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.

HI!
I am one of the people who switched to KoW the second the rules (v2) came out. To me the game have everything WHFB did not have: real strategy instead of list building meta, quicker play, terrain have a purpose, multi basing etc.
In my town we have at the moment two communities, one (where I play) that have changed completely to KoW and in the change have drawn in new gamers to the fantasy scene, both from historical, 40k and beginners. This in turn have led to a great revival community-wise and new terrain have been built on a massive scale and tournaments are popping up way more continuously.

The second community are holding on to WHFB, this do not concern me the slightest (I sometimes bring out my WHFB myself to play a game from time to time).
However the the fact that the ones holding to WHFB refuse to try KoW do bother me as I cannot understand why, their models work in both games. Me and the rest of my community have tried in different pedagogical ways show what KoW is all about and have invited people for demo games and more, to no avail...


So my question and hopefully basis for discussion: have others experienced this, and why do people keep stay so intensely with WHFB? The game is unsupported.

Around here, several of our local groups have begun the process of switching to Kings of War - folks tried out the rules and liked them and we're all building armies towards it. I think the delay here is just that many of us didn't have fantasy armies already finished, so these things take a while to build up!

Personally, I am much more interested in Kings of War than playing WHFB 8th (since it is unsupported it is hard to get new players) or 9th Age (as I'm not really sure about the process of making that game, and I was ready for something different and more streamlined than 8th edition, anyway, which KoW is a better fit for).

It really helped here that the US fantasy circuit has embraced KoW, as that's what many of us aim for when building armies in my area. I have also heard of some people who are both playing AoS and Kings of War. The two are so different, that there's almost no conflict there. So here's hoping it continues to gain traction

Butterqwist wrote:
HI!
However the the fact that the ones holding to WHFB refuse to try KoW do bother me as I cannot understand why, their models work in both games. Me and the rest of my community have tried in different pedagogical ways show what KoW is all about and have invited people for demo games and more, to no avail...

So my question and hopefully basis for discussion: have others experienced this, and why do people keep stay so intensely with WHFB? The game is unsupported.

I can think of a couple of reasons.

The first is the fluff. Mantic's factions are definitely different than Warhammer's - enough so that perhaps they enjoy playing in the Old World instead of Mantica.

The second, and probably most imporant, is the rules. KoW is fast-play and element based, basically WHFB 8th's polar opposite. If you liked the ability to reform ranks with individual miniatures, the idea of unit attrition, or the granularity of equipment and magic, then you probably wouldn't like KoW's take on the concept of big fantasy battles.

And it's something I can understand. I'm getting into Wargods of Aegyptus, and another player is toying with the idea of making it an element based game. I'm not a fan of it, especially since the scale is so much smaller (a standard game might need about 50-60 models, instead of the many more that a "standard" game of 8th needed).

Why? The heart knows what reason doesn't.

A lot of gamers had a lot of fun with this venerable game. Even it's not supported anymore by GW, that doesn't mean all their books and games disappeared into the void; as long as they have someone to play with, they will keep playing.

Because it has brought them a lot of fun and will certainly bring a lot more in their future games.

That said, there is no wrong opening your mind to another game system.

I too began KoW and it has renewed my desire to collect a true army of 28 mm fantasy miniatures. I have friends who are willing to play from time to time as well. So, I will have fun with KoW.

But I totally understand those who want to stay with WFB. After all, I also have fond memories with that game and the Old World. It's just that I want to play something else.

 infinite_array wrote:
The first is the fluff. Mantic's factions are definitely different than Warhammer's - enough so that perhaps they enjoy playing in the Old World instead of Mantica.

Honestly I'd find this excuse quite lame. Many KoW armylists have been designed with the main goals of letting veteran Fantasy gamers play with their already existing Fantasy armies. You can set the game in whatever universe you want.

From what the OP is saying, it looks like the archetypical "GW-centric" community that will simply refuse to play anything non-GW, because GW is all they know and stepping beyond such limits would be heresy.

