(KICKSTARTER) Mantic: Warpath

[tnjrp]

With a reasonable definition of need, I don't think I'll ever need another miniature again (apart from some terrain maybe)... But I'm not likely going to be inclined to be reasonable

[Wachaza]

Who worse than Mark Latham?

The TLOS thing just confirms that concern.

Disturbing that someone who presided over a downturn in 40k rules and balance is being lauded as a good thing.

Not impressed with the miniatures either

[Major_Gilbear]

It might be a touch unfair to pile in on somebody for writing so-so 40k rules as a reason to discount other efforts they may make. It's been an open rumour for a long time that the level of changes any writer was actually allowed to make to the 40k/WHFB rules was rather limited afterall (I think Andy Chambers managed the biggest shift in either game for 40k3E, and even he was somewhat reigned in by Management).

Anyway, we'll have to see I guess - I for one would like to see what rules are proposed before I even consider backing at the book-only/entry level.

[tnjrp]

I assume that the Latham version is not the one they released as a beta a while back then? Not that I have read it (yet) but I heard it was quite different from the version we tested in our group back in '13.

[Vermis]

Precisely, Wachaza!

It might be a touch unfair to pile in on somebody for writing so-so 40k rules as a reason to discount other efforts they may make. It's been an open rumour for a long time that the level of changes any writer was actually allowed to make to the 40k/WHFB rules was rather limited afterall (I think Andy Chambers managed the biggest shift in either game for 40k3E, and even he was somewhat reigned in by Management).

I knew somebody would mention that. The problem is, that bad game resented by many people is still the best or only example of his rule-writing career. Unless there's a foolproof method of sifting out his input from 'The Man's', or somewhere there's a copy of his first draft snagged from the dumpsters in Lenton, there's not much reason to believe his involvement in Warpath is a good thing. At best, he's an unknown quantity. It's not exactly a reason for hype and celebration.

[Major_Gilbear]

@ Vermis:

Oh I understand; I was merely also pointing out that his involvement wasn't automatically bad either.

At best, he's an unknown quantity. It's not exactly a reason for hype and celebration.

Basically, this! 

[Wachaza]

Since GW removed credits from books it's hard to tell who did what but if he's being lauded by Warlord for having "been in charge of Warhammer 40,000 and also headed up the White Dwarf team, " it's not the best bit of any CV. "In charge" implies he's at least implementing the overall plan which has been less than spectacular on both 40k and White Dwarf over the past five years or so.

[Giger]

The latest from the Mantic blog:

Yesterday we kicked off our Warpath rules coverage with an article on Warpath: Firefight, and today I’m here to talk to you about Warpath itself.

Especially in recent years there are plenty of great sci-fi games on the market, and as such we decided that with Warpath we wanted to do something a little different, and not directly compete with those other games. Warpath was born out of the desire to create something aspirational and yet achievable. It’s that big exciting battle that you always built up your collection to play but rarely, if ever, actually played. Warpath makes that goal both affordable, and playable in just a few hours with abstracted rules and simple mechanics.

This sort of game isn’t for everyone of course, and I firmly believe that creating the Firefight rules was the right thing to do for those who want something a little more detailed. However who says we have to have just one set on rules? On with Warpath!

Warpath focuses on units rather than individuals, with small fire teams the base-level entity in the game. Essentially that means one statline for five figures rather than one for one, to improve the speed of play. There are still detailed choices to be made about the composition of your units, but these are restricted to the army-building stage so you don’t have to worry about them in the middle of a game. This squad focus does two things.

Firstly it focuses the player’s attention on overall strategy and tactical choice – the game is a lot more about which units to put where, which targets to shoot at which time, when to combine fire, when to split fire, and so on. It is less about the impact of each individual soldier, and takes more of a general’s view of the battlefield as opposed to a sergeant’s. This tactical decision making is reflected in the mechanics – suppression, charge reactions, the order of activations and Warpath’s Orders system are all designed to maximise tactical choice without adding complexity to the rules. Obvious choices are the bane of all games – it’s really important that the outcome of the game is directly influenced by player decisions to make those decisions feel meaningful.

Secondly, it means that the game can be more fast and dynamic, and that players can smoothly expand to bigger and bigger games without the game becoming clunky. We had the same goal with Kings of War, and we have successfully run 16,000 point games at our Open Days in just a few hours. We want to do similar things with Warpath, and recreate some truly epic battles.

15Forge Father Tank – Work In Progress Render
Before anyone gets intimidated by the size of the game, Warpath is designed to work with forces of just 30-40 figures – the mechanics will work just as well at that size, and of course your games will be even quicker. The army selection mechanics are not fully developed yet, but we are planning that “standard” tournament-sized games will be in the 50-60 model region for elite armies like the Enforcers, with 100-150 models for horde armies such as the Plague.

