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.

puree wrote:

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.

KoW is pretty much setting independent, while it has a setting, that setting is pretty much an excuse to have battles. Which, can also be described as making it bland. (Or you can use your own setting - whuch is why I have been playing with the idea of updating my 1750s game.)

*EDIT* To make it clear - I liked the Warhammer setting, better than I do the Mantica setting.

But GW done blowed it up. What I liked was the setting (most especially the 3rd edition version), and they got rid of the only part of their game that I liked.

Edited by RiTides

I tried to gently nudge this way before, but as a clearer note...

The OP specifically laid this thread out as a comparison between WHFB (8th edition) and Kings of War as an alternative ruleset.

So, let's please leave the rather contentious "pro/anti AoS" discussion for another thread, as it really doesn't belong in this one!

This thread is about whether folks should continue with WHFB as it was, or try another ruleset like KoW... please double check the OP before replying as we're getting a few too many threads with the same arguments seeping in, while this one is about another topic entirely.

Cheers all!

lonestarr777 wrote:
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.

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."

Minis =/= rules =/= setting. Like you say, GW have created a kind of Stockholm syndrome regarding minis and special rules. People who enjoy KoW realise that, and realise they can use different minis. They can still play in a rich world - any world they want. They've just changed up when and why they roll their dice.
People who've already walked away... I have trouble imagining the degree of conditioning they've gone through.

For an example: if you play dark elves, druchii, from Naggaroth, always raiding Ulthuan - you know the ones - using twilight kin rules, and use your lovingly painted and somewhat converted army that you built up for warhammer and developed your own personal background for... does it really break the game and the suspension of disbelief if the army's combat reroll is called vicious instead of murderous prowess? Does it matter if they don't have ASF, which they didn't have 'til recently in warhammer, anyway? Is it time for wailing and gnashing of teeth if Black Guard are 'just' an elite unit? (Think about it: in the fluff Black Guard are 'just' elite troops. Stubborn and increasing their strength by a full, even third because halberds, are just as arbitrary, abstracted and 'gamey' a way of representing that, as a 1-point-better melee stat and crushing blow) Do you need separate big stompy monster profiles for big stompy monster hydras and big stompy monster kharibdysses? Heck, do you need kharibdysses full-stop?

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.

Now there I can't argue too much, because it's one thing that put me off KoW too. But I'd say close combat beasts/magic item delivery systems with a leadership booster bubble is not a million miles from how warhammer did it, either.

But there are other ways and means. In other games commanders command, for one thing. And fair enough if you give other games a decent whirl and go back to warhammer; but when people won't even entertain the notion to look up and see there are other viable rules, let alone try them... well, it's everyone's loss.

 RiTides wrote:

This thread is about whether folks should continue with WHFB as it was, or try another ruleset like KoW... please double check the OP before replying as we're getting a few too many threads with the same arguments seeping in, while this one is about another topic entirely.

I guess it boils down to whether or not someone wants to play a game that simulates mass battles, where individuals and magic are less important than morale and maneuvering, or an over-taxed warband game where individuals are important.

It's something that turned me off of the 9th Age ruleset, when I saw that a single unit of Light Infantry for the Empire of Sonnstahl list starts at 10 models, and can go up to 60. And it's something that turned me on to Wargods of Aegyptus, where the apparent "sweet spot" for normal sized games are units of 12 for the regular infantry.

Sarouan wrote:
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.

A bit of imagination. Remember when we used to have to use that in fantasy games?

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.

Quite right. You will end up just as dead.

Think about it in terms of 40K and lasguns, for example. The imperium of man is obviously much further-reaching, and by implication much more diverse than the modern world with modern countries and their modern armies that use modern assault rifles. So with all those untold numbers of human worlds separated by vast, intragalactic distances and thousands of years, not to mention warp storms, warp interference, and the vagaries of warp travel, don't you think that IG regiments should have much more difference between the patterns and workings of their lasguns? Even despite Mechanicus inertia and reliance on poorly understood STCs? It seems to be the case with cultures and battle doctrines, anyway. Does it bother you that it's all lumped under the generic rule termed 'lasgun'?

(Heck, if I remember 40K and Necromunda correctly, autoguns - 40K's actual assault rifles - had practically the same stats as a lasgun. Generic abstraction is everywhere. It's already here! It's coming to get you, Barbara!)

infinite_array wrote:
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.

Well said! I've heard the complex/complicated thing before, and agree with it. To add a bit (and veer it back on topic to WFB) complexity comes from the way seemingly simple basic and universal rules interplay. WFB had some of that, but it was almost drowned under the complications of hundreds of special rules to remember and keep track of. And I'll argue that WFB's basic rules - like 8th's horde and steadfast, pushed in just to give infantry some kind of chance, a symptom of special rules bloat - weren't entirely simple and elegant, either.

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.

Two-hundred-model bundles for a single warscroll battalion... yeah. It is the same thing that happened with WFB. GW can't seem to understand or accept that skirmish-type rules can only go so far.

Hence, people flocking to KoW for a mass battle fix, and actually liking it.

First I hate posting on my phone, it makes it very impossible to multi-quote and get back to multiple people.

Sarouan, the arguement that things in this game are generic because the power of imagnation is a terrible arguement.

No one is going to sit at the table and announce "So my wizard trained in the dark arts of necromancy hurls a flaming skull into your unit, as the cold fire burns and it explodes in a whail of the damned you take... *rolls* 5 wounds to their nerve."

Everyone will however "I'm chucking a fireball at your spearmen."

The fact there is zero variation on magic beyond what you picture in your head is just kind of sad. What does every Mantic wizard attend some third rate Hogwarts, thus why they all know the exact same kinds of spells?

I understand why they do it, its easier to balance. But that is the only fashion that is a selling point. Telling me I need to write the flavor for an army for a company that wants my money is akin to buying a book and finding its only half written and I have to finish it myself.

Vermis, there comes a point where things are just too generic. The fact so many monsters, units, and heroes can be swapped out and you'd never know that technically thats an orc unit and not an elf strikes me as rather lazy.

Why am I playing X army when I can just play Y and use X models?

You know I honestly feel bad coming down on this game with these critcisms. Its genuinely entertaining, quick and fun to play. But it doesn't feel like a complete game. They have tried so hard to give people freedom to play how they want that it comes across as unfinished.

I'm not sitting down at the table to be Tolkien for an afternoon, I'm sitti.g down to push toy soldiers in circles.

 Vermis wrote:


For an example: if you play dark elves, druchii, from Naggaroth, always raiding Ulthuan - you know the ones - using twilight kin rules, and use your lovingly painted and somewhat converted army that you built up for warhammer and developed your own personal background for... does it really break the game and the suspension of disbelief if the army's combat reroll is called vicious instead of murderous prowess? Does it matter if they don't have ASF, which they didn't have 'til recently in warhammer, anyway? Is it time for wailing and gnashing of teeth if Black Guard are 'just' an elite unit? (Think about it: in the fluff Black Guard are 'just' elite troops. Stubborn and increasing their strength by a full, even third because halberds, are just as arbitrary, abstracted and 'gamey' a way of representing that, as a 1-point-better melee stat and crushing blow) Do you need separate big stompy monster profiles for big stompy monster hydras and big stompy monster kharibdysses? Heck, do you need kharibdysses full-stop?

Completely OT, but if you ever come to Portugal, we must murder each other's armies

On topic, it should be noted that you can play both games if you fancy them both. The % of people who have that point of view, however, is quite small. A lot of people keep to 8th because they had fun with it and prefer to keep to it even if it becomes unsupported - I think the answer really is that simple.

Those are some great points lonestar, and I do really wish they would have alternate magic tracks! Maybe they'll add it in the future?

But some slimming down / simplifying of gameplay is I think a really good thing. The stacking magic effects in fantasy had gotten to be a bit insane by the end, and were a major part of what had turned me off to the game by the start of 8th.

But I did really love configuring my wizards and generating different spells, so maybe that's something worth mentioning to Mantic - I think they are open to feedback and the rules committee has done a very good job so far in balancing things from what I've seen!