If they are happy with the game they are currently playing, and there is a large enough community of like minded players, why should they learn a new game? What justifies the time spent (even if the cost is zero) learning a new game, when they can use the same time to play a game they already know and enjoy?

If they enjoy what they're doing, why do you care?

Fluff is honestly a big factor in collecting and playing an army for me and I'll be brutally honest, KoW fluff makes my stomach turn. I just find it to be nauseatingly bad.

Case in point. As my gaming group is looking into diggng into KoW I was considering building a Salamander army. After getting ahold of a copy of Uncharted Empires and givng their fluff a read I literaly no longer give two feths.

At least the Varaguar or however you say are it are at least entertaining. So it looks like I'll be buyimg a lot of shiny new GW chaos models! Cause feth me I'm not wasting money on Mantic sculpts.

+1 Korinov. This whole thing of 'the fluff = the models = the rules" has made me shake my head for years. Ronnie Renton isn't holding a gun to your head to use Mantic minis and Mantica fluff. I'd say KoW makes it easier to play in different settings, because there's far fewer unique special rules pretending to be fluff. You could play in Mantica, or 'Mallus', or the Sigmarite planes, or Middle-Earth, or Melniboné and the Young Kingdoms, or Hyboria, or Westeros, or even on this cockamamie world called 'Earth'.

 theHandofGork wrote:
What justifies the time spent (even if the cost is zero) learning a new game, when they can use the same time to play a game they already know and enjoy?

Because it's quick to learn, and quick to play, with much less rulebook flipping, hit-wound-save-casualty-rankbonus-leadership fiddling, and all the other little speedbumps in the process, that makes the time spent, time saved?

And more than that, 'cos they might like it better.

Yeah, KoW has actually really embraced folks using conversions, counts-as, and whatever model lines they like. So, that is a big draw for me since I want to run chaos dwarfs! I don't mind calling them Abyssal Dwarfs really, but the main rulebook (haven't picked up Uncharted Empires yet) is excellent and fits them extremely well

 Vermis wrote:
Because it's quick to learn, and quick to play, with much less rulebook flipping, hit-wound-save-casualty-rankbonus-leadership fiddling, and all the other little speedbumps in the process, that makes the time spent, time saved?

And more than that, 'cos they might like it better.

I have no issue with KOW, but why do we care what other people play so much? This is what I don't get. If a group is satisfied with a game that I don't particularly like (and post end times 8th WFB is a good example of a game that I don't really like) then I don't feel the need to convert them to a game I do. If they're dissatisfied, or curious, or want another experience then they can try KoW or SOBAH, or HOTT, or whatever else. But what's with the need to keep telling other people they're doing it wrong?

Let them enjoy their game, even if we don't.

Yeah, I definitely think people should feel free to keep playing whatever they want with regard to fantasy. But for tournaments, it helps to coalesce around a single ruleset "going forward"... so I'm personally hoping that will be KoW for ranked fantasy battles, and probably AoS for skirmish (although Frostgrave is sweet, too, but much lower model count).

 RiTides wrote:
Yeah, I definitely think people should feel free to keep playing whatever they want with regard to fantasy. But for tournaments, it helps to coalesce around a single ruleset "going forward"... so I'm personally hoping that will be KoW for ranked fantasy battles, and probably AoS for skirmish (although Frostgrave is sweet, too, but much lower model count).

Agreed

lonestarr777 wrote:
Fluff is honestly a big factor in collecting and playing an army for me and I'll be brutally honest, KoW fluff makes my stomach turn. I just find it to be nauseatingly bad.

Case in point. As my gaming group is looking into diggng into KoW I was considering building a Salamander army. After getting ahold of a copy of Uncharted Empires and givng their fluff a read I literaly no longer give two feths.

