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.

New edition announced on the blog.

380 pages. 14 factions. Supplement with 12 more factions is planned. World is renamed as Pannithor. Northern Alliance army in new edition.

Second edition had 11 armies so I assume they're still in it. Add NA and Nightstalkers to give 13. I wonder who is the 14th army...

I'm really hoping the Uncharted Empires armies survive - my Ratkin have nowhere else to go!

damn, i was too late! you were the first to open the thread on this

i am sure the ratkin will come... if not in october then definitely in the "supplement", aka Uncharted Empires 3rd edition!

It was also the first time I heard them mention "Pannithor" as the name of the world instead of "Mantica" in the release announcement.

I am curious to see how they will transition the name...

My bet is on Twilight Kin.

It will most likely be the 14 factions they already sell models for. 10 from the second edition rulebook:

Abyssal Dwarfs, Basileans, Dwarfs,
Elves, Forces of the Abyss, Forces of Nature,
Goblins, Ogres, Orcs
and Undead

Three from Uncharted Empires:

Empire of Dust, Nightstalkers, Trident Realms of Neritica

And the new Northern Alliance

There are eight other existing factions at the moment:

Brotherhood, the Herd, Kingdoms of Men, League of Rhordia,
Ratkin, Salamanders, Twilight Kin and Varangur

That makes a total of 22 factions, at the end of the year there are supposed to be 26, any guesses what the other four will be?

Ophidia seems to be sort of given, but the other three?

haven't ophidians been a race that's been floating around in the kings of war background for some time? i'm thinking that snake men would be an interesting and unique faction for kings of war.

Nice!

It's been around for a bit, so there's no surprise there. A lot of anticipation, though!

As for the army lists, I think H0neyBe4r is thinking in the right direction as Mantic will probably fist release the army lists where they sell models for.
For all other armies, there'll be "temp" army lists just as Kin are now, I'd guess.

Other than that, I'd guess that Kingdoms of Men (as the staple basic army list) will be in the first volume (maybe instead of Empire of Dust) maybe joined into League of Rhordia.
We'll see.

#hyped


~Vince

four factions missing! hmmmm...

my bet would be to closely check the content of the RPG that is coming out. there might be some clues inside there!

Maybe they also make one Roman-Style or Chinese-Style Faction!? I would be much obliged as I backed that terracotta kickstarter

But I also bet on the Ophidians as one of the four!

Well, i am definitely hoping that ratkin are in in some way because otherwise i'll be in a bit of trouble for my main opponent. I'm also curious if there will be more done with the historical book, or if that will remain a one off thing. I hope it doesn't.

They're not going to orphan anyone, so you can cuddle your ratkin and tell them it will be alright. Mark Cox is not going to invalidate his army!

Nothing will go, but things may change.
eg The Brootherhood won't be like old Bretonnia but more of Abyssal hunting Crusaders

And depending on how real the preview map for the RPG was, we may see some more southern and eastern non-classic Fantasy armies to battle Orphidia

bartok wrote:
They're not going to orphan anyone, so you can cuddle your ratkin and tell them it will be alright. Mark Cox is not going to invalidate his army!

Oh you had better believe i will cuddle them. Even with the pointy spears.

But that is good to hear.

bartok wrote:
They're not going to orphan anyone, so you can cuddle your ratkin and tell them it will be alright. Mark Cox is not going to invalidate his army!

Twilight Kin have been doing nicely with just a temporary list since the start of Kow2. They are one of the more effective armies at the moment!

Esker wrote:New edition announced on the blog.

380 pages. 14 factions. Supplement with 12 more factions is planned. World is renamed as Pannithor. Northern Alliance army in new edition.

Second edition had 11 armies so I assume they're still in it. Add NA and Nightstalkers to give 13. I wonder who is the 14th army...

Trident Realm.

kodos wrote:Nothing will go, but things may change.
eg The Brootherhood won't be like old Bretonnia but more of Abyssal hunting Crusaders

And depending on how real the preview map for the RPG was, we may see some more southern and eastern non-classic Fantasy armies to battle Orphidia

This is sensible and probably what Mantic will do.
I have not considered that the extra armies are to fill the wider map, good thinking!

I suspect that the bigger map will be Pannithor with Mantica still existing as the part we know already.

 kodos wrote:
Nothing will go, but things may change.
eg The Brootherhood won't be like old Bretonnia but more of Abyssal hunting Crusaders

And depending on how real the preview map for the RPG was, we may see some more southern and eastern non-classic Fantasy armies to battle Orphidia

Where to find the preview map!??

Here
https://www.beastsofwar.com/kings-of-war/red-scar-mantic-games-kings-of-war-rpg/

Andy at 2d6's talked about his hopes for 3rd edition. The video isn;t the greatest quality (due to hastiness as he wants to be the first.... ), but still it's an interesting listen:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jcr2UnhnUpc

Any thoughts on his comments?

I think Andy is spot on regarding artifacts (costs should be dependant on effectivity) and terrain (less different rules for various terrain types).

