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.

 Boss Salvage wrote:
Funnily enough, most of stonehorse's points are either pros for me (pure IGOUGO that fully facilitates clock play, very open force design, lots of dice, units more or less functioning at full power until removed, extremely minimal book requirement compared to GW) or meaningless (game setting) But I'm here for a critical voice being leveled at KOW by a person who actually plays it (pretty sure stonehorse has real experience with the game), and not just GW fanboys clinging to Mama Dub's apron strings.

Also re: WAAC lists in KOW, I don't think they're anything at all compared to WAAC lists in any GW game. I've had plenty of experiences in GW games where I know I've lost before dice happen because I've chosen to run Less Obviously Good things. It's very rare I feel this way in KOW ... tho I'm currently running a weak Herd army and let me tell you, I'm feeling outgunned in more ways than one One of the reasons I fell in love with KOW is the internal balance within lists, something that I never experienced within my GW upbringing. I'm happy to say this continues to be true, despite that balance not being perfect (i.e. war engines vs ranged infantry vs 'firebolt' infantry).

Never in all my 10 years playing Kings of War has anyone ever suggested using chess clocks. That part of the rules is very much a gimmick that was tacked on as an after thought. Using it as a reason why the game has to remain IGOUGO doesn't carry water. IGOUGO creates a lot of down time, and limits player interaction, the only player interaction during a players turn within the game come a magic item.

Kings of War would play a lot better with the following changes:

• Alternative activations, with units fighting back but counting as having activated. This allows for more tactical play, and creates player interactions.

• Damage on a unit reduces the number of attacks. So 10 points of damage, 10 less attacks.

• Nerve tests are a single d6. Less swingy. A 1 counts as the current double 1's, and a 6 will as the current double 6's.

• Flank and rear charges now double or triple the amount of damage caused. So roll as normal, then just apply the multiplier.

• Characters can join units, they active along with the unit put them at the side of the unit. They are deployed with the unit and can not leave the unit in the game. They are removed if the unit is removed. In melee they attack using their stats what ever is being attacked. If they are in the way of an opponents flank attack, simply move them to the other flank.

• more units to be irregular, this is to encourage people to take more core troops for their faction.

I think it is telling how you callout GW fan boys, Mantic are not immune to this phenomenon. Seeing as a large chunk of WFB players jumped over to KoW, they would have carried that mentality with them. I have never understood brand/system loyalty, if something is flawed, it is flawed. Mantic are in a lot of ways like GW, Kings of War is now into its 3rd edition, the game is only 10 years old, that works out at a new edition every 3-4 years, that is very much a GW manoeuvre. Plus 3rd is just a slight tweek of 2nd, which in turn was just a slight tweek of 1st. The game hasn't made ant radical changes to its rules since day one. I strongly suspect that 4th edition will follow in the same footsteps. Again, very much a page out of GW's play book.

It seems that Mantic get a pass from the community at large because they aren't GW, yet they do all the things that get people up in arms about with GW... even down to a devoted fandom. Now Mantic can't control the Fandom, so it isn'tfair to blame them for the actions of that fandom.

I think this is a symptom of a wider issue, that of tribalism. We see it in things like the 'console wars', sports, and even fast food franchises.

I have no problem with Alternating Player Turns and for me it is a feature

not all games need to be similar or do the same, as if everyone is going to use alternate unit activation you get nor real difference in the games any more
having a more dynamic gameplay would be nice, but not just the blunt unit activation everyone else is using

changing flank and rear from attacks to damage would be a good change to reduce dice rolling
will change the outcome on some units as the potential damage differs but overall a positive change

not a friend of characters joining units but being used to historical games were commanders are always on their own it is the the default thing for me, were joining the units I only know from Warhammer with all the negative aspects of units being reduced to vehicles to deliver the hero unharmed to the target and nothing more

that there is no damage but only "moral" is also something I am used to from historical games
the unit is fully working until you break it and it flees is the default mechanic for most unit level games were damage is more for mass-skirmish games
what could be a good change is to increase the difference between wavering and routed, those are too close together on most units

a single D6 is more swingy than 2D6, you want 2D3 for less margin, which could be a good change



in my opinion, the overall problem is not that Mantic gets a free pass because they are Mantic, but that they have advertised their game as being more constant and new Editions being upgrades and not change for the sake of change

There are things out there only GW can do were any other game will be dead after it

So changing too much, no matter if it is for the better or not, will result in people walking away because it is not their game any more, Mantic being like GW and makes big changes for nothing etc.

