint radius. That way, individual models still make a difference to how the unit functions, but you remove the micromanagement that results from having to worry about individual model placement.

 MLaw wrote:
To me it's funny that the multi-base thing seems to be the way this is going but we're still seeing the previews and stuff as though they are going to be played individually.

Both are possible, depending on the ruleset used.

 AlexHolker wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
But with TONS of people continuing to back them, and a small group of consistent people being upset, is their business model really that bad? It feels like the same argument with GW. You can't please everyone, and everyone should vote with their wallets.

It's not the same argument with GW because unlike Mantic, GW can say they have tons of people buying their product and not have it be a bald-faced lie. It's still wrong to think that GW's handling of 40k is good just because they haven't lost their market dominance yet, but it's flat out delusional to say the same of Warpath.

Except their Kickstarters are still doing really well. Just because YOU act like Mantic kicked your dog and shot your grandmother onto the moon in an oxygen-free rocket doesn't mean everyone else feels that way. Money speaks louder than words. It's still coming in? They're still keeping on. Try harder next time.

 insaniak wrote:

And that's only the superficual issue anyway. The bigger issue is that either system (the hub, or the 'cram all the guys on a single base) removes any actual point in having multiple models anyway. If your 5 guys actually just represent a single entity in all respects, then they might as well just be represented on the table by a single model.

This is creating a larger scale game simply by adding a whole bunch of superfluous models to the table, which is less than ideal.

This exact issue made me really not want to get into Kings of War, why turn a unit into some sort of Monstrous Creature? However, I have now come around to thinking Kings of War looks great and will be where I spend my Mass Fantasy Battle money.

So, while initially unsure, I'm willing to see if Warpath can find a similar fluidity for Massed SciFi Battles.

@Insaniak

For me, the miniature scale of the game is less important than the scope of the game. Making each model individually matter is fine...when it's a skirmish game or even a platoon sized game. But company level (which is what 40K has evolved into) needs to reduce that tedious level of clutter to something more manageable, and I think Mantic has a good idea with the hubs concept.

 timetowaste85 wrote:

 AlexHolker wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
But with TONS of people continuing to back them, and a small group of consistent people being upset, is their business model really that bad? It feels like the same argument with GW. You can't please everyone, and everyone should vote with their wallets.

It's not the same argument with GW because unlike Mantic, GW can say they have tons of people buying their product and not have it be a bald-faced lie. It's still wrong to think that GW's handling of 40k is good just because they haven't lost their market dominance yet, but it's flat out delusional to say the same of Warpath.

Except their Kickstarters are still doing really well. Just because YOU act like Mantic kicked your dog and shot your grandmother onto the moon in an oxygen-free rocket doesn't mean everyone else feels that way. Money speaks louder than words. It's still coming in? They're still keeping on. Try harder next time.

I don't think you're being entirely fair. Criticism has yielded some fantastic results from Mantic Kickstarters, such as halving the prices of jetbikes, convincing Mantic to rescue pt the dog drone, finally making a Brian Blessed Forgefather mini. It not only has its place in the Kickstarter environment, but seems to be expected and anticipated by the creators and their Kickstarter habits.

Us Fan Boys are in for the long haul,
I have been in for DZ 1 & 2.
The Rules give us variety, a good thing in my mind