(KICKSTARTER) Mantic: Warpath

[Wachaza]

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.

Hi Mark,

I'm familiar with your work on White Dwarf and Warhammer Historical but what design did you do on 40k?

[Major_Gilbear]

@ Marshall Sparks:

Firstly, welcome!

Personal critiques from posters aside, I don't see why you wouldn't visit forums and ask people questions about the rules you're writing? Especially if you're wanting them to back you in a KS project where people often like to feel somewhat involved.

I don't think there's much merit in seeking consensus/approval on every detail as you write rules (that way madness lies!), but the games I play which have had open betas (Warmachine, Hordes, Malifaux) have all benefited considerably from the process IMO.

I also think that serious thought, consideration, and discussion needs to be given to the super-basic elements like:

• What is the size and focus of the game, and can or should the game scale out of the "designed" size?
• What dice and dice mechanic will the game use?
• What game information is open, and what is private?
• Is pre-measuring allowed, and when can you measure?
• TLOS or abstracted LOS?
• How will you define the space occupied by models/units? Will they have a size stat, a base size, etc? (This ties into LOS above somewhat, but also affects things like unit coherency, unit mobility, model facing, and so on).

There are already a myriad of miniatures rulesets out there, and many of those I've seen really seem to struggle with stating these basic concepts unambiguously. What makes it worse is that the game rules rely on these being clearly established to work, and often generate loads of obvious FAQs when they are not. As a quick example - Frostgrave seems to have folks asking a lot of fairly basic questions that I feel shouldn't need asking, whereas games like Deadzone seem to have managed this better (with a lot of actual rules issues revolving around skills and equipment interactions).

Of course, clear rules don't automatically make for a fun game either - I refer you to the Frostgrave and Deadzone examples again, where Deadzone is great in a lots of ways except the actual playing of the game (which our group just cannot seem to enjoy no matter how hard we try), and Frostgrave is great fun despite having lots of little loose rules areas.

Anyway, I look froward to seeing what you come up with! Will you be writing from scratch and incorporating elements from the Alpha, or will you be tweaking the Alpha?

[Marshall Sparks]

Personal critiques from posters aside, I don't see why you wouldn't visit forums and ask people questions about the rules you're writing?

I don't think there's much merit in seeking consensus/approval on every detail as you write rules (that way madness lies!)

Sort of answered your own question there

Honestly, I broke my own rule here, and it’s purely because I love LAF, and browse it almost every day as a punter rather than as a designer. It was weird to see a bit of heat towards me on my favourite (normally exceptionally friendly) forum, and I bit. My bad.

There are several “dangers” with engaging frequently on forums, which is why I’ll post this and then bow out, respectfully, at least until the project is further along. Firstly, it turns healthy discussion between fans into an FAQ with the author – I’m sure you can see that, just for saying “Hi”, I’ve already been asked a bunch of questions that I can’t answer yet about the game design (mostly because I haven’t started work, and partly because it’s Mantic’s party, I’m just a humble freelancer), and even to justify my games design CV. And that's not to mention the trickle of PMs

The second danger is that, when I’ve seen authors step into online debate – especially heated debate – on LAF and elsewhere, it often feels like the author is throwing his weight around and “closing down” fan discussion, and I don’t want to be that guy.

Finally, there’s this: There are lots of forums about, so keeping up with them would be a full-time job. Do I concentrate on LAF, because I personally prefer it? What about Dakka Dakka, or Warseer, or the BoLS comments, or Beasts of War, and so on? To explain my own stance, I've been designing games professionally, and developing others' systems, for around 16 years now, but it's no longer my primary occupation. I do it because I’m a die-hard gamer, I love it, and I hope other folk have fun playing the games I write. These days I'm a novelist by trade, but I still do games design on commission, which is why I've been linked with several projects just lately. But those novels don't write themselves, so I try not to spend all day perusing forums unless I'm actively working on a project, if that makes sense.

To put your mind at rest, however, Mantic games has always thrived on fan discussion and input. Some of your questions have, I think, already been addressed on the Mantic blog, but for future reference, there will, of course, be proper channels for feedback on these rules, which will be organised by Mantic, so I'll be getting plenty of feedback as I go. Fans will be engaged on this game to a level I personally haven't experienced before, which is both challenging and really exciting for me. Keep an eye on the Mantic blog and on the Kickstarter for that, and for answers to all your other points!

Anyway, I look froward to seeing what you come up with! Will you be writing from scratch and incorporating elements from the Alpha, or will you be tweaking the Alpha?

I've yet to begin work proper, but will be working on it throughout the duration of the Kickstarter. Mantic approached me and asked me what I'd do with the Alpha if I had free rein; I gave them an opinion, I’m proud to say they came back and asked me to action those opinions. I'll be developing the existing rules rather than starting from scratch, and I imagine that once the main job of work is done, the Mantic team will develop the game going forward, with occasional input from moi.

Hope that’s clear; apologies if I stuck my big size nines into the thread unwanted – backing away now

Latham Out!

[Major_Gilbear]

@ Marshall Sparks:

Thank you for taking the time to reply. I understand your position on many of the points raised, although I do hope that there will be some (maybe limited) discussion that you participate in - perhaps on the Mantic forum, which would be the obvious place.

______________________________________________________________

Since Giger posted the rules, I've had a quick read through the Alpha rules, and they look promising.

I have few off-the-cuff thoughts, in no particular order:

• I know this is an Alpha, but a contents page would be *really* useful please! Even though I hope the final rulebook will have a proper index as well, a contents page in the meantime helps get you to the right area should you need to look a rule whilst playing some test games.