We have seen this with SAGA, changes from 1st to 2nd Editon were less than a GW Chapter Approved or GHB, with all of them making for a better game
Yet people stopped playing it over night, not even testing the changes but just reading how much changed and were done with the game

The game starts now to recover from this loss with new players but is still not there were it once was and still avoided by those who played 1st Edition

Similar with Lasalle, the author kept the name from the 1st Edition for consistency, as same setting and same scale, were 2nd Edition is very different game, and a much better one
People don't even try it because "too many changes and we don't like games that change"

Same with Deadzone, 2nd Edition was changed for the better, and it more or less died over night and needed to build up a new community because not a lot of people accepted the changes

So the changes Mantic can make to KoW without losing the majority of the Community are limited
Because they are not GW and people won't accept changes that easily

I think it's really healthy to see some pushback against KOW.

I disagree with almost every criticism raised above but it's good to have some alternative opinions.

The best advice, which had been offered by both sides, is to download the free rules and play a game. Since it's a unit based hand without casualty removal you can get a feel for the rules just using cardboard squares.

One point that should be pointed out to fans of alternating activation and other player interactivity is that the game has always been DELIBERATELY designed to have only the player whose return it is take any actions, dice rolls, etc. It's a core feature and enforces a linearity that something most KOW players enjoy about the rules.

That is unlikely to change and if you don't like design philosophy -an entirely reasonable opinion- then this is not the game for you. And that's ok. It's silly though to argue that the game should switch to alternating activation. Not going to happen.

As regarding rule updates and buying books. With the cost of the rulebook and multi army supplement together still averaging less than the cost of a full GW rulebook, a new edition every 4 years is not really a big cost investment.

Boss Salvage wrote:Funnily enough, most of stonehorse's points are either pros for me (pure IGOUGO that fully facilitates clock play, very open force design, lots of dice, units more or less functioning at full power until removed, extremely minimal book requirement compared to GW) or meaningless (game setting) But I'm here for a critical voice being leveled at KOW by a person who actually plays it (pretty sure stonehorse has real experience with the game), and not just GW fanboys clinging to Mama Dub's apron strings.

It is actually a decent list of features that one may or may not like. They're mostly positives for me too, but understandable that someone might not like them.
I take issue with declaring that KoW is a badly designed game though. KoW meets design goals, whether those goals are what you like or not.

stonehorse wrote:Never in all my 10 years playing Kings of War has anyone ever suggested using chess clocks. That part of the rules is very much a gimmick that was tacked on as an after thought. Using it as a reason why the game has to remain IGOUGO doesn't carry water. IGOUGO creates a lot of down time, and limits player interaction, the only player interaction during a players turn within the game come a magic item.

It's really only relevant if time is an issue, like at a tournament. As per interviews with Alessio Cavatore (who did the original games design) being able to to use chess clock and solve the "slow play issue" was an intentional design decision.
In many games IGOUGO does create a lot of down time, but KoW plays fast enough that it isn't an issue (for me anyway). Mostly due to not having the things you demand below. If your opponents play so slowly that it is an issue then maybe you should try chess clocks.
I interact with my opponent during their turn by confirming their measurements ("yes, that unit is out of charge range, not reason to argue later"), reminding them of my stats ("don't forget wild charge" or "my de is..."). A bit of time to figure out my next moves or grab a drink is nice too,

Kings of War would play a lot better with the following changes:

I disagree, strongly, with all of these. They all go against the core design philosophy of favouring simplicity.

• Alternative activations, with units fighting back but counting as having activated. This allows for more tactical play, and creates player interactions.

Play is already exceedingly tactical.
Alternating activation is great for skirmish games, but not for mass battle. Troops should be able to advance in a line.

