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.

 Alex C wrote:
Except it's not like that at all.

Both using dice to give orders is similar, which is why it reminds me of Warmaster; no one has said it is the same thing.

I think the specialty dice plus the multibasing will really set the game apart in the 28mm world.

privateer4hire wrote:
I think the specialty dice plus the multibasing will really set the game apart in the 28mm world.

Well yes, but not in a good way.

Specialty dice present a barrier to entry. And the reasons multi-basing is a bad idea have been hashed out elsewhere... nothing has changed there.

I sincerely hope FF doesn't have specialty dice.

 MLaw wrote:
I sincerely hope FF doesn't have specialty dice.

If they keep the order system then it will, and I suspect they will.

 insaniak wrote:

privateer4hire wrote:
I think the specialty dice plus the multibasing will really set the game apart in the 28mm world.

Well yes, but not in a good way.

Specialty dice present a barrier to entry. And the reasons multi-basing is a bad idea have been hashed out elsewhere... nothing has changed there.

Everybody's tired of the way 40k (AKA GW) does things. Multibasing will allow players esp. those who like horde armies to really get all their toys on the table.
What KoW did for WFB, looks like WP will do for 40k.

 MLaw wrote:
I sincerely hope FF doesn't have specialty dice.

You don't need specialty dice, it just makes it easier. They're easier to replicate than a scatter die, at least.

privateer4hire wrote:

Everybody's tired of the way 40k (AKA GW) does things.

Even if that's true, it doesn't make any alternative a good one.


There are better ways, IMO, to handle larger scale battles without just counting each group of 5 guys as a single model, and I think that going that route is going to cost them players.


And that's speaking as someone who plays a horde army. The idea of maneouvering any sizable ork army around the table on 5-model-sized bases kills any interest for me... It's hard enough at times with them based separately. Kill off the flexibility of being able to place individual models around obstacles and it just becomes completely unworkable.

Totally disagree. 300+ special snowflakes is what bogs down large scale 28mm. 50 fire teams sounds much more manageable. I wasn't actually that interested in playing so but now I have read the rules I'm really enthusiastic. Making another 28mm skirmish game in an already packed marketplace doesn't serve any purpose than to quell dissension. My next task is to decide if I hold my EB and pad at the PM or upgrade to a total warfare now.

Huh. I kind of like the idea of moving teams of dudes around while maintaining their coherency to the larger squad. I mean you move them all around at once so it's not more tactical or anything but idunno.. I just don't mind the idea of moving my little dudes around in batches.

Total seems to be going up pretty solidly lately. I mean it's not gone up a lot by any means, but neither has it halted today. Good stuff.

 insaniak wrote:

privateer4hire wrote:

Everybody's tired of the way 40k (AKA GW) does things.

Even if that's true, it doesn't make any alternative a good one.


There are better ways, IMO, to handle larger scale battles without just counting each group of 5 guys as a single model, and I think that going that route is going to cost them players.


And that's speaking as someone who plays a horde army. The idea of maneouvering any sizable ork army around the table on 5-model-sized bases kills any interest for me... It's hard enough at times with them based separately. Kill off the flexibility of being able to place individual models around obstacles and it just becomes completely unworkable.

I agree with your points and I would add the fact that multi basing works very well in KoW because from ancient times up through most of the 19th century armies fought in troop formations. Roman Legions, the New Model Army, the Napoleonics wars etc you can use all kinds of models with KoW from different eras and multi based troop formations make sense. The technological advances in weaponry in modern warfare made fighting in large formations on the battlefield suicidal. In a scifi setting multi based formations don't make sense. Limiting the multi based units to small squads doesn't really make the game easier to play than individual basing and incurs similar drawbacks to individual basing.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

privateer4hire wrote:

Everybody's tired of the way 40k (AKA GW) does things.

Even if that's true, it doesn't make any alternative a good one.


There are better ways, IMO, to handle larger scale battles without just counting each group of 5 guys as a single model, and I think that going that route is going to cost them players.


And that's speaking as someone who plays a horde army. The idea of maneouvering any sizable ork army around the table on 5-model-sized bases kills any interest for me... It's hard enough at times with them based separately. Kill off the flexibility of being able to place individual models around obstacles and it just becomes completely unworkable.

I agree with your points and I would add the fact that multi basing works very well in KoW because from ancient times up through most of the 19th century armies fought in troop formations. Roman Legions, the New Model Army, the Napoleonics wars etc you can use all kinds of models with KoW from different eras and multi based troop formations make sense. The technological advances in weaponry in modern warfare made fighting in large formations on the battlefield suicidal. In a scifi setting multi based formations don't make sense. Limiting the multi based units to small squads doesn't really make the game easier to play than individual basing and incurs similar drawbacks to individual basing.