 RiTides wrote:
Those are some great points lonestar, and I do really wish they would have alternate magic tracks! Maybe they'll add it in the future?

Issue #38 of Ironwatch Magazine has "Advanced Wizardry" rules.

These include 6 "Lores" that Wizards can access depending on their original spell selection (so a Wizard that knows Lightning Bolt has access to the Astromancy Lore, Surge to Necromancy, etc.). Each Lore then has five different spells. Each race's wizards can also select a varying number of spells.

 infinite_array wrote:
Issue #38 of Ironwatch Magazine has "Advanced Wizardry" rules.

These include 6 "Lores" that Wizards can access depending on their original spell selection (so a Wizard that knows Lightning Bolt has access to the Astromancy Lore, Surge to Necromancy, etc.). Each Lore then has five different spells. Each race's wizards can also select a varying number of spells.

Well that's just perfect . Cheers, infinite array, you were way ahead of me!! I will totally be suggesting to my group that we use those rules

How old is KoW's fluff? What was the state of WHFB's fluff at the same age?

In all honestly I'm not exactly impressed with Mantica, but it's barely a newborn, and should evolve with the years. Of course Fantasy had (has?) a richer universe, they had like 30 years to develop it from the initial Tolkien + Moorcock + D&D mix.

Well feth yeah Infinite Array that's awesome to learn. I'm gonna have to dig into that when I get home. Fingers crossed it adds some bite to magic.

That's a good point Korinov, KoW fluff doesn't have the age of WHFB for sure. It does still feel like a weak start out the gate though. Maybe with some time under their belt I'll be singing a different tune.

I have to say, for shear variety in magic and armies, the best fantasy wargame rules I have ever played goes back to 1989 and TSR's AD&D 2nd Edition Battlesystem rules. The variety of the AD&D rules brought to fantasy wargames meant each wizard was unique, and the same could be said of every hero on the tabletop.

The background fluff, however, could be as premade as using one of the existing settings or as intensely player created as using a home made campaign setting.

lonestarr777 wrote:
Well feth yeah Infinite Array that's awesome to learn. I'm gonna have to dig into that when I get home. Fingers crossed it adds some bite to magic.

I hope it does!

Looking at it, I also realized that you keep the basic spells you get when buying the Wizard. So, a elven wizard with the Master Wizard upgrade can purchase up to 5 different spells and can use two of them in a turn!

That can magic a little more interesting in KoW, right?

This definitely has potential.

Now if only they could fix the 'hero speedbump' issue I have.

lonestarr777 wrote:
This definitely has potential.

Now if only they could fix the 'hero speedbump' issue I have.

Not sure how many games you have played, but after a while you begin to work out how to defeat heroes who try annoy you or flyers etc.

Its common for a lot of new people to find:

Shooting OP
Flying OP
Heroes OP (especially flying heroes)

Ultimately all just require a bit of experience and then they aren't a huge problem. I think you will find heores eventually end up as anti ranged unit harasser later on... if that.

 Korinov wrote:
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.

I think you're referring to Manchu saying the Mantica fluff is bland, over in that AoS thread. He owns Kings of War, btw. But he also owns AoS. Same as me. I personally love the AoS fluff.

 Korinov wrote:
How old is KoW's fluff? What was the state of WHFB's fluff at the same age?

In all honestly I'm not exactly impressed with Mantica, but it's barely a newborn, and should evolve with the years. Of course Fantasy had (has?) a richer universe, they had like 30 years to develop it from the initial Tolkien + Moorcock + D&D mix.

It is fair to say that the fluff in Warhammer at this same age, was largely different than the fluff used in 4th edition onwards.

The setting used to be a lot closer to 14th and 17th century Europe being invaded by Moorcock's Chaos.

Among other differences, the Emperor was largely a figurehead - Elected by the Counts because he could be easily manipulated. Think The Holy Roman Empire at the time of the Thirty Years War.

Brettonia was far from the honorable Arthurian influenced nation that is now. More along the lines of 14th France with the 18th Century French nobility in charge.

Every area was drowning in decadence and decay - Chaos was eating away at the world from within, with the nations applying a thin veneer civility and gaiety as the world trundled to the end times.