• Damage on a unit reduces the number of attacks. So 10 points of damage, 10 less attacks.

This is extra admin that doesn't add much more than the devastated rule. Units being combat effective or routed is not actually unrealistic.

• Nerve tests are a single d6. Less swingy. A 1 counts as the current double 1's, and a 6 will as the current double 6's.

It isn't really. Smaller range, but gives a random number rather than a normal distribution with an average value.

• Flank and rear charges now double or triple the amount of damage caused. So roll as normal, then just apply the multiplier.

Pretty much the same, but with less dice. Most players enjoy rolling loads of dice on occasion. Another matter of taste that you seem to think is more important than it is.

• Characters can join units, they active along with the unit put them at the side of the unit. They are deployed with the unit and can not leave the unit in the game. They are removed if the unit is removed. In melee they attack using their stats what ever is being attacked. If they are in the way of an opponents flank attack, simply move them to the other flank.

Not significantly different to just having an individual next to a unit, but with more rules.

• more units to be irregular, this is to encourage people to take more core troops for their faction.

3rd edition had more irregular units and it was not a popular change.

I think it is telling how you callout GW fan boys, Mantic are not immune to this phenomenon. Seeing as a large chunk of WFB players jumped over to KoW, they would have carried that mentality with them. I have never understood brand/system loyalty, if something is flawed, it is flawed. Mantic are in a lot of ways like GW, Kings of War is now into its 3rd edition, the game is only 10 years old, that works out at a new edition every 3-4 years, that is very much a GW manoeuvre. Plus 3rd is just a slight tweek of 2nd, which in turn was just a slight tweek of 1st. The game hasn't made ant radical changes to its rules since day one. I strongly suspect that 4th edition will follow in the same footsteps. Again, very much a page out of GW's play book.

It seems that Mantic get a pass from the community at large because they aren't GW, yet they do all the things that get people up in arms about with GW... even down to a devoted fandom. Now Mantic can't control the Fandom, so it isn'tfair to blame them for the actions of that fandom.

I think this is a symptom of a wider issue, that of tribalism. We see it in things like the 'console wars', sports, and even fast food franchises.

I am certainly a Mantic fan. Mostly because they don't do the things that lead to me giving up GW games.
They're similar in that the are boh gaming companies that need to make money, but their priorities and aims are different. i am in no way blind to Mantic's faults, I think that they overreached with 3rd edition and should have changes less.
Mantic has nothing near the constant churn of unbalanced rules that GW produces.
The annual Clash of Kings Mantic produces is reasonably priced and has a reason for being released. It's nice to have something new for each tournament season and it can be ignored if you and your group are not interested in that.

3rd edition was released just shy and in celebration of Kow's 10 year anniversary. That's 5 years per edition, a reasonable rate in my book.
Each edition seeks to improve on a good game; which is a good goal to have for a gaming company IMO.
That is absolutely isn't is a page from GW's book, they have had radical changes between editions and your suggestion that it's a similar is ridiculous.

I'm a Mantic fan because they do things in a way that I appreciate and make a game that I enjoy. IF those things change I would dump Mantic games like I did GW games, but I don't expect that to happen,

If you don't enjoy KoW that's fine, it's designed (well) to be a certain way that is (evidently) not for everyone.
No need to gak on something I enjoy because your tastes are different though. That's why I'm calling you out, not tribalism.
I said the same thing about AoS when it was new.

I don't have any experience with either (KoW does it the way I like it), but to my understanding of them Oathmark and 9th Age are the kind of games that you seem to be looking for.

 stonehorse wrote:
Never in all my 10 years playing Kings of War has anyone ever suggested using chess clocks.

Basically every minigame played in a tournament format in America uses chess clocks, although many games aren't designed for it. KOW is the least painful to play on a clock for me because it's pure IGOUGO. But as for down time in KOW, I really don't find it the yawning abyss that you do, I use the time to take photos, tidy up the board, prep for next turn (hopefully!) and listen to my opponent as they tell me what they're doing and what their intent is. I can't remember playing KOW and just sitting in silence, there's a lot of conversation that goes into social minigaming simply around the game at hand.