LOL that's hilarious. I'm making a Twilight Kin army ... well, actually, it's a Thulsa Doom Cult of Set army, using the Twilight Kin rules. Why do you have to be so married to literalism? Or am I not allowed to field a Thulsa Doom army because there's no Robert E Howard army lists?

 judgedoug wrote:

lonestarr777 wrote:
Fluff is honestly a big factor in collecting and playing an army for me and I'll be brutally honest, KoW fluff makes my stomach turn. I just find it to be nauseatingly bad.

Case in point. As my gaming group is looking into diggng into KoW I was considering building a Salamander army. After getting ahold of a copy of Uncharted Empires and givng their fluff a read I literaly no longer give two feths.

LOL that's hilarious. I'm making a Twilight Kin army ... well, actually, it's a Thulsa Doom Cult of Set army, using the Twilight Kin rules. Why do you have to be so married to literalism? Or am I not allowed to field a Thulsa Doom army because there's no Robert E Howard army lists?

As a huge fan of fan of Conan that army sounds awesome! I am in no way presumptious enough to tell you that you can't field anything you want, specially not something that cool.

I guess the thing is I look to the source matieral for inspiration, and find Mantic's writing to be rather bland. I will freely admit its a personal hangup.

Our group makes a lot videos and batreps too so alot of Salamander unit names, which grate my nerves, would have be used a lot and I couldn't get away with refering to units with other titles.

Whats actually wrong with the fluff Lonestar?

-

Familiarity, and, yes - the fluff and the setting.

I know a local group that is running a KoW game set in the Warhammer setting, and having fun with it.

My own group pretty much just uses KoW, I do not think that setting has ever been a concern. (Though several are using their Warhammer armies. *EDIT* Including my own Empire/League of Rhordia army - which has its rooots in the very first edition of Warhammer... though most of those old lead models have been phased out, one or two hold on as characters.)

What I am more interested in is that as the years carried on, most people in the group cut back on the number of armies that they could filed in Warhammer.

Now that we have switched to Kings of War that trend is reversing itself. With all but two players able to field at least two armies. (Ogres seem to be a popular second choice - I think because as a Neutral army, they can ally with everyone, and involve fewer models than Kingdoms of Men.)

The Auld Grump

 Swastakowey wrote:
Whats actually wrong with the fluff Lonestar?

I find them to be detestable mary-sue's. The whole slayers of evil cause evil just makes me roll my eyes. I'm not a fan of them being a naval power either. It just really doesn't make much sense to me and I find it bothersome. I'm not saying folks can't dig it, if you do, more power to you. But it's not my cup of tea, when I imagine an army of lizardmen riding great dinosaurs into battle and bringing war to the warmbloods it's generally not to come riding to the rescue...

 Bottle wrote:

 Korinov wrote:

 infinite_array wrote:
The first is the fluff. Mantic's factions are definitely different than Warhammer's - enough so that perhaps they enjoy playing in the Old World instead of Mantica.

Honestly I'd find this excuse quite lame. Many KoW armylists have been designed with the main goals of letting veteran Fantasy gamers play with their already existing Fantasy armies. You can set the game in whatever universe you want.

I think it's a perfectly reasonable excuse. Games Workshop make very flavoursome rules that are intertwined with the fluff in many cases (from spell names and effects, to special rules, to named characters, to unique weapons etc etc) strip all of that away and it might not feel like you are playing in the same world you once were.

Flavoursome what? GW makes incredibly poor rules with incredibly stupid names. Both their fluff and their naming conventions seem written by 14-yeared old fanboys in recent years.

Wolfius McWolf Murderfang the Space Wolf and Bloodux Sanguis the Bloody Blood Angel are not "flavoursome", they are stupid.

I mean, each one to his/her own tastes, but seriously, someone (not you Bottle) said he/she found Mantic's fluff to be "bland", and as a result was planning to dump money on AoS? Is there anything in this world blander than AoS? Sooo here are the golden good guys armed with shields and hammers and angelic wings against the spiky blood red&black bad guys armed with scary looking axes, wow so original aren't we.