It was, in many ways, a much more believable setting - without the Emperor fluttering around on his Thunderchicken. (I hate the most recent figure for the Emperor.) The Old World was a place that smelled of old sewage, while the nobility held scented kerchiefs to their face, in order to avoid the stench

The Auld Grump

lonestarr777 wrote:
[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.

So just ignore it dude! I'm 100% ignoring any Twilight Kin background for my Thulsa Doom force. Just using the statlines. Nary an elf in sight.

 Xyxox wrote:
I have to say, for shear variety in magic and armies, the best fantasy wargame rules I have ever played goes back to 1989 and TSR's AD&D 2nd Edition Battlesystem rules. The variety of the AD&D rules brought to fantasy wargames meant each wizard was unique, and the same could be said of every hero on the tabletop.

The background fluff, however, could be as premade as using one of the existing settings or as intensely player created as using a home made campaign setting.

There is a local group that still meets up every week to play that game - and it remains one of my favorite fantasy wargames. (About tied with Warhammer 3rd edition. Kings of War is next, followed by Warhammer 4 through 6. With 7th, Warhammer dropped below my desire to play.

Also, I have to mention that the second edition of Battlesystem was a heck of a lot better than first - in first edition a liche was less than a quarter of the cost of a wizard or cleric with the same spellcasting ability, but fewer extras.... (Heroes were measured in the number of XP needed to get to that level, monsters were measured by how many XP you would get from killing one....)

I still remember playing a game in a school gym, where the game filled the gym.... (Why, no... we didn't actually finish the game, why do you ask? )

The Auld Grump

My 15mm Kings of War games with the buddy and wife are set in a world that is stereotypically D&D (one I created as a rpg setting based around the DnD Nerath world). Black-skinned "Drow" twilight Kin, etc.

 Swastakowey wrote:

lonestarr777 wrote:
This definitely has potential.

Now if only they could fix the 'hero speedbump' issue I have.

Not sure how many games you have played, but after a while you begin to work out how to defeat heroes who try annoy you or flyers etc.

Its common for a lot of new people to find:

Shooting OP
Flying OP
Heroes OP (especially flying heroes)

Ultimately all just require a bit of experience and then they aren't a huge problem. I think you will find heores eventually end up as anti ranged unit harasser later on... if that.

That's kind of why I find hero's to be bothersome. They aren't really worth it in the grand scheme of things. Even though say like the Troll King is really neat in theory. In concept he's just waiting for a big block of something bad to run him over.

Which kills the point of a hero for me. Now if say I could attach said Troll King to a unit of Cave Trolls I would find him to be less of a liability.

As it stands beyond providing an inspire bubble the heroes don't do much beside require babysitting.

lonestarr777 wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

lonestarr777 wrote:
This definitely has potential.

Now if only they could fix the 'hero speedbump' issue I have.

Not sure how many games you have played, but after a while you begin to work out how to defeat heroes who try annoy you or flyers etc.

Its common for a lot of new people to find:

Shooting OP
Flying OP
Heroes OP (especially flying heroes)

Ultimately all just require a bit of experience and then they aren't a huge problem. I think you will find heores eventually end up as anti ranged unit harasser later on... if that.

That's kind of why I find hero's to be bothersome. They aren't really worth it in the grand scheme of things. Even though say like the Troll King is really neat in theory. In concept he's just waiting for a big block of something bad to run him over.

Which kills the point of a hero for me. Now if say I could attach said Troll King to a unit of Cave Trolls I would find him to be less of a liability.

As it stands beyond providing an inspire bubble the heroes don't do much beside require babysitting.

Which is good, as in real life a small group of heroes should not take on hordes of people and do so well. But they can harass and disrupt. KOW is a game of units over individuals, individuals are there to aid units. If you want a game of beat sticks then I wouldn't even bother looking at KOW really. This is a game of units in a big way.