Then, i'm not sure about his statement that the effect of double one should be lessened. I feel the fequency of the dreaded double one (roughly one in twendy with a reroll) is rare enough to warrant its impact and the moments they occur that impact the game make for memorable moments. I think I'd like to keep it as it is.

Finally Andy thinks the force selection may change a bit. I'm really fan of the easy force selections in KoW which focus on units instead of support; so I'm not sure a change is needed. That said, I think all choices should be competetive in their own right, so not sub-obtimal "core" and overpowered "special" sections please!

On that subject, I'd also limit the mid-edition changes that invalidate armies. In 2018 I built a goblin detachment which was invalidated even before it was finished. (story here:https://kingsofwarvince.business.blog/2018/12/16/the-curious-case-of-my-goblin-detachment-1/) . I also had to rebuild my swamp things army as one of my units was redesigned and (more importantly!) repointed, so my 1,500 point army could no longer be fielded. (Story here: https://kingsofwarvince.business.blog/2018/12/22/post-cok-19-reconstucting-a-broken-army/ ). I understand both nerfs were needed for balance issues, but I still feel a bit cheated. Nerfs on the battlefield are okay for balance purposes, but nerfs that invalidate army choices are not.

As a personal gripe of mine, I'd like shooting to be redesigned. As it's now; elven/kin shooting is overpowered; all other normal shooting is pretty sub-par. (full post here: https://kingsofwarvince.business.blog/2018/12/07/why-elven-shooters-are-great-and-men-arent/ ) I think a new edition is the restart we need.

My final thoughts on 3rd edition is that I'd like to see more infantry in action. KoW 2nd edition was the edition of hard-hitting elite units (Drakons, the fallen, elohi, etc) which were mobile and hard hitting. The only roles infantry had were chaff and anvils. In KoW 3rd, I'd like to see a greater diversion for infantry, so that they can furfill all roles except speed.

 vince1248 wrote:
Andy at 2d6's talked about his hopes for 3rd edition. The video isn;t the greatest quality (due to hastiness as he wants to be the first.... ), but still it's an interesting listen:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jcr2UnhnUpc

Any thoughts on his comments?

Variable costs for artefacts is more effort than it's worth IMO. Part of KoW is getting the most out of things with a fixed cost. Using terrain to make a defensive unit more sturdy, or choosing where and when to charge with an aggressive unit to get the most out of it; for example.

Separating nimble and speed from flying is a good idea.

Centre point as opposed to most of a base for being in terrain and/or dominate sounds good.

More historical hills sounds fantastic.

Core tax was horrible, please no more of that. List building is pretty good already. If anything, maybe a duplicate limit for all units might be more reasonable

 kodos wrote:
Here
https://www.beastsofwar.com/kings-of-war/red-scar-mantic-games-kings-of-war-rpg/

Thanks! I missed that! Still Plenty of uncharted terrain ( and thus empires) to go around!

 DarkBlack wrote:
Core tax was horrible, please no more of that. List building is pretty good already. If anything, maybe a duplicate limit for all units might be more reasonable

I hope they don't change list building in any way. Leave duplicate limits up to events - good internal balance means there isn't remotely the copy-pasta problem that GeeDub games suffer from. I personally love to spam things to a) hard bake theme into a list and b) try to get the most mileage out of mediocre units. It would absolutely remove part of the appeal of KOW if an arbitrary limit were placed on non-specialist units.

Uh, since I posted, I guess I don't have many wishes for 3E, beyond gently rebalanced points. It would be nice to see a couple gamey elements removed - like wavered individuals being able to spin and nimble sideways - and I increasingly see the logic of having snake eyes still waver the target, since being stuck in place is punishing enough and if the target is still wavered it puts the onus of doing damage to the poor attaker on tactical play (i.e. having a unit in support of the wavered target) rather than raw luck (i.e. being able to attak back with the snaked unit). I too would like to see the meta shift further away from Elite Flyers and more towards Useful Infantry, however I struggle to see how hard flyers could be nerfed to allow this, apart from a repointing. Which wouldn't be super difficult, as Mantic's formula clearly did not weight Fly heavily enough, yet certainly could be adjusted to do so.

But yea, really hoping for a light hand here, and frankly doing as much to not think about the edition change as I can. Usual edition-change anxieties, plus I've got a major tournament at the end of September to focus on.

EDIT: Also I would really like a softcover edition available upon release, whenever possible I avoid hardcover rules books. I haven't paid attention to if and when the gamer's edition of KOW 3E drops, can only surmise there's a delay for profit reasons.

I hope they add the Rally special rule that they introduced in UE, and add army Musicians that give Rally,like in Historicals.

I would be really happy if the game switched to an alternative ativation system, however I doubt that is going to happen.

Artifacts should have 3 prices, one for Troop, one for Regiment, and one for Horde, that way they can be balanced accordingly.

I think it is possible that we will see larger bases for Monsters, as it is the base sizes are a tad small.