Agree that tight packed formations are senseless in a sci-fi setting with futuristic weapons. But that's not what these movement deals are going to do. They're going to be just as spread out as a 40k unit except you'll be able to pick up the unit in one action instead of individually picking up each model separately to move them. It'll speed things up and still look just as spread out as 40k.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

privateer4hire wrote:

Everybody's tired of the way 40k (AKA GW) does things.

Even if that's true, it doesn't make any alternative a good one.


There are better ways, IMO, to handle larger scale battles without just counting each group of 5 guys as a single model, and I think that going that route is going to cost them players.


And that's speaking as someone who plays a horde army. The idea of maneouvering any sizable ork army around the table on 5-model-sized bases kills any interest for me... It's hard enough at times with them based separately. Kill off the flexibility of being able to place individual models around obstacles and it just becomes completely unworkable.

Hopefully, they'll also adopt a scaled up version of the deadzone 8 x 8 board. That way you can ditch rulers and just focus on one or two space moves (getting rid of the terrain/model conflict in large part).

I really like that GCPS bundle. The concept art looks great. Unfortunately, having gotten burned by the MAA from KOW1, I remain unwilling to pledge for Mantic miniatures sight unseen. I guess I could always go in for a dollar and see how it turns out right?

 Gallahad wrote:
I really like that GCPS bundle. The concept art looks great. Unfortunately, having gotten burned by the MAA from KOW1, I remain unwilling to pledge for Mantic miniatures sight unseen. I guess I could always go in for a dollar and see how it turns out right?

That would be your best bet, but to be honest there HIPS have been getting better at every corner.

I like the idea if little movement trays. One thing I learned to hate playing with my nids was the movement phase. I think it would be fun to make little scenic bases for squads or mini dioramas.

 AlexHolker wrote:
There's no such thing, and Mantic's failure to understand this is why the Pathfinders look like arse. At least if this was another all-male kit it wouldn't actively hurt the chances of getting a competently designed female kit in the future.

 judgedoug wrote:
Odd viewpoint considering there are specific female torsos on the Pathfinders sprue.

But they are right for bucking their own trend and making a neutral torso, as females in body armor look like males in body armor, no matter how much people want armored breast cones and 12 inch heels and electro whips.

edit: instead of this weird desire to have giant exaggerated hips/boobs on miniatures wearing bulky body armor, how about someone finally actually make models with different heights? So far the Terminator resistance fighters are the only plastic kit that exists that have models of various heights on the sprue.

 NTRabbit wrote:
Human torsos in regular flak jacket style body armour from neck to groin. Try doing a google search, even with the new body armour the US army is using designed specifically to fit women, from the outside the torso is still straight up and down solid. Not everything needs to be cheesecake and jiggly tits.

Here's a few images, please tell me how these real life women soldiers, in body armour, with no apparent bust or hips, look like arse and need to be resculpted

Spoiler:

As I have said before, the problem is the rigging - the skeleton. A woman's skeleton is not the same shape as a man's skeleton, particularly the ribcage and consequentially the distance between the shoulders. A model of a man, exaggerated for 28mm, will not have proportions that are adequate for a woman. At the very least you need to make the torso narrower and if you're using two handed weapons you need to also redo the arms so they still fit.

On multi-basing: I think the least bad approach would be to have the rules work at the fire team level, and use line multibases rather than clump multibases, so that it's possible to put the fire team against a piece of cover like a wall or the edge of a rooftop.

I certainly hope Mantic does -not- make Warpath's battlefield one set out by 'squares', ala Deadzone. I prefer an open table and tape-measures, thanks.

I am totally fine with multibasing, as well. I envision it working the same as other games, only instead of moving ~50-100 figs, you'll move ~10-15 bases. True, things could get interesting when you reach area terrain/buildings and such, but I have faith they'll address those situations one way or another. Hoping for a 'mass battles' 28mm game, but then hoping you can spread your guys out in a 'realistic manner' so that they can avoid deadly area-effect weapons, is a bit counter-intuitive. You have finite space to work with, and 'mass battles' will likely mean a lot of figs with only so much to room to put between them. I'm fine with multibases, whether it's 'unrealistic' or not.

I also really don't care about other 'real world' stuff in my sci-fi make-believe game. Obviously some people want the game to be more 'life-like' or 'plausible', and that's cool... but we're dealing with dwarves and ratmen and robots and space-elf-like-beings shooting lazer-gunz and using massive earth-drills and drop ships, etc. I frankly prefer female figs that LOOK female - whether 'realistic' body armor would make them look androgynous or not. That doesn't mean I want female figs with boobs as big as five-gallon buckets, but I am all for 'hips and curves'. But suspending one's sense of disbelief is far easier for some than others, and that's just part of what makes all of us a little more different from one another.