Regardless heroes still have a place. They are harder to be shot at, among the most mobile units in the game (they wont get attacked by anything unless you let them get attacked) and they go hand in hand with other units of combo charges too. Heroes also benefit from a huge selection of special rules that increase their power greatly such as blade of the beast slayer or wings of the honey maze. In mobility alone a hero will never need baby sitting, only a foolish opponent will try catch a hero that does not want to be caught. But only a foolish player will try use a hero to slay many on the field.

Heroes have their place but it's nothing like warhammer where they slaughter many foes or conjure huge storms of magic that can win games. They are there to aid the units who win the games.

Some heroes stand around (banners for example) but well what else do you expect a banner to do? Unless you give him hand grenades then he becomes a individual hunter or harasser as well as a banner.

Again, how many games have you played out of interest? I think after a few games with competent players you will find things arent as simple as they look in the book. Especially when you realize the power of mobility for example (a heroes most powerful weapon).

Also have you seen someones face when you hero has free reign to slaughter their war machines? Its very satisfying. Or when a hero valiantly gives his life to delay an enemy force winning you the game? Also very nice to see. Or when that hero finishes of a very badly damaged unit freeing up your other unit to do something useful? Heroes are well worth their points if you know how to use them and have space in your list for them.

I personally think heroes are just right in KoW. If you want to see more focus on heroes, you need to play skirmish-level games. It's what I do when I want my 'hero' to have greater characterization. But KoW for me is about how all the pieces fit into a larger force.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
It is fair to say that the fluff in Warhammer at this same age, was largely different than the fluff used in 4th edition onwards.

The setting used to be a lot closer to 14th and 17th century Europe being invaded by Moorcock's Chaos.

Among other differences, the Emperor was largely a figurehead - Elected by the Counts because he could be easily manipulated. Think The Holy Roman Empire at the time of the Thirty Years War.

Brettonia was far from the honorable Arthurian influenced nation that is now. More along the lines of 14th France with the 18th Century French nobility in charge.

Every area was drowning in decadence and decay - Chaos was eating away at the world from within, with the nations applying a thin veneer civility and gaiety as the world trundled to the end times.

It was, in many ways, a much more believable setting - without the Emperor fluttering around on his Thunderchicken. (I hate the most recent figure for the Emperor.) The Old World was a place that smelled of old sewage, while the nobility held scented kerchiefs to their face, in order to avoid the stench

The Auld Grump

Ah, I know that. My question was mostly rhetorical. I wanted to point out KoW's fluff is a very, very recent development, and since it needs to make enough room for many traditional WHFB factions (at least, for now) then it's normal for it to feel bland and not very inspired. It needs time to grow and expand on its own.

As far as I remember the golden "Arthurian" days of Bretonnia were 5th edition, in 6th edition they toned it down a bit, although not to the levels of "corrupt and decadent medieval feudalism" from 4th and before. My issue with the Warhammer Fantasy fluff is that when GW really made an effort to expand it (4th edition forwards) they came up with many good ideas but also a bunch of quite poor ones. One of them would be Nagash, whom I personally loathe as a character, they wanted so badly to have a Big Bad in the setting and they just tried too damn hard.

Butterqwist wrote:
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.

I suspect you have several things going on...

I've meet *many* gamers who have fully bought into the "GW Hobby" and have absolutely no interest in gaming outside of the GW bubble.

I also suspeect that many ex-WHFB players are just too used to GW mechanics. As an example, one of the most common criticisms of KoW that I've heard is that you don't remove models. I remember when I first started playing WHFB back in the day, and watching historical players playing WRG Ancients, Johnny Reb, or what not I was put off by the facf that they didn't remove models. As I played WFHB over the years, though, I completely changed my take and now find removing individual models a) a hassle, b) aesthetically unappealing (both because half or less filled movment trays are ugly and because I spent time painting those models, why do I want them off the table?), and c) ahistorical (units didn't "dissolve" like WHFB units do). But I've also seen (and hear talking face-to-face) many WHFB players say they don't like KoW because you don't remove models...

Another piece is, I'll admit, Mantic's fluff and design ethos. Both are, I'd argue, are well behind GW's quality (although the gap is closing IMNSHO). Some people just don't want to make that jump. Obviously, it's more than possible to use GW figures and WHFB fluff for your games (and that is absoltuely my approach!) but the inital perception puts some folks off.