Both Warpath and Firefight are perfectly valid games depending on your personal choice. Some people will only play one, and will play Firefight even on an apocalyptic scale for the cinematic experience, and others will prefer Warpath even at the smallest size for a more fast-paced strategic game. Others will start with Firefight for smaller games, and build up to Warpath for the bigger games. Whichever you prefer, I urge you to at least give both games a try – you might surprise yourself!

Look out for an updated version of the alpha rules coming soon, with all of the feedback from the community Alpha test implemented. These rules will stay in an alpha state while the alterations are tested, and we will be taking on feedback throughout the Kickstarter. Once we have everyone’s comments, we will solidify the game and go to an open beta, with plenty of time to get all of the testing done to fully balance the forces. We want to make Warpath the Kings of War of the sci-fi world, and it’s worth putting in the time to do it.

[mcfonz]

So much 'personal' stuff going on here.

People slating Andy Chambers for their own point of view. I started wargaming with 2nd ed 40k. I started collecting a little before the release of it but that was the rule set released at that I started with.

It was both great and horrific at the same time. Great because it was incredibly flexible and horrific because it birthed 'power gamers'. They'd play the percentages down to the very point. The game was also a bit clunky in places.

Andy Chambers changed things and by and large 3rd ed was preferable to me, and a vast majority of people I know. However, it wasn't precisely the game he wanted. If what I was told is true then the Starship Trooper rules are much closer to what he had intended for 40k.

Either way he has experience and was involved in a well selling ruleset. That's all that really matters IMHO. Wait until you see rules before you judge them. And really don't judge it on your personal experience of GW. GW has narked a number of people off down the years and have recently shed a number of the 'original' staff team who were behind much of the first 20-25 years of success.

[Momotaro]

I'll be in on the rules for the Kickstarter - Firefight sounds good to me , but a lean unit-based game could have a lot of appeal.

[Major_Gilbear]

A lean unit-based game could have a lot of appeal.

Agreed - if the game is abstracted sufficiently (no TLOS!) it might lend itself well to 6-15mm gaming which would in fact appeal to me.

[Marshall Sparks]

Who worse than Mark Latham?

The TLOS thing just confirms that concern.

Haha. And people ask me why I never swing by forums about games I'm writing. Water off a duck's back

As for the rules, I haven't actually started yet, but eager to get cracking.

Yours,

Mark

[Vermis]

And people ask me why I never swing by forums about games I'm writing.

In this instance I'll put it down to the fact that people I rag on their absence have a tendency to turn up and make me wish the ground would open up.

Hello Mark. Given the track record of some ex-GW rules writers (Andy Chambers, Jake Thornton, Alessio, etc.) I'm not concerned as I first appeared. That was a bad knee-jerk reaction, I admit. Sorry. But I still think there needs to be more of a track record than 40K before Mantic gets me excited (is there one?) and I still think TLOS is a bad idea.

[Dentatus]

With a reasonable definition of need, I don't think I'll ever need another miniature again (apart from some terrain maybe)... But I'm not likely going to be inclined to be reasonable

This.

There's no 'urgency' on this one tho. I'll wait for regular retail. 

[Giger]

Updated alpha rules are up:

These rules have had lots of little tweaks since the earlier release back in May, and a couple of larger ones too! Have a read, and let us know what you think. However, before you do so, there are a few things you should bear in mind:

Layout: This document is a work-in-progress version of the rulebook, including notes and directions for graphical layout in green, page references in yellow, and additional text to be added in blue. Once all of the rules are finalised we will get this laid out properly and start to fill the gaps with art and background, but for now it’s in a bare-bones state.
Discussion Point: Unit Hubs: These rules were written before the Firefight edition was conceived, and therefore contain a few compromises with regard to how units move around the table – hubs and unit coherency and how they interact with line of sight, model placement etc. We know that there are clunky elements to these rules, and are still working on them.
As a mass-battle game, the rules may be slicker if it used some sort of unit stands, like Kings of War or other smaller scale games out there like Dropzone Commander. However, some people were not keen on the idea, and so to cater for as many people as possible the rules were written to allow for individual model placement.
Now that we have Firefight, we do have the option to make Warpath use these unit stands – those who aren’t keen on the aesthetic have another option instead. Using stands as a core part of the rules means that the rules on hubs and unit positioning can be massively simplified, with knock-on streamlining effects to other areas of the rules.
What are your thoughts?
Points Values: Please be aware that these points values have had minimal testing. They are educated estimates, and as such, some of them may be quite wrong. Once we finalise the core rules and go to open beta, these will refined to properly balance the game.
Army Selection Rules: These have not yet been written, and will come once the rules are solidified. For now just use what you’ve got that feels balanced. We are also aware that the unit upgrades are a little inconsistent – these will be clarified later.
Alpha/Beta?: This release is still an alpha, and will remain so for the next couple of months until we are more solid on the points listed above, and have incorporated all of the feedback. Towards the end of the year we will have a long open beta period to firm up all the special rules and balance the points values.
Right, it’s time for the rules. You can download them here…

http://manticblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Warpath-KS-Alpha.pdf