So Mantic have a sense of humour about criticisms of the game...
https://www.manticgames.com/news/mantic-is-featured-in-a-comic/


The game is designed with tournament play heavily in mind, but unlike say 40k where they are trying to accommodate that, it was done from the ground up.

So chess clocks have absolutely been a thing in tournies I have seen.

The idea is to get a game that uses big blocks of fantasy troops and have it play out from start to end in good time, in fact at most games nights you have time to play 2 games of an evening. In this regard its similar to newer historical blocks of infantry games like King of the Battlefield.

With basing being all important I have seen it played a fair amount with printed card troops, both 2d and 3d, and different scales. Blocks of 15mm or 10mm troops can look fairly incredible and stop looking like 28mm skirmishes.

It takes IGOUGO to its ultimate conclusion, but reduces the alpha strike potential. Yes you can get shattered in a turn, but you can also position to stop that, something that is hard to do in games like 40k.

For the speed and simlicity combined with player base it would be my choice for 28mm troop block fantasy (conversely for AOS style basing God of Battles wins out), but at that point a voice inside me asks why aren't we just playing Warmaster?

I will say I have not played any wargames in quite a while, but when KOW came out, I dumped WHFB rules and never looked back.

Being a super casual gamer with my boys, I could not invest the intellectual time and capital to keep up with WHFB - way to much complexity. If you want your rank and file army game to be a little simpler and streamlined, KOW is your game.

Very much agree that all of those suggestions would just destroy the great game KoW is. DarkBlack answered it very well.

If that is what you want from a game, then you should look elsewhere.

Chess clocks can actually improve the game even for friendly gaming, as they force decisions, which is sometimes needed with indecisive, detail-oriented players.

IGOUGO is bad game design. A game is meant to be fun and engage all players. The extreme IGOUGO in KoW is the antithesis of this. It may be a design philosophy, but that doesn't pardon it from being bad. During my opponents turn I could go make a cup of tea, read some news articles, hang the wasing out to dry, etc, as I am simply not needed to be there, for all intents and purposes the game is lacking in player interaction to a level they might as well be playing a solo game or a video game

This is why it is bad game design.

I used to really enjoy KoW, as I get older I find the extreme IGOUGO, and made with tournament crows in mind to be very off putting. I want games where all players have agency and the game has player interaction, and scope for narrative play.

As for claims that it is the most streamlined, and fastest mass combat system, hardly. Age of Fantasy Regiments has those titles.

Alternating Player Turns is not bad design because there is no interaction
this is intended by the design

interruption of the turn is bad designs

hence if you want more interaction, you don't have more interruptions but shorter turns

could be alternating phases instead of turns, or alternating unit activation, but it is still the same, as long as the active player is doing something, the passive player is doing nothing, everything else is bad design

you problem is simply that the downtime between turns is too long
but without a clock, this does not change, if you have alternating unit activation and your opponent needs 1 hour to act with each unit every time, the downtime is even longer than with alternating turns were the opponent makes his turn in 10 minutes

I understand that it is intentional... that doesn't mean it isn't bad game design.

The down time varies upon size of a game, it is also the sheer lack of player interaction. Hence my I could go and do something else while they play their turn, as I am not needed. Being not needed at a game is not a feature. I'm not in favour of interrupts, those are different to interactions. For example in WFB (I use this as people are more familiar with it), on a players turn the opponent did get to fight in melee, got to try to stop spells, had to check for leadership based checks... they were needed there on their opponents turn to play the game.

That is bad game design, we play miniature games to interact with people. KoW has gone too far into abstraction to remove that element, prime example of this is infantry with spears and pikes have to charge to fight in melee. Those are defensive weapons, they are meant to be used at receiving a charge, not charging into melee.

Here is much easier to get WHFB 6th, 7th or 8th edition than King of War games. There's a significant community of old editions of warhammer hanging around while I've never heard of anyone playing Kings of War.

WHFB 6th edition in particular was amazing for casual games.

but because it is alternating player turns, those are still bad designed games

 stonehorse wrote:
A game is meant to be fun and engage all players.