Related to that is the, somewhat defensible, arguement that the rules are "generic". Mantic might have done themselves a favor by putting a bit more effort into the "chrome". Everyone can have the "Fireball (n)" spell, but give it some different names. I know they were going for clean, simple, core rules (and I totally applaud that) but it came at a bit of a perception cost. It doesn't matter, mechanics-wise if you call a spell "Fireball (6)" or "Mithor's Pyroclasm" but the perception is not the same.

Finally, I'd argue that Mantic just isn't "there" yet with the network effect. Mantic just hasn't hit the critical mass they need to make KoW the "go to" mass fantasy game.

To tack a bit from the OP question, I was a WHFB player since v1 back in the early '80's. After around v6, though, I think GW lost the bubble on a good game. Too anchored to a very archaic core set of rules mechanics, too focused on the "next big thing", and with too many kludged rules to try to keep interest up. They needed a clean restart for the game, but IMHO the KoW rules core is much more the way they should have gone. KoW absolutely has me excited to play mass fantasy battles again.

Valete,

JohnS

A lot of the time proponents of KoW talk about how it's generic as a positive thing.... but I think that's what turns a lot of people off

I will admit I haven't really looked in to KoW all that much because no one I know plays it and I'm too old and cranky to push a new game on people (and frankly all my WHFB buddies moved on to other systems years ago anyway, well, when 8th rolled around).

But when I hear "generic" it really doesn't excite me. Does KoW create the nuanced differences between, say, a Night Goblin and a Common Goblin? Or an Empire Spearman and a Bretonnian Man-at-Arms? A Bretonnian Bowman and an Empire Bowman? Or a Knight Errant and a Knight of the Realm? Or even an Empire Knight vs a Bretonnian Knight? Orc Boyz vs Big Uns vs Savage Orcs vs Savage Orc Big Uns vs Black Orcs, all with Bosses, Big Bosses and Warbosses?

WHFB had become cumbersome and I can see the point in simplifying the core rules. BUT the nuances in the actual units and equipment is a large part of the heart and soul of WHFB.

While I think WHFB could have done with a great deal of simplification, the army books is not where I wanted to see that simplification, I wanted to see it in the core rulebook.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
A lot of the time proponents of KoW talk about how it's generic as a positive thing.... but I think that's what turns a lot of people off

I will admit I haven't really looked in to KoW all that much because no one I know plays it and I'm too old and cranky to push a new game on people (and frankly all my WHFB buddies moved on to other systems years ago anyway).

But when I hear "generic" it really doesn't excite me. Does KoW create the nuanced differences between, say, a Night Goblin and a Common Goblin? Or an Empire Spearman and a Bretonnian Man-at-Arms? A Bretonnian Bowman and an Empire Bowman? Or a Knight Errant and a Knight of the Realm? Or even an Empire Knight vs a Bretonnian Knight? Orc Boyz vs Big Uns vs Savage Orcs vs Savage Orc Big Uns vs Black Orcs, all with Bosses, Big Bosses and Warbosses?

WHFB had become cumbersome and I can see the point in simplifying the core rules. BUT the nuances in the actual units and equipment is a large part of the heart and soul of WHFB.

While I think WHFB could have done with a great deal of simplification, the army books is not where I wanted to see that simplification, I wanted to see it in the core rulebook.

Yea it does actually. "Bretonian" spearmen get inspired by knights etc, while basileans regain health by not wavering/routing, while kingdoms of men have multiple types of spearmen, while empire haflings have their own rules etc. Elf spearmen are generic but can reroll 1s to hit and have move 6, dark elf spear men reroll 1s to wound and are faster. Not all races have spearmen specifically either. Sea people spearmen have ensnare and pathfinder AND regen but have lower moral and weaker defence. There are A LOT of different spearmen too. Thats before you look at pikes, and all the other myriad of units.

Its just not over the top stuff, subtle differences. You will be surprised how different each race is and how their troops play. At first it all looked same/similar but then when you start to get a feel for things all these differences start to show big time. Of course some factions have similar troops in some areas but differ wildly in other areas.