• A developer's explanation is always welcome, but I think the language needs work - maybe it's just me, but I find a number of such comments in the Alpha are a little bit presumptuous and patronising...

• I am just not sold on TLOS in any game - it's quick in some ways, but fiddly in lots of others. Also, the main reasoning for TLOS explained ("odd situations" and "feel") doesn't really fit that well with the abstracted nature of the other rules (for example, the explanations of heights). If you are playing in more dense terrain (a forest, city, ruins, etc), getting a "model-eye-view" doesn't really work anyway. Finally, getting a model-eye-view to determine a crucial aspect of the game doesn't really give players the feeling of being a top-level commander directing the units battlefield; it's too personal for that.

• I would like to see defined model base sizes (I would also have bases for vehicles too personally). Just because it makes measuring and such universal and allows for cool modelling opportunities.

• I like the flow of the game from what I can tell. The focus on shooting, suppressing, and manoeuvring looks well thought-out. I'd have to play a game or two to get a proper feel though, of course.

• I like that you don't seem to need templates for this game. Not only is it less stuff to cart around for a game, it doesn't lock you into having to keep them in later editions or FAQ changes. It also doesn't encourage models in units from having to spread out everywhere, which I think always looks untidy and a bit false in a game (even though it's probably "realistic").

• I'm a bit disappointed to see both regular D6 and "rule of 1 and 6". With dice like D12s, the top-and-bottom-score rule is not so bad, but on dice with only six faces it makes the results feel a bit "cramped". I get that D6 are easy to find, but other dice are not much harder to buy and allow a bit more tweaking if needed. I also feel that using dice with wider results is an opportunity to build in some extra scope into the core rules for balancing and future units later on.

• I'm not sure about the special dice for Orders. I think that using common D6 for the main game and then having a special dice as well is a bit backwards. Can this not be done a different and simple way that avoids needing proprietary dice?

• I quite like the way that the units are chosen in the army lists - it seems straightforward (reminds me of Epic Armageddon actually, which is a good thing).

• I don't really like the massive extra rules that some of the Veermyn models have. I can see that they are fluffy and fun, and I don't want them to lose that; but isn't there a neater way to accomplish this via a couple of universal rules?

Anyway, just some initial feedback.

[Wachaza]

..even to justify my games design CV.

If your employers are touting your involvement in the rules based on what you did on 40k then surely the question "What did you do on 40k?" is a fair one?

[TheCapn]

For the love of all that is holy... Avoid TLOS like the plague!!!!

[Vanvlak]

Funded in 4 minutes 52 seconds   
Well, not that big a surprise actually, seeing that they do give a reasonable amount of stuff and their target was a modest $25,000.

[nic-e]

One of the stretch goals was rules for 10mm ,which has been smashed. Seems mantic have been listening to peoples calls for a more EPIC scale game.
Maybe this means they'll be making the miniatures.

[Sir_Theo]

Mass Sci fi games aren't really.my thing (and I'm more interested in Antares really) but I'm in for the rules only pledge. I've got more than enough stuff through the Deadzone KS (Am I the only person who actually enjoys that game?)

[Hat Guy]

$1 for both rule books in PDF? That's good value as far as I'm concerned. 

[Agis]

yes that is. I am tempted by that

My pledge for sure, maybe I add the flyer for $ 30,- ; it is generic enough.

[Agis]

Mass Sci fi games aren't really.my thing (and I'm more interested in Antares really) but I'm in for the rules only pledge. I've got more than enough stuff through the Deadzone KS (Am I the only person who actually enjoys that game?)

No you are not,    Deadzone is definitely more interesting to me than ANY mass combat system in 28mm.
Mass combat is very nice in 6/ 10 or 15mm , but for everything else I stick to skirmish games.

[Major_Gilbear]

One of the stretch goals was rules for 10mm ,which has been smashed. Seems mantic have been listening to peoples calls for a more EPIC scale game.
Maybe this means they'll be making the miniatures.

Super news - I look forward to seeing more details!

Mass Sci fi games aren't really.my thing (and I'm more interested in Antares really) but I'm in for the rules only pledge.

I can't really see the appeal in Antares, besides the low-ish model count. I keep trying, and... Dunno. I guess they don't really feel very sci-fi to me, and I don't find what the rules let me do in the game is very interesting. Also, there is so little out there about Antares that it's hard for me to judge if I'm the minority feeling that way. :/

I've got more than enough stuff through the Deadzone KS (Am I the only person who actually enjoys that game?)

I like the game... Just not the rules. I think they are clever, but too limited and limiting. The special abilities are then too often used to patch the limitations of the game rather than focussing on adding flavour to units, which is clunky. Add to that the small number of actions available to a model and tiny number of models on each side, and it leads to a frustrating game experience. Anyway, I've written about this enough elsewhere now, so I'll leave it at that. I will say though that I hope DZ: Infestation has some significant improvements!

Tangentially, I didn't really get on with MERCS either (for frankly similar reasons to DZ), but if you like 5-model skirmish games in the DZ style, you might enjoy MERCS. Just be aware that you *need* the cards for the models in order to play as the model stats and abilities used not to be in the main rulebook.

[Major_Gilbear]

Well, for anybody still following, it looks like the Plague are up next for their turn in hard plastics. So far, the 3rd Gen models look pretty good to me:



The officer's hat is quite fun, and the guns and poses look rather better than the original DZ models. IMO, of course! I've seen peeks of the HMG version too, and they also look good.

[obsidian3d]

Not bad. I'll have to mark the campaign to get a reminder before it ends.