 Korinov wrote:
Wolfius McWolf Murderfang the Space Wolf and Bloodux Sanguis the Bloody Blood Angel are not "flavoursome", they are stupid.

I think that's more 40k and now AoS than it was WHFB.

I own complete 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th editions for WHFB and currently my group is using 8th and enjoying it. So why invest in KOW? We play in our homes and don't go near tournaments and are actually glad the game ended with 8th. We all have numerous armies and enough stuff put back for years to come. So again , why should we switch? KOW offers us nothing we don't already have. Mantics products are just so uninspiring.

 Kenshinzo 7 wrote:
I own complete 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th editions for WHFB and currently my group is using 8th and enjoying it. So why invest in KOW? We play in our homes and don't go near tournaments and are actually glad the game ended with 8th. We all have numerous armies and enough stuff put back for years to come. So again , why should we switch? KOW offers us nothing we don't already have. Mantics products are just so uninspiring.

Nothing wrong with sticking with what you love but I'd just like to suggest that KoW does offer a surprising amount to the modelers. Unit basing instead of individual basing really allows you to go wild with the mini diorama unit fillers. I'm currently looking at tying to mount 1000 points of undead inside a Garden of Mor kit and have it look like a real graveyard when ranked up.

-

I mean, each one to his/her own tastes, but seriously, someone (not you Bottle) said he/she found Mantic's fluff to be "bland", and as a result was planning to dump money on AoS?

No idea whether you are referring to me, I've described KOW as 'bland'. That is the game the feels bland not the fluff, it has no fluff that I've ever read and I don't choose games for fluff reasons for the most part (It has little effect on whether the game is good or bad). I'm a fan of AOS but I'm spending money on GW figures not AOS. If I was playing KOW I would be spending the same money on GW figures not KOW.

Hm, some interesting views for sure. I get all the argument about wanting to keep playing WHFB (as I said in my OP) but still the question regarding ¨why would you not want to try something outside GW¨ have been met with ¨why should I¨... To me, that question have several answers (in my point of view of course). (1) ¨The fluff¨, well as mentioned by someone earlier KoW gives you the ability to play in any setting, it generic. (2) ¨mantic models are not GW¨, well play with whatever models you like, I myself is currently building my second army composed by miniatures from 10 different companies. (3) ¨the rules are not GW¨ I will counter that with a statement, every time I log into a forum for warhammer wargamers there is always ¨that codex/race is OP¨, ¨we need to comp that¨, ¨how is this rule interpreted¨, I can go on forever. I have never seen that discussion in any form in regards to KoW, not on the internet nor in my community. (4) ¨the game seems to simple¨, KoW is actually one of the more complex games i have ever encountered. The similarities between the races and units require you to play tactically to the extreme and balanced lists are actually super good in the hands of a skilled commander.
This is something I have never seen in any GW game where if you have built a good list it plays itself.

1. Generic doesn't = good. Part of WHFB's charm is it draws you in with a rich world. It is much harder to get invested in a blank sandbox.

2. Some people would like to support the company in the game they are playing and GW has created a kinda stockholm relationship with gaming and minatures. Doesnt help that mantic needs serious quality control.
This isn't a good face for the game. "Hey check out KoW!" "Wow, those are some hideous sculpts." "Well yeah but you can use any minis you want!" "Already walked away, can't hear you."

3. Every ruleset for every game has problems. Even KoW, currently the lament is "Ogres are OP." in my group.

4. The game IS simple. This isn't a bad thing but some folks appreciate a bit more complexity. Do not confuse jockeying for position for complex. The game is primarily decided in the movement phase reguardless of what you bring to the table. The generic magic items and weak spellcasters with universal magic for EVERY army in the game is a bit dry and feels a little "Everyone shares from the same toybox so it's fair!"

5. Personal pet peeve, no hero beside monster riders feel worth it because you can't stick them in units, rendering them speed bumps and nerve boosters at best.

