How units might work and move in the Kings of War game
July 31, 2010 in Fantasy Wargaming, Kings of War, The Insider by lloyd
Alessio Cavatore continues to chat with Warren about the upcoming Rule Set for Kings of War. This time they talk about how units and moment will (or might) work in the game.
Note that the Rules hadn’t even been completely finished when we shot this, I wonder if there done now?
Anyways I think it’s really cool to get an incite into a game from the man writing it before it’s done, you get a sense of the though patterns that go into it 
Why not check out the new Kings of War groups and ask whatever questions you have:
Check Latest Mantic Kings of War Preorders Prices
Let’s just hope it’s not getting too simple. At least if i wanted to play Table Top with the ruleset of Chess, i would just do so. But it seems simplicity is the new way to play… just look at Pen ‘n Paper Games.
I like the idea of an unit-based game, makes it feel more like commanding an army,
the clock sounds more like a tournament rule,
I personally play wargames for the heck of it and to drink some beers with my mates,
what I like is the idea of an activation like in Hordes, having command points or something like that to move, charge, shoot ect. ect.
wont the time limit really hurt horde armies such as undead. I think a great idea would be to assign command points based on the commanders profile and this determines the amount of moves an army could make.
I like the thoughts about the movement.And everything seems very interesting, i could never thought about how someone starts making rules about a game (thanks guys)
I would like to see a more interactive way of fighting, like.. The first player starts moving his unit (attack or shoot or move) count the damage on the opponent and then the second player respond with his similar unit (maybe based on how quickly a unit can respond depending the type). Time is interesting though, a bit ball-busting , but interesting
Secondly. i like to be able to remove models from the unit when they die, in my opinion it adds to the game to be able and see a broken up unit trying to fight (and see the casualties of your enemy) rather than represent it with counters.
That’s my humble opinions, i am in no way an expert player so i might be wrong in the playability of things.
I’m beginning to think that the rules may be to tourney orientated which could be a detriment to friendly play. I much prefer that both players get to do something during a turn, it gives more interaction between them and you feel that you are having an effect on the battle, just sitting there watching your opponant roll dice cannot be much fun – but we will see. And chess clocks cost upwards of £25 so I don’r see me buying one of them.
I do not at all like the sound of there being no rallying. That units that break are simply removed.
I hope that gets removed in the retail version – it annoys me enough that I will likely throw the rules away, and just use the minis for WHFB or some other game.
I like the sound of the chess clocks, but if I have a choice between chess clocks or rallying then rallying wins hands down.
The Auld Grump
I love how the units are sold as a standard unit. I also love how simple the unit based combat will be. My only worry lies with the rigidity of the units. While diorama units would be very pretty, they would have trouble moving through terrain and between other units. As easy as it is to forget when using movement trays, the units are still made up of individual models. In fact, due to the wonderful unit composition, units are made up of smaller units. It would be amazing if this was used to break up the unwieldiness of the larger units.
Changing formation wasn’t mentioned in the clip, but it’s an integral part of formation warfare. While pivoting is fine for smaller regiments but for a wide, warhost it doesn’t make much sense. Terrain could cause larger wider units unable to chase down smaller thinner squads. But it would be amazing if larger units could split into their smaller components, with a successful leadership/nerve test. Using points-expensive command units and banners you could denote how many squads made up a single unit.
If the smaller troops could combine in the field to create a larger regiment, or warhost, that would be even more versatile. It should not be too difficult if the system for scaling is simple enough. Obviously they’d carry their causalities with them and divide them evenly when they split. (This could actually be handy for spreading the pain around by mingling with your allied units, reminding them that they are part of a greater army.)
Different types of units could even be combined. A regiment of a troop of archers protected by shield-men would be a strong combination, and a realistic one.
Cavatore, this makes a lot of sense to me. