# Warpath Beta



## ItsPug (Apr 5, 2009)

I think I'm ok to post these but if not can a mod remove them...

Just got an e-mail with the new Warpath Beta.

Rules

Marauders

Forge Fathers


----------



## SGMAlice (Aug 13, 2010)

Despite its 'Coincedental' similaritys to 40k, this looks interesting.
Are the mini's for this yet to be released or can i just not find them? 

SGMAlice


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

No models so far Alice but if the fantasy stuff is anything of an indication i wouldnt get too excited, plus i can see GW kicking off looking at some of the designs, its a little too close to 40k me thinks. Would have liked to have seen some original ideas from Mantic but thats not really there bag.


----------



## GrizBe (May 12, 2010)

I'm with Bits on this, I can see GW's legal looking into this as alot of the stuff there... reading it too much came to me as 'huh, isn't Warhammer just like that?'

Pretty much just Mantic jumping on the bandwagons of other companies again.


----------



## imm0rtal reaper (Jul 15, 2008)

bitsandkits said:


> No models so far Alice but if the fantasy stuff is anything of an indication i wouldnt get too excited, plus i can see GW kicking off looking at some of the designs, its a little too close to 40k me thinks. Would have liked to have seen some original ideas from Mantic but thats not really there bag.


I disagree about the miniatures, I really like mantic's sculpts and find them full of detail. They do not have the posing options of GW products, but the detail is there just the same. I picked up some undead revenants today and the detail worked into their armour is great. I also got a look at the elves and they are much better looking than pictures of them on the internet suggest. 

And as to GW stepping in on the warpath minis, I doubt it will happen. There are plenty of companies with sci fi minis and as long mantic don't use the same names, and keep the look different _enough_ then they will be fine.


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

imm0rtal reaper said:


> And as to GW stepping in on the warpath minis, I doubt it will happen. There are plenty of companies with sci fi minis and as long mantic don't use the same names, and keep the look different _enough_ then they will be fine.


well if those sketches are anything to go by then i think "enough" hasnt been achieved, plus as they have GW ex employees writing the rules, GW might have stronger case for infringement, anyone else read the rules and think this is like reading the 40k book but they have just substituted the words?


----------



## SonofVulkan (Apr 14, 2010)

I agree with Immortal Reaper, I got myself a box of skeletons out of curiosity and was surprised at the amount of detail. For the price they are excellent models. 
As for the designs being to close to 40K, GW don't produce anything like the ForgeFather design concepts so I think they will be safe there.


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

SonofVulkan said:


> I agree with Immortal Reaper, I got myself a box of skeletons out of curiosity and was surprised at the amount of detail. For the price they are excellent models.
> As for the designs being to close to 40K, GW don't produce anything like the ForgeFather design concepts so I think they will be safe there.


thing is we always hear about an odd undead unit being cool, but what about the rest of them? the dwarves were shite, the elves were better but still shite(granted the GW high elves infantry are not up to much either) and im on the fence about the Orcs, may order a box out of curiosity as i have been approached by a distributor to carry the range. The limited pose and choice of parts on a sprue is important to me as a painter, but for those wanting cheap gaming pieces i cant fault them.

but its not just the models, its the blatant copying of the GW concept that annoys me, use the tallents for something original ,take a risk!


----------



## EmbraCraig (Jan 19, 2009)

Well, I've had a skim through the rules and one thing stuck out to me make me chuckle on a Sunday morning:



> BFGS
> Sometimes, units can be upgraded by giving one or
> more of their models a Ballistic Firepower
> Guarantor, or BFG for short.


Anyone remember when GW used to have a sense of humour too?


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

EmbraCraig said:


> Anyone remember when GW used to have a sense of humour too?


Well I got a message they were changing their kits to a cheaper material in resin, and then putting the price up.

I mean thats one hell of a sense of humour. :biggrin:


As for GW losing its 'sense of humour' in its writings, well, they cant win everyone over. They used to be grimdark, with humour, but that upset some people, then they did just plain grimdark, but thats not right for you.

They can win them all.


----------



## Shandathe (May 2, 2010)

Hrmm. I like what I'm reading in the rules. Not sure how it'll all play out until I try, but... While there's some similarities to 40K (as almost necessitated by them both being miniature games, and D6 being the normal dice of choice), there's also many changes. 

Different models moving at different speeds is a big one, as is being able to fire BFGs at separate targets instead of having the entire squad fire on the same target. It's also nice that you're not exchanging weapons - firepower of the rest of the squad remains the same if you upgrade. 