I personally find KOW to be a ton of fun and very engaging, and certainly more so than the alternating activation games I've played. While I've technically been more engaged during some alternating games, I wouldn't say I actually enjoy that level of intense nonstop rules-driven engagement. I'm fully able to stay engaged in a game of KOW without having to be rolling dice at all times or the one making decisions. What I appreciate about how KOW has approached player turns is that it doesn't pretend like the inactive player is actually doing something overly meaningful. Looking back on 20 years of playing Warhammer, I mostly see a lot of games where the active player shatters the reactive, with token resistance or extreme luck being all the reactive player can muster (unless the active player has overreached or is fishing themselves).

Soooo while I can objectively agree that alternating activation in game design is of a higher order than IGOUGO and certainly more modern, it's hard for me to swallow that it's a core choice that is so horrendous as to be 'bad' or a 'mistake.' Especially given the thousands of games that use it! You could use words like 'archaic' or 'boring' or 'not to my liking' or anything, but I just don't buy that it's 'bad design.' Bad design are the editions of WHFB and W40k and AOS that used IGOUGO and also didn't stop Turn 1 alpha strikes. Or used IGOUGO and didn't balance anything. Bad design is using IGOUGO and not addressing its shortcomings. I'm not of the opinion that KOW commits this sin. Despite using IGOUGO.

I certainly didn't expect that one day I'd be defending IGOUGO, such an obviously dated bit of game design

Aside: I feel like one of the more legit complaints against KOW is that as a whole the scenarios aren't great. Dynamic / progressive scoring is the way forward, especially for IGOUGO.

Why does IGOUGO or any particular mechanic have to be a "good" or "bad" thing? Why can't it simply be a mechanic that some prefer or dislike in a given games.

I have played dozens of wargames rulesets over the years and enjoyed games with a wide variety of activation mechanics including alternating, random, by-initiative (or similar stat), full IGOUGO, IGOUGO with opponent interaction required, Reaction systems, etc and I'm sure there are some I've forgotten.

Folks explaining their preferences and ideas about game design is great and makes for good discussion. However those saying one is fundamentally better (or worse) than the others would do well to get over themselves and realize just how broad the range of wargaming design objectives and philosophies are and how equally broad are the range of player preferences.

Sometimes in life, things are objectively good or bad, even when it comes to game design.

IGOUGO can be ok, if there is still player interaction. Again, KoW has gone too extreme (remember extremes are bad) with this and removed player interaction entirely.

Next time I play Kings of War, on my opponents turn I'll leave the room and only come back when they are finished. Me being there is not important, again... I could leave my opponent to play their turn and the game wouldn't suffer, my opponent could do the same and again the game wouldn't suffer.

Does that sound like good game design to you?

 stonehorse wrote:

Next time I play Kings of War, on my opponents turn I'll leave the room and only come back when they are finished. Me being there is not important, again... I could leave my opponent to play their turn and the game wouldn't suffer, my opponent could do the same and again the game wouldn't suffer.

Does that sound like good game design to you?

Lots of games have that, even computer games. To be honest I prefer that to the false interaction in a game like 40k where you are there to role saves and tell the opponent your rules…

your problem has nothing to do with IGUGO but waiting time between actions

but I guess you would be more happy if you were supposed to roll the nerve test instead of the active player and would need to declare charge reactions

than you have something to do in the opponent's actions no matter if this increase to overall length of the game

40k is hardly a prime example of a good game.

No, it is nothing to do with waiting times, it is the lack of player interaction. Again, IGOUGO with player interaction (charge reactions, attacks back, attempt at stopping spells, etc) make the game engaging and a back and forth between players.

Player interactions do not make increase a games overall length, not sure why you'd thank that if anything else speed up the game, as in melee both units get to attack.

 stonehorse wrote:
I understand that it is intentional... that doesn't mean it isn't bad game design.

The down time varies upon size of a game, it is also the sheer lack of player interaction. Hence my I could go and do something else while they play their turn, as I am not needed. Being not needed at a game is not a feature. I'm not in favour of interrupts, those are different to interactions. For example in WFB (I use this as people are more familiar with it), on a players turn the opponent did get to fight in melee, got to try to stop spells, had to check for leadership based checks... they were needed there on their opponents turn to play the game.