I have not played all the races yet in my 200 or so games yet to know all the differences. But having played Trident realms, Abysalls, Elves, The Herd, Kingdoms of Man and Basileans plus played against many factions I can confidently say that armies play differently as well as individual units etc.

I'd like people to try KoW because unlike wfb it tends to be quicker so you can get more games in, and compared to list building I actually enjoy the moving of my men round the table having such a dramatic effect. These are personal views and to those posting saying KoW is boring and simple on the table or somesuch I will have to agree to disagree and say fair enough.

As to the OP post. Yes. When I started playing KoW the WFB players in my old circle went ballistic. I wasn't trying to get them to play as I had a few other old school fantasy players playing. They would literally lose their minds that someone was playing something not WFB. Vile, nasty and obnoxious. However I don't think the sentiment is unique to GM games...it's just they were muppets with no social skills and mono-focused. Not that they played WFB you get it with anything that people are invested heavily in.

Many other players since the death of the old world have joined and enjoy it. I've given demo game that have resulted in converison to KoW and demo games that result in us realising that the player would be better off with WFB players edition or armies of arcana ect because they really didn't enjoy it. Didn't happen that often though! To the people you know who refuse to even try the game leave them be. Eventually they may have a game, they may even admit they enjoy it. But if not no loss.

 Swastakowey wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
A lot of the time proponents of KoW talk about how it's generic as a positive thing.... but I think that's what turns a lot of people off

I will admit I haven't really looked in to KoW all that much because no one I know plays it and I'm too old and cranky to push a new game on people (and frankly all my WHFB buddies moved on to other systems years ago anyway).

But when I hear "generic" it really doesn't excite me. Does KoW create the nuanced differences between, say, a Night Goblin and a Common Goblin? Or an Empire Spearman and a Bretonnian Man-at-Arms? A Bretonnian Bowman and an Empire Bowman? Or a Knight Errant and a Knight of the Realm? Or even an Empire Knight vs a Bretonnian Knight? Orc Boyz vs Big Uns vs Savage Orcs vs Savage Orc Big Uns vs Black Orcs, all with Bosses, Big Bosses and Warbosses?

WHFB had become cumbersome and I can see the point in simplifying the core rules. BUT the nuances in the actual units and equipment is a large part of the heart and soul of WHFB.

While I think WHFB could have done with a great deal of simplification, the army books is not where I wanted to see that simplification, I wanted to see it in the core rulebook.

Yea it does actually. "Bretonian" spearmen get inspired by knights etc, while basileans regain health by not wavering/routing, while kingdoms of men have multiple types of spearmen, while empire haflings have their own rules etc. Elf spearmen are generic but can reroll 1s to hit and have move 6, dark elf spear men reroll 1s to wound and are faster. Not all races have spearmen specifically either. Sea people spearmen have ensnare and pathfinder AND regen but have lower moral and weaker defence. There are A LOT of different spearmen too. Thats before you look at pikes, and all the other myriad of units.

Its just not over the top stuff, subtle differences. You will be surprised how different each race is and how their troops play. At first it all looked same/similar but then when you start to get a feel for things all these differences start to show big time. Of course some factions have similar troops in some areas but differ wildly in other areas.

I have not played all the races yet in my 200 or so games yet to know all the differences. But having played Trident realms, Abysalls, Elves, The Herd, Kingdoms of Man and Basileans plus played against many factions I can confidently say that armies play differently as well as individual units etc.

Maybe I'm missing something, is there more to it than those free lists on the site? Because they don't look to have anywhere near the nuance that WHFB had.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hyglar's Hellraiser wrote:
I'd like people to try KoW because unlike wfb it tends to be quicker so you can get more games in, and compared to list building I actually enjoy the moving of my men round the table having such a dramatic effect. These are personal views and to those posting saying KoW is boring and simple on the table or somesuch I will have to agree to disagree and say fair enough.

I like list building because I inevitably spend vastly more time painting an army than I do playing with it, list building gives me something to do before I get my models to the point where I'm happy to put them on the table top.