I also absolutely love the Nerve mechanic. 

All of it is designed to pick a squad which will then behave exactly as noted until destroyed, with modifiers (Expect a token/counter set for these to be included) where appropriate.

Overall, Alessio has a winner here I think. Without having to support the legacy of 40K, he has kept everything simple yet there's a remarkable tactical depth to it.


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

models moving at different speeds, pretty much a staple rule for most of the previous editions of 40k, till some bright spark did away with it to simplify the rules.


----------



## Shandathe (May 2, 2010)

Didn't it get nuked in 3rd already? Anyway, it might've simplified things, but they immediately began adding ways to move at varying (faster) speeds again. This is logical as movement (and thus location) is an important part of any combat, but the growth of ways around it kind of defeated the purpose of the simplification. 

I'm fairly sure no 8 year old will have any trouble checking how far he can move a unit on his armylist...


----------



## elmir (Apr 14, 2011)

bitsandkits said:


> models moving at different speeds, pretty much a staple rule for most of the previous editions of 40k, till some bright spark did away with it to simplify the rules.


2/5 editions only ;-)

The movement speed being a set value basically started as soon as 40k moved away from the "skirmish size" of RT and 2nd. 

Movement isn't the most innovating thing here, the nerve system is. Anyway, it'll be interesting to see if these rules are any good and stand the abuse that a playerbase can trow at it. 

I'm a strong believer that mass playtesting of rules in an "open beta" style release is a good move forward for wargames in general. If it means stronger, more unambiguous rules in the end, it's a positive thing.


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

Please correct me if im wrong, I havent read the rules fully (nor understood them fully) but this reminds me of a counter based game, rather than a wargame.

Am I right in saying that individual models dont actualy count for anything, the units stay the same until they are destroyed? And the units are all the same size (or can be bought in slightly different sizes, but not on a model by model basis).

I have to say its the reason why I like 40K over fantasy - each model, no matter how cheap or insigificant is its own model with its own importance and where you place every single model actually makes a difference to who can shoot and where and who can attack.


----------



## Djinn24 (Jan 12, 2008)

I have to agree with B&K here, other then some of their undead the Mantic range has looked horrid, the RT1 boxset had more flavor them some of their armies. It's not about how many details a model may have but the overall appeal of the model and the Mantic range does not have any of that. Now their newer stuff is looking better and we can only hope they go back and redo some of their original models but I doubt that.

I have yet to read the rules but will do so tonight. I hope that it is a fun game, I really do but I have my doubts.


----------



## slaaneshy (Feb 20, 2008)

Maidel, u are correct, u don't lose models as per 40k, but entire units once nerve has failed. So a big difference to how 40k plays. This game has a different feel from 40k as anyone who has actually played it will tell you. Also...its free and still developing, so enjoy and give your feedback to mantic.


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

slaaneshy said:


> Maidel, u are correct, u don't lose models as per 40k, but entire units once nerve has failed. So a big difference to how 40k plays.


Thanks for confirming that.

And that utterly destroys it as a game for me. Well, it makes it 'only' a game. 40K is immersive because each model on the table top is important and 'means' something.

This is just a gaming system, there is no 'draw' for me because the models have no personality, they are simply 1 of 5 in the unit which is always 5 strong.


----------



## imm0rtal reaper (Jul 15, 2008)

Maidel said:


> Thanks for confirming that.
> 
> And that utterly destroys it as a game for me. Well, it makes it 'only' a game. 40K is immersive because each model on the table top is important and 'means' something.
> 
> This is just a gaming system, there is no 'draw' for me because the models have no personality, they are simply 1 of 5 in the unit which is always 5 strong.


If that is the case then why do you not play the Lotr SBG where _every_ model is an individual. 

The whole point of mantic games are to have *big* battles and the nerve system means casualties can be dealt with in a quick and easy manner, it also mean you don't have to adjust how many attacks/shots a unit has when they've taken a few casualties. 

Stop thinking of it in terms of 40k, if anything, think more apocalypse scale, hundreds of models each side.


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

imm0rtal reaper said:


> If that is the case then why do you not play the Lotr SBG where _every_ model is an individual.
> 
> The whole point of mantic games are to have *big* battles and the nerve system means casualties can be dealt with in a quick and easy manner, it also mean you don't have to adjust how many attacks/shots a unit has when they've taken a few casualties.
> 
> Stop thinking of it in terms of 40k, if anything, think more apocalypse scale, hundreds of models each side.


Oh dont get me wrong I feel the same way about epic (well the newer version of epic) which is all about the 'feel' of warfare, as apposed to individual models actually being important. I couldnt abide all that blast marker crap.

I would like to make it clear, that this doesnt make it a bad game, just not a game for me. The latest version of epic is often described as a fantastic rule set, I just hate it.

In response to the Lotrs question - I dont like it because the game is shite. One rule doesnt make a game good, but one concept can ruin it (for me).

And, although this isnt a thread about cost, what you said sort of brings that back up again. If the game is designed to be played with hundreds of models on each side, then it makes it more expensive than GWs games, because although the models will be cheaper, the game is designed to work with more of them.

Just a thought.


----------



## imm0rtal reaper (Jul 15, 2008)

Maidel said:


> Oh dont get me wrong I feel the same way about epic (well the newer version of epic) which is all about the 'feel' of warfare, as apposed to individual models actually being important. I couldnt abide all that blast marker crap.
> 
> I would like to make it clear, that this doesnt make it a bad game, just not a game for me. The latest version of epic is often described as a fantastic rule set, I just hate it.
> 
> ...


Yes and no here. Obviously it is more expensive for bigger armies, but when you take the cost of getting into 40k as SM without buying AoBR:

Rulebook - 35

Codex - 20

Battleforce - 60

Total: £105 for 26 models and the means to play the game. 

Mantic:

Rules: Free

Army list: Free

Army Box (we will use the undead as an example): £50

So £50 for 110 models. So you could have hundreds for _less_ than the cost of the GW stuff. Obviously this is loose speculation until models for warpath are released. 

But my point for the squad mechanic is that is is intended for very large battles, where the system is very necessary to keep things moving quickly. But in a smaller game (say, at a low estimate of a warpath army box, 80 models a side) it would still work with the squad/nerve mechanic. 

The 40k rules are longer and much more complex, but I find that too often they just get in the way. I've been playing 40k since 3rd and still have to look up more rules than I'd like. With warpath (and K.o.W), you can play a game, and by the end of it you will know almost all of the rules. 

I want to watch my awesome toy soldiers annihilate each other without having to peer over the top of a rulebook.


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

imm0rtal reaper said:


> But my point for the squad mechanic is that is is intended for very large battles, where the system is very necessary to keep things moving quickly. But in a smaller game (say, at a low estimate of a warpath army box, 80 models a side) it would still work with the squad/nerve mechanic.
> 
> The 40k rules are longer and much more complex, but I find that too often they just get in the way. I've been playing 40k since 3rd and still have to look up more rules than I'd like. With warpath (and K.o.W), you can play a game, and by the end of it you will know almost all of the rules.
> 
> I want to watch my awesome toy soldiers annihilate each other without having to peer over the top of a rulebook.


Meh - each to their own, which is what I was saying earlier in the thread. I want rules that represent whats on the table, I dont want 'catch all' rules that represent everything in one simple wave.

Its probably the reason I prefer a mix of 2nd and 3rd edition D&D, rather than the horrible streamlining of 4th. Complex is better, if you cant understand it.... well... more playing time for me? :biggrin:


----------



## imm0rtal reaper (Jul 15, 2008)

Maidel said:


> Meh - each to their own, which is what I was saying earlier in the thread. I want rules that represent whats on the table, I dont want 'catch all' rules that represent everything in one simple wave.
> 
> Its probably the reason I prefer a mix of 2nd and 3rd edition D&D, rather than the horrible streamlining of 4th. Complex is better, if you cant understand it.... well... more playing time for me? :biggrin:


I don't think it's a problem of people understanding the rules. But a lot of rules are overly complex for no reason.

Take ballistic skill, you subtract it's value from 7 to get what you need to hit, in the case of a marine 3+, well why can't it just say 3+ in the profile. The "to hit" in combat is more understandable based on the WS of the warrior, but BS should just be a clear number.


----------



## Djinn24 (Jan 12, 2008)

Having read the rulebook on my computer there are some things I would modify for sure but overall it seems pretty solid. I am going to go through them again and make some notes and probably post them up on the forum. Not bad tho, similar enough to make is easy to pick up but different enough to make it for the most part unique.


----------



## Shandathe (May 2, 2010)

imm0rtal reaper said:


> Yes and no here. Obviously it is more expensive for bigger armies, but when you take the cost of getting into 40k as SM without buying AoBR:
> 
> Rulebook - 35
> 
> ...


Ah, you wish. There's no HQ in the Battleforce boxes. You can get away with using your opponent's templates and dice... But the lack of an HQ means you can't field a legal army.

That's another 10-15 or so.

On a sidenote, that only works in the UK - GW prices go up the farther away you get. Example: Netherlands pays 90 euros for the Battleforce, which is about £81. So it's cheaper to make the trip to England yourself and make a day of it if you're buying an army.

Less of an option if you're in Australia or so, but...


----------



## AlexHolker (Apr 27, 2011)

Shandathe said:


> Ah, you wish. There's no HQ in the Battleforce boxes. You can get away with using your opponent's templates and dice... But the lack of an HQ means you can't field a legal army.


It's got four multipart squad kits and a vehicle accessory sprue. It's not hard to get a HQ out of that.


----------



## Grins1878 (May 10, 2010)

bitsandkits said:


> The limited pose and *choice of parts on a sprue is important to me *as a painter, but for those wanting cheap gaming pieces i cant fault them.
> 
> but its not just the models, its the blatant copying of the GW concept that annoys me, use the tallents for something original ,take a risk!


Is the bold bit the part that irks you? You won't have as many parts to sell?



bitsandkits said:


> models moving at different speeds, pretty much a staple rule for most of the previous editions of 40k, till some bright spark did away with it to simplify the rules.


I'm sure a lot of table top games have used different movement speeds for different races/armies, its hardly GW specific.

You seem to hate a lot of stuff that isn't GW based man, relax, you don't have to spit venom when ever someone makes mini's you don't like or try to tell people it's not as good.

Back OT:

IMO I wasn't a fan of the dwarves, the undead are better than GW (the zombies with massive heads and hands etc look naff as do the new ghoul models. The old metal minis they used to do weed all over them) but could do with a few characters more, elves I don't like in general, the orcs are stunning from mantic, and look really good in the flesh, and the new evil dwarf fellows are boss too.

I'm really looking forward to the sci fi mini's coming out, if its anything like the latest fantasy ones they've done they'll be well worth a mooch


----------



## ChaosRedCorsairLord (Apr 17, 2009)

The rules seem interesting and fairly original. If the models are nice, I may give it a go.


----------



## imm0rtal reaper (Jul 15, 2008)

First concept art for the Corporation has been released:


----------



## Synack (Apr 8, 2008)

Yay, plastic stormtroopers!


----------



## ChaosRedCorsairLord (Apr 17, 2009)

Those pictures are actually pretty cool. I the plastics look anything like them I'll defiantly be getting some.


----------



## normtheunsavoury (Mar 20, 2008)

But he's got a gun and some armour and a helmet, blatantly a GW rip off!

I mean FFS, they'll be talking about war and killing things next, why can't people do something original eh? [/SARCASM]

On a more serious note, if these minis are on a par with what they are doing with their fantasy range they should be pretty good, well worth looking into.


----------



## ArchangelPaladin (Jul 7, 2010)

Warpath = 16 pages of rules with nice big font, which are easy to understand.
40k = 100 + page in teeny tiny font, and 50% of the rules are worded in such a way that the lawyer nerds can argue in nerd court over a single rule for days and still not reach a conclusion.

Tell me which one are the new kidies going to start playing?

The definition of _gamer _has changed. And more importantly no longer are the terms _gamer _and _nerd _synonymous. When my neighbor’s nine year old daughter considers her-self a _gamer_, yet she is extremely far away from being your stereotypical _nerd_, we’re going to have to realize that games for hard-core _nerds _like 40k just won’t appeal to today’s _gamers_. Gaming has become mainstream not because it was cool all along, but because the industry as a whole(from video games, to board games, to card games, to even hardcore table tops like D&D) have made efforts to simplify, streamline, and on all counts make their games more accessible and enjoyable. Unless 40k can reduce the size of their rule set (including codexs) by 50% 40k will fast become a hard core nerd game only(even more so then now) and so it’ll stop bringing in those new bodies that GW is trying so hard to capitalize on.

I’m not preaching the end of GW by any means, but despite it’s failings Warpath could be a real eroding force for GW’s bottom line. The real question is how long will it take before the lumbering behemoth that is GW wakes up and finally gets in touch with the market?


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

normtheunsavoury said:


> But he's got a gun and some armour and a helmet, blatantly a GW rip off!


If we are going to be pedantic, surely hes closer to a Halo rip off...



ArchangelPaladin said:


> Warpath = 16 pages of rules with nice big font, which are easy to understand.
> 40k = 100 + page in teeny tiny font, and 50% of the rules are worded in such a way that the lawyer nerds can argue in nerd court over a single rule for days and still not reach a conclusion.
> 
> Tell me which one are the new kidies going to start playing?
> ...


Erm - it is in touch with its market.

In the uk Gamer and Nerd ARE synomous, in fact I would go so far as to say that if they dumb it down anymore they are going to LOSE customers rather than gain them.

I cannot STAND 4th edition D&D, its just 'power' gaming. By that I mean all I see when I read it is pokemon. I use THIS POWER. It utterly lost its soul in the name of 'streamlining'.

How does a 16 page ruleset account for all gaming situations. There are two answers.

1) It doesnt.

Or

2) It does because it is so damn simple it might as well be chess.


Call me 'old' or 'a nerd' or 'GW fanboy' or whatever you want - but the way I look at it is 'if it aint broke, dont fix it'. By that I DONT mean that 40K is perfect, what I do mean is that the system is great, but could do with some tweaks, and the same went for 3rd edition D&D.


----------



## imm0rtal reaper (Jul 15, 2008)

Maidel said:


> If we are going to be pedantic, surely hes closer to a Halo rip off...
> 
> 
> Well sir, if we're going to be pedantic, both halo and imperial guard are rip offs of the colonial marines from aliens. People complain about mantic ripping off GW, but GW are terrible for their ripping off. And aside from that, it makes sense for mantic to start off with the archtype races (humans, elves, dwarfs, orcs) before venturing into more unexplored territory. This way they ensure sales that can fund their crazier adventures.
> ...


The amount of rules arguments and bickering proves that it is clearly "broke", simpler rules aren't a bad thing, it means the game is more focused on actual battle situation instead of list building. There is no "I take this unit or this combination I win" situations like there can be in 40k.


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

imm0rtal reaper said:


> Well sir, if we're going to be pedantic, both halo and imperial guard are rip offs of the colonial marines from aliens. People complain about mantic ripping off GW, but GW are terrible for their ripping off. And aside from that, it makes sense for mantic to start off with the archtype races (humans, elves, dwarfs, orcs) before venturing into more unexplored territory. This way they ensure sales that can fund their crazier adventures.




You sir win the pedantry award, I tip my hat to you. I was merely trying to say that he bares more resemblance to other IPs rather than GW. k:



> The amount of rules arguments and bickering proves that it is clearly "broke",


I would argue that it in fact proves its popular rather than 'broke'. If GWs rules were 'truely' broke then it wouldnt be as popular as it is.




> simpler rules aren't a bad thing, it means the game is more focused on actual battle situation instead of list building.


Does it? Chess is the most basic of rules systems, there is no list building its pre-determined and idenitcal for both sides. For me, its BORING. At the other end of that scale would be a wargame based on a roleplaying rule set where each and every model has individual stats and abilities. 

GW is in the middle somewhere leaning towards the later, Mantic is also in the middle but leaning towards the former. For me, the closer you can get to the later, without becoming ridiculous, the better. That is a PERSONAL preferance and no indication as to the quality of the gaming system. 




> There is no "I take this unit or this combination I win" situations like there can be in 40k.


In a game where chance is a major factor then that statement can never be true.


----------



## imm0rtal reaper (Jul 15, 2008)

Maidel said:


> [/COLOR]
> 
> Does it? Chess is the most basic of rules systems, there is no list building its pre-determined and idenitcal for both sides. For me, its BORING. At the other end of that scale would be a wargame based on a roleplaying rule set where each and every model has individual stats and abilities.
> 
> ...


You just have to look at dual lash lists to realise this statement is wrong. At the time of their inception, the lash lists were most certainly unbalanced, if not broken. And there are other examples. A personal one is Jaws. I would _never_ run a wolf list without a priest with jaws or two. I don't think its worth taking any other HQ because of the benefits Jaws offers.


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

imm0rtal reaper said:


> You just have to look at dual lash lists to realise this statement is wrong. At the time of their inception, the lash lists were most certainly unbalanced, if not broken. And there are other examples. A personal one is Jaws. I would _never_ run a wolf list without a priest with jaws or two. I don't think its worth taking any other HQ because of the benefits Jaws offers.


But none of those things are what you said.

You said:



> "I take this unit or this combination I win"


Which isnt the same thing. You can take every broken combination possible in 40K, hell take every broken combination and put them into one army, chance will still mean that you dont win every time.


----------



## imm0rtal reaper (Jul 15, 2008)

Maidel said:


> But none of those things are what you said.
> 
> You said:
> 
> ...


I would have thought my meaning was clear but evidently not. Allow me to simplify. 

The point I was making was that in 40k, the nuances of list building have a major impact on the result of the game. This is clear in that you often see identical (or very close) lists being used in tournaments. Dual lash and flying seer council being two examples.

This overall is _less_ tactical. The simpler rules system of K.o.W means that what actually happens on the battlefield is much more important that your list. And how you actually use your force is more important.

Yes K.o.W is simplified in that it removes the individuality of the warriors in the battle (the nerve system). But in reality it is rarely a single warrior who makes the difference in battle, but the combined efforts of all, so it makes sense to do away with individuality in units.


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

imm0rtal reaper said:


> I would have thought my meaning was clear but evidently not. Allow me to simplify.
> 
> The point I was making was that in 40k, the nuances of list building have a major impact on the result of the game. This is clear in that you often see identical (or very close) lists being used in tournaments. Dual lash and flying seer council being two examples.
> 
> ...


I would say that the reason why those sorts of list are prevalent is that certain members of the design team are idiots and that GW dont do enough play testing/ rule checking.

Without a couple of broken units the idea of free army building is what appeals to a lot of people (just look at the number of people posting army lists on this forum).

But as I said before, its a matter of personal prefernce as to what sort of game you prefer, ill stick to 40K until someone makes a more complicated rule set for me.


----------



## imm0rtal reaper (Jul 15, 2008)

Maidel said:


> I would say that the reason why those sorts of list are prevalent is that certain members of the design team are idiots and that GW dont do enough play testing/ rule checking.
> 
> Without a couple of broken units the idea of free army building is what appeals to a lot of people (just look at the number of people posting army lists on this forum).
> 
> But as I said before, its a matter of personal prefernce as to what sort of game you prefer, ill stick to 40K until someone makes a more complicated rule set for me.


Don't get me wrong, 40k is my great love when it comes to games. But when I read the K.o.W rules I could see things in the 40k rules that just didn't need to be there. The best example is BS. A space marine hits on a 3+, so why can't it just fecking say 3+ on his profile. Why does the bloody shooting to hit table need to exist? Modifiers would still work fine if the value was already in the profile. I know its only something small, but there is no need for it.


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

imm0rtal reaper said:


> Don't get me wrong, 40k is my great love when it comes to games. But when I read the K.o.W rules I could see things in the 40k rules that just didn't need to be there. The best example is BS. A space marine hits on a 3+, so why can't it just fecking say 3+ on his profile. Why does the bloody shooting to hit table need to exist? Modifiers would still work fine if the value was already in the profile. I know its only something small, but there is no need for it.


HAHA

Actually, that laugh is two fold - in one way I am laughing because thats a bloody good point, and in the other way Im laughing because its an utterly minor thing to be bothered about.

I can see why they wouldnt change it now, because if they did they would need to reprint a lot of rules that 'add' to balistic skill, becasue if you did change to 3+ then adding to it would in fact be worse, not better.

So yes, I can see how it would be a very minor 'improvement', but really, after about 5 minutes the BS skill table isnt necessary because you dont need to refer to it because if you cant do 7-BS then you are definately out of your depth in this game. 

Also, its not exactly a rule that causes conflict, its the other rules, the very specific unit based rules, that tend to be the ones that cause the issues, and those rules could be sorted out at the same time as the other rules if they did what I said in the previous post and actually PLAY TEST the goddamn rules, or gave them to actual gamers for a week before releasing them, because thats all it takes on these forums to find all the issues.


----------



## imm0rtal reaper (Jul 15, 2008)

Maidel said:


> HAHA
> 
> Actually, that laugh is two fold - in one way I am laughing because thats a bloody good point, and in the other way Im laughing because its an utterly minor thing to be bothered about.
> 
> ...


Indeed you're right on all accounts, but it is the easiest example. 

And as to playtesting, that;s another good thing about Warpath. It's in it's infancy and Mantic do take on criticism they receive and if everyone doesn't like something, they change it. So now if the time to take the warpath rules for a spin and let mantic know what you think. Beta testing is only a good thing!


----------