That is bad game design, we play miniature games to interact with people. KoW has gone too far into abstraction to remove that element, prime example of this is infantry with spears and pikes have to charge to fight in melee. Those are defensive weapons, they are meant to be used at receiving a charge, not charging into melee.

So pike blocks never advanced into combat? Phalanxes just stood there until someone charged them? What a silly argument.

Pike blocks and spears in KoW are generally used as in history, as the frontline you want to lock your opponent into while you flank their main line. Their rules reflect that they are a good defensive tool.
If the enemy does not oblige to charge into you and just stands in charge range, it probably means that they outshoot you, or are in control of objectives already, and your pike / spears will of course be forced to move and initiate the engagement. A "charge" can of course also simulate a phalanx moving forward to engage the enemy formation.

The "downtime" is generally 10-15 minutes per turn, where you double check measurements, answer questions about nerve, stats etc, plan some counters to their moves, and talk to your opponent. If you are so bored because you cannot roll dice for 10-15 minutes, maybe the problem is not really the ruleset?

 stonehorse wrote:
40k is hardly a prime example of a good game.

No, it is nothing to do with waiting times, it is the lack of player interaction. Again, IGOUGO with player interaction (charge reactions, attacks back, attempt at stopping spells, etc) make the game engaging and a back and forth between players.

than it is not IGoUGo any more

I make an action and finish it, than you make an action and finish it = IGoUGo, no matter how long this action is (can be a single action, a unit, a phase, a turn)
or
I make an action, you interrupt it, than you make your reaction, I interrupt it, make my counter reaction, you finish your reaction, than I finish my action = Action-Reaction System

IGoUGo is a design decision that a player finish his action before the opponent can do something
it has advantages and disadvantages

me personally, I hate it when my actions are interrupted and the opponent takes more time to think about his reaction, than I need for my action
while he thinks about of he should "stand", "shoot", or "flee", I can leave the room, make coffee, to the laundry and come back to see that he still does not know what he wants to do
very bad game design as I cannot even finish what I wanted to do during my turn and have to wait for the opponent to make my actions

I prefer IGoUGo over other systems, although Action-Reaction works very well for Magic the Gathering I just not like it for wargames

make Kings of War alternating Phases, instead of turns, or alternating units does not matter, as long as IGoUGo is still there to make sure that the passive player is doing nothing until the active player has finished his actions

this is the great advantage for me in KoW

 Illumini wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:
I understand that it is intentional... that doesn't mean it isn't bad game design.

The down time varies upon size of a game, it is also the sheer lack of player interaction. Hence my I could go and do something else while they play their turn, as I am not needed. Being not needed at a game is not a feature. I'm not in favour of interrupts, those are different to interactions. For example in WFB (I use this as people are more familiar with it), on a players turn the opponent did get to fight in melee, got to try to stop spells, had to check for leadership based checks... they were needed there on their opponents turn to play the game.

That is bad game design, we play miniature games to interact with people. KoW has gone too far into abstraction to remove that element, prime example of this is infantry with spears and pikes have to charge to fight in melee. Those are defensive weapons, they are meant to be used at receiving a charge, not charging into melee.

So pike blocks never advanced into combat? Phalanxes just stood there until someone charged them? What a silly argument.

Pike blocks and spears in KoW are generally used as in history, as the frontline you want to lock your opponent into while you flank their main line. Their rules reflect that they are a good defensive tool.
If the enemy does not oblige to charge into you and just stands in charge range, it probably means that they outshoot you, or are in control of objectives already, and your pike / spears will of course be forced to move and initiate the engagement. A "charge" can of course also simulate a phalanx moving forward to engage the enemy formation.

The "downtime" is generally 10-15 minutes per turn, where you double check measurements, answer questions about nerve, stats etc, plan some counters to their moves, and talk to your opponent. If you are so bored because you cannot roll dice for 10-15 minutes, maybe the problem is not really the ruleset?

Advance into combat is different to charging into combat. Hence why I didn't say advancing into combat. That being said the Pike is a defence weapon... as it is a spear that is over 8ft tall, it is unwieldy, and ill-suited at being a weapon used to assault. So, not really a silly argument, unless you can provide historical accounts of pikemen using their pikes in a charge against their foes?