I don't think Warpath is meant to be a 'simulation' of real life or modern warfare, just like 40K isn't, or Warmachine. I like what I see so far (for the most part), though, and am eager to see more renders for sure before I toss any more $ on my pledge.

 Alex C wrote:

 MLaw wrote:
I sincerely hope FF doesn't have specialty dice.

If they keep the order system then it will, and I suspect they will.

99% going to happen.

The comparison to Warmaster is way off, pretty much the only similarity is using words like "order" and "command".

 Mort wrote:
but then hoping you can spread your guys out in a 'realistic manner' so that they can avoid deadly area-effect weapons, is a bit counter-intuitive.

I don't think that anyone had actually mentioned immunity from blasts as a reason against multibasing, so I'm a little puzzled as to where this came from...

I just hope they do a good job with both sets of rules. That way, people can just go with the version they prefer.

 Mort wrote:
I certainly hope Mantic does -not- make Warpath's battlefield one set out by 'squares', ala Deadzone. I prefer an open table and tape-measures, thanks.

It won't be a grid system. Open table and tape measures.

Full alpha rules are available here: http://manticblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Warpath-KS-Alpha-06-101.pdf

Have found time to play a quick test game, the rules work great, very fluid, alternate activation and the actions system makes things move back and forth very quickly between players.
Overwatch is handled very well, with it being an excellent anti-assault deterrent, and handled much more cleanly than in other systems.
Suppression system is great, pretty much Epic:Armageddon blast markers in terms of functionality, with some unique additions.

 scarletsquig wrote:
Overwatch is handled very well, with it being an excellent anti-assault deterrent, and handled much more cleanly than in other systems.
Suppression system is great, pretty much Epic:Armageddon blast markers in terms of functionality, with some unique additions.

We'll have to disagree on both of those

 AlexHolker wrote:

As I have said before, the problem is the rigging - the skeleton. A woman's skeleton is not the same shape as a man's skeleton, particularly the ribcage and consequentially the distance between the shoulders. A model of a man, exaggerated for 28mm, will not have proportions that are adequate for a woman. At the very least you need to make the torso narrower and if you're using two handed weapons you need to also redo the arms so they still fit.

Which doesn't mean gak on a person wearing combat level protective body armour over an always baggy field uniform. I even gave you real life photos proving that. How broad a person's shoulders are is as variable in women as it is for men, and it's very possible for a woman to be broader than a man at the same height.

And FYI, I think the Pathfinders are a great representation of a genetically modified, highly athletic woman soldier wearing a more scifi style of armour on the torso. Great proprtions, wouldn't change a thing about them.

 MLaw wrote:
I sincerely hope FF doesn't have specialty dice.

They are shoehorning them even into Deadzone 2, and they hadn't even thought of them by the time the KS ended, so there wasn't even an option to buy any.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 MLaw wrote:
I sincerely hope FF doesn't have specialty dice.

They are shoehorning them even into Deadzone 2, and they hadn't even thought of them by the time the KS ended, so there wasn't even an option to buy any.

Well, Deadzone 1 had the whole command points and abilities thing in already, it just used regular d8s rolling for I think 3+ or 4+, rather than special d8s with symbols. Not a huge change.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 MLaw wrote:
I sincerely hope FF doesn't have specialty dice.

They are shoehorning them even into Deadzone 2, and they hadn't even thought of them by the time the KS ended, so there wasn't even an option to buy any.

I think from the DZ2 blog post yesterday, they work like Coaching Dice in DBO, ie spend one to boost a single action (in a particular way depending on the action). The system in WP is much more like casting a spell/psychic power in WHF/40k.

 Vermis wrote:

insaniak wrote:

privateer4hire wrote:
I think the specialty dice plus the multibasing will really set the game apart in the 28mm world.

Well yes, but not in a good way.

Specialty dice present a barrier to entry.

Yyyup. Seems like every other game has to have extra-speshul unique dice to stock up on, these days. If the order system gives one of three results, what's the problem with D3?

The order dice have more than one thing on them, there are blanks, 1 success, 2 successes and 3 successes. In addition to that, there is another symbol that determines whether or not the command dice is returned to the pool.

You can just use d8's and a chart, the dice are there for convenience rather than necessity.

 Vermis wrote:

If they're going to whip up a sci-fi make-believe game, they had a lot of scope and freedom to play with. Instead they took the same old medieval-fantasy races and tropes and dropped sci-fi guns into their hands, again.

See, I don't actually have a problem with that, particularly given how hard GW have tried to steer 40K away from it. I love the 'fantasy in space' trope. It's one of the big things that appealed to me when I first discovered 40K, and so someone else picking up that ball and running with it is great, in theory.

Have they said what the source book contains?