The game is fun, but it has problems. Enough so that some folks will look at it, shrug and go back to casting 'purple sun' without a look back.

Yeah, those are some good points lonestar! I'm looking forward to a simpler game than 8th myself, and as a rabid converter really like the freedom they endorse

I would say to the AoS fans posting in this thread, it's possible to like both, you know . One doesn't have to oppose the other, they're very different games and both can coexist well!

KoW is actually one of the more complex games i have ever encountered. The similarities between the races and units require you to play tactically to the extreme and balanced lists are actually super good in the hands of a skilled commander.

I can't say you are wrong, as I do not know what other games you have encountered, but KOW is extremely simple. Without formations it would be AOS. In fact due to AOS having different unit specific special rules rather than generic traits I'd say AOS is more complex in the literal sense.

The similarity between units/races is a downer for me, I play fantasy to a good extent for the clear asymmetry between forces. KOW reduces Ogres/Humans/Goblins/Dwarves etc to essentially the same thing with very minor differences, but pretend each block represents more or less 'men'. If that is your thing then historicals do this a lot better (everyone is human).

Not to say I dislike KOW, as RiTIdes says above I actually like both games, and would play either, but AoS 'feels' more like a fantasy game and therefore is my preference.

puree wrote:

The similarity between units/races is a downer for me, I play fantasy to a good extent for the clear asymmetry between forces. KOW reduces Ogres/Humans/Goblins/Dwarves etc to essentially the same thing with very minor differences, but pretend each block represents more or less 'men'. If that is your thing then historicals do this a lot better (everyone is human).

Funny enough, to me it's the opposite; I like KoW's simplicity because it allows a lot more freedom for modelism. I don't have to care about if I use a hammer or a sword for my Liberators, I can use them both and take the profile for Ogres.

AoS is trying to "force you" to take this and this model in particular (with the precise set of weapons, because). KoW is made so that players can use of course miniatures from their online shop but also litterally whatever they want - some armies actually aren't intended to be sold by Mantic Games, for example. That's quite a big difference with GW.

Imagination is the first tool for fantasy games, after all. You don't need silly or special unique rules for everything if the story you tell is right. You can always interpret in many ways how a generic rule work; for example, a "fireball" throwed by a human mage can be a true fireball or some magic missiles made of pure energy, or even ice shards. But in terms of rules, it works the same - just the visual effect will change.

puree wrote:

I can't say you are wrong, as I do not know what other games you have encountered, but KOW is extremely simple. Without formations it would be AOS. In fact due to AOS having different unit specific special rules rather than generic traits I'd say AOS is more complex in the literal sense.

I think both games are simple - but where KoW is complex (intrinsically), AoS is complicated (extrinsically).

KoW has its simple base ruleset, but units do not often break those rules, if ever, because all of the special rules for each faction is based on the universal special rules.

AoS has its simple ruleset, but the pages upon pages of individual special rules break those basic rules in a huge variety of ways.

The similarity between units/races is a downer for me, I play fantasy to a good extent for the clear asymmetry between forces. KOW reduces Ogres/Humans/Goblins/Dwarves etc to essentially the same thing with very minor differences, but pretend each block represents more or less 'men'. If that is your thing then historicals do this a lot better (everyone is human).

It's a scale thing. KoW is trying to really simulate the huge battles, where individuals become less important. Just look at KoW's unit naming structure - the smallest unit are Troops (which in the real world are around 100 soldiers). Then you have regiments, hordes, and legions. A 2,000 point KoW army with a couple hordes, a bunch of regiments, and a few troops, is actually thousands upon thousands of soldiers.

AoS should be a skirmish game focused on individuality.

It's a perennial problem with GW that they kept pushing WHFB and keep pushing 40k (basically skirmish/warband sized systems) further into territory that they don't belong in - mass battles, the territory once taken care of by Warmaster and Epic. This ended up breaking WHFB. Now we have to see if GW will do the same for AoS.