Again for the umpteenth time now, it is the lack of player interaction. Why do I need to repeat myself so many times? I am more than capable of waiting thank you very much

 stonehorse wrote:
Sometimes in life, things are objectively good or bad, even when it comes to game design.

IGOUGO can be ok, if there is still player interaction. Again, KoW has gone too extreme (remember extremes are bad) with this and removed player interaction entirely.

Next time I play Kings of War, on my opponents turn I'll leave the room and only come back when they are finished. Me being there is not important, again... I could leave my opponent to play their turn and the game wouldn't suffer, my opponent could do the same and again the game wouldn't suffer.

Does that sound like good game design to you?

Maybe I just don't think it's a bad thing to have wait a bit?

I've never found the IGOUGO aspect of KOW to be a detriment to my enjoyment of the game. It's such a fast moving game that as long as your opponent is halfway competent turns are just not very long.

If turns of KOW took as long as WHFB perhaps you'd have a point but they don't.

Further, between letting my opponent know what their damage rolls need to be, recording damage, plotting my next moves and congratulating my opponent on good moves there just isn't allot of dead time.

Seems like what you think is "objectively bad" is actually "subjectively bad". And that's ok.

 stonehorse wrote:

Advance into combat is different to charging into combat. Hence why I didn't say advancing into combat. That being said the Pike is a defence weapon... as it is a spear that is over 8ft tall, it is unwieldy, and ill-suited at being a weapon used to assault. So, not really a silly argument, unless you can provide historical accounts of pikemen using their pikes in a charge against their foes

Off topic but go check out Alexander and The Foot Companions (his pike blocks with their Sarisa's). The absolutely closed with the enemy to fix them and allow combined arms attacks from other units.

I think the turn system of KoW is a feature and one they should not change, but it is also a reason why I do not like KoW in 28+mm.

I think any interaction they add will not be worth the cost in time.

Plus, I like that KoW takes IGOUGO to the extreme because it is such a different experience, and I like to switch games every now and then.

stonehorse wrote:Again for the umpteenth time now, it is the lack of player interaction. Why do I need to repeat myself so many times? I am more than capable of waiting thank you very much

You need to repeat yourself because you don't read. We understand that you want interaction. We understand that you don't like IGOUGO.
All we're saying is that you not liking it does not make it bad design. It's a design choice that has it's place (as in KoW) and isn't necessarily good or bad,
This thread now have many reasons why we (not YOU, we get it) like the extreme IGOUGO in KoW and like how the game is designed, Clearly we enjoy it.

Is it really so difficult to understand that other people might enjoy different things to you?

The_Real_Chris wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:

Advance into combat is different to charging into combat. Hence why I didn't say advancing into combat. That being said the Pike is a defence weapon... as it is a spear that is over 8ft tall, it is unwieldy, and ill-suited at being a weapon used to assault. So, not really a silly argument, unless you can provide historical accounts of pikemen using their pikes in a charge against their foes

Off topic but go check out Alexander and The Foot Companions (his pike blocks with their Sarisa's). The absolutely closed with the enemy to fix them and allow combined arms attacks from other units.

he is just thinking of a very short time frame, around the 30 years war were Pikes were only used to defend Musketiers against Cavalry (New Model Army) while in the centuries before that it was also a weapon for attack
(just with the problem that because of GW's use of that word, what most people in Wargaming understand as a Pike or Spear has nothing to do with the real weapon as in the different parts of the world even the same name was used for different weapons and tactics)

The_Real_Chris wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:

Advance into combat is different to charging into combat. Hence why I didn't say advancing into combat. That being said the Pike is a defence weapon... as it is a spear that is over 8ft tall, it is unwieldy, and ill-suited at being a weapon used to assault. So, not really a silly argument, unless you can provide historical accounts of pikemen using their pikes in a charge against their foes

Off topic but go check out Alexander and The Foot Companions (his pike blocks with their Sarisa's). The absolutely closed with the enemy to fix them and allow combined arms attacks from other units.