Aside from these small changes I can't think of any changes. I wonder if 3rd edition is going to be essentially 2nd edition but with all the alterations from FAQ and CoK added into one book.

Either way exciting times!

Wishes:
1 - clean up 1" rule, complex multi-charges and other things that are missing in the rules
2 - Less impact of double 1s. For example no re-roll for inspiring if you are over your nerve in damage
3 - graded item costs, probably based on unit point cost
4 - boost to infantry, they look great on the field, but few infantry units are efficient for much beside unlocks
5 - war machine units (batteries)
6 - elite only works on one thing, for example elite (melee)
7 - fix reload shooting, pretty much all of it sucks
8 - even more spells, and option for upgrading more wizards to being able to cast more spells
9 - no huge changes to list building or core rules
10 - add some lists that can slot in for warmachine / horde players so we can recruit from that seemingly dying game

A slight incentive for normal infantry would be nice as I mostly see hordes of large infantry almost exclusively.

I understand the notion for graded artefact costs, but I don't think it's worthwhile.

It's triples the work required to balance artefacts and increases the considerations needed by more than that. There will almost definitely be artefacts that are too good on that one particular unit of that size somewhere.

Not to mention that smaller units are more fragile and cheaper in game already, so putting any upgrades on them at all is already iffy, even cheap one.

What we have now works almost as well for a fraction of the work and potential error. The returns on all that extra work are not great either and not doing it very well will make the game worse.
KoW is already a game where resources are very even, so getting the most out of units with a fixed cost is a large part of winning the game. Figuring out the best place for artefacts is just an extension of that.

Another thing to think about: How much do we want our armies to be unique compared to other armies?

Now at the end of KoW2, some armies are remarkably similar in list-building options and play style. (The play style of Orcs, Varangur and Ratkin is remarkably similar, each heavy hitting infantry lists with some support. Likewise, kingdoms of Men and Goblins play remarkably similar, each a horde-style army which needs combined arms to be effective)

I think I'd like some more variety between army lists; but this does have some disadvantages. I wrote a blog post about this:

https://kingsofwarvince.business.blog/2019/07/15/how-unique-should-armies-be/

Summary: If you want more unique armies, one gotta be prepared to lose some units from your roster and less options for allies.

 Illumini wrote:
1 - clean up 1" rule, complex multi-charges and other things that are missing in the rules

Yea, there are a lot of messy situations that come up around the 1" rule when the game actually hits the tabletop, that we all sort of fumble through. Clarity of who pushes back 1" and when would be appreciated.

I'd also like clarity on what an illegal corner-to-corner charge actually is. Like, minimum 10mm of contact? 20mm? My tolerance for corner charges (read: I hate them) is very different from some opponents', which always means I'm the one getting flanked when I thought it was obviously a corner charge and thus illegal, but thanks to the book's vagueness I'm also always in the wrong and just lost a big important piece

I can fully explain corner charges in one sentence:

If 1 unit is being charged by 3 enemy units, the middle unit must have a smaller frontage than the charged unit.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
I can fully explain corner charges in one sentence:

If 1 unit is being charged by 3 enemy units, the middle unit must have a smaller frontage than the charged unit.

Frontal combo-charges is in fact the only case where I do understand it But thanks

It's flying units popping in from the flanks to nab a ~5mm edge that I would have assumed was obviously a corner charge ... but apparently not.

 vince1248 wrote:
Another thing to think about: How much do we want our armies to be unique compared to other armies?

Now at the end of KoW2, some armies are remarkably similar in list-building options and play style. (The play style of Orcs, Varangur and Ratkin is remarkably similar, each heavy hitting infantry lists with some support. Likewise, kingdoms of Men and Goblins play remarkably similar, each a horde-style army which needs combined arms to be effective)

I think I'd like some more variety between army lists; but this does have some disadvantages. I wrote a blog post about this:

https://kingsofwarvince.business.blog/2019/07/15/how-unique-should-armies-be/

Summary: If you want more unique armies, one gotta be prepared to lose some units from your roster and less options for allies.

Maybe the Formations could do the trick here to give each army their different flavors? that and having spell restrictions for certain armies? or artefact restrictions for alignments (though i am not a fan of the latter because i would like to keep the list building as simple as possible)?

Varangur infantry lists? Where so you see those? Fallen, mounted sons, dire fangs and monsters is Varangur. I am currently trying to make infantry Varangur work, and that is a tough cookie.

Ratkin are one of the most shooty-grindy armies. They don't have much in common with Varangur at all IMO.

Orks have cost efficient infantry and are extremely melee heavy, again a very different feel from the two others IMO.

 Schmendrick wrote:

Maybe the Formations could do the trick here to give each army their different flavors? that and having spell restrictions for certain armies? or artefact restrictions for alignments (though i am not a fan of the latter because i would like to keep the list building as simple as possible)?

So the GW approach of just piling more rules on top?
The lack of capter tactics, spell lores and magical item lists per army is part of why I like KoW. No thank you.