I think stonehorse is taking the "charge" action too literally, Pikes advancing at jogging speed, or even a walk into the enemy is still a "charge". Of course, they could have a special rule that their max charge range is shorter than other units, to account for the slower maximum pace, but IMO, that is very low on the list of improvements to KoW.

I also found a historic quote that mentions charging pikemen running head-long "like the Swiss do" :

Marshall of France Monluc, in his speech to the troops before the battle of Ceresole in 1544:

Gentlemen, it may be there are not many here who have ever been in a Battel before, and therefore let me tell you, that if we take our Pikes by the hinder end, and right at the length of the Pike, we shall be defeated; for the Germans are more dextrous at this kind of fight than we are: but you must take your Pikes by the middle as the Swisse do, and run head-long to force and penetrate into the midst of them, and you shall see how confounded they will be. Monsieur de Tais then cryed out to me to go along the Battail, and make them all handle their Pikes after this manner, which I accordingly did, and now we were all ready for the Encounter.

@Darkblack & @Illumini

So we're at that stage now, personal attacks, insinuating that I 1) don't read, and 2) have a short attention span/get bored easily.

Please note that in my criticism of KoW I never said someone is wrong to enjoy it, I didn't make any judgement of what someone should or shouldn't like/enjoy. I understand that people enjoy KoW, I used to be counted among that group. My criticism still remains valid, the game designers have made the game purposely devoid of player interaction... now, people are free to enjoy that and even seen that as plus. However it must be stressed that games are meant to be interactive, taking that away from a game does come across as bad game design.

Anyway, I'll take my leave now, thanks for the snide comments leveled against criticism I guess?

 stonehorse wrote:


Anyway, I'll take my leave now, thanks for the snide comments leveled against criticism I guess?

Don't be like that. Not all KoW players are reacting this way. Better to just ignore the personnal attacks, honestly.

I do agree with your statement about KoW fanboyz and about Mantic Games actually using the GW handbook for many things, even though their fans don't aknowledge that. It is important to remember Mantic Games was made by ex-GW employees who aren't especially ignorant of the usual marketing tricks. They also know they benefit a lot from that image of "not being like GW", though.

That's why I keep believing they're no better than GW.


Otherwise, I still appreciate KoW for what it is, even though we do have indeed the current GW game system cycle at work here. That you need less books to play everything doesn't change that fact.

I never saw IGOUGO systems especially better nor worst than alternate activation systems. They simply offer different game experiences : one more strategic and the other more tactical. In IGOUGO, you tend to work a plan at the army level since you play your whole army before your opponent do the same. In alternate activations system, you tend to react more to the level of "units" - you still have a plan, of course, but it's more likely you have to change it faster since your opponent can immediately play after you move one of your pawns on the board.

I agree waiting time is longer in IGOUGO systems. And I do recognize it's not especially fun in itself. However, I think the perception of this waiting time to be "lost time" really depends on how you look at the game itself. To me, a game is not just to be enjoyed by itself, it's also enjoying the company of others (which is why Jervis Johnson talked a lot about the "social contract of games"). When you wait for your turn, being "inactive" in game doesn't mean you're inactive as a person. Usually, that's when you chat with your opponent or check others things, and it's very practical for taking short breaks indeed. I don't see it necessarily as a bad thing for that reason.

I never used chess clock either. Besides, it's funny to note that chess game is a alternate activation game, not an IGOUGO system. You don't move all of your chess pieces before your opponent does, after all. I also think it's completely irrelevant to use chess clocks as justification for IGOUGO system. And it's not especially suited for tournaments as well, nor its organization.

What I do enjoy in KoW is its relative simplicity. Even though the 3rd edition adds a few more layers that I'm not really convinced were needed (the rule for double 1 on moral checks, seriously...it's there only to say they did something for the handful of players moaning about "randomness being in the way of player skills"), it's still fast to understand and play. In comparison to Warhammer Battle, that is. So I totally get the irony of the comic shown above as well.


That said, given the original post and the poster's background, I'd say he fills all the boxes for enjoying KoW - since it was, honestly, designed to be a simplified Warhammer Battle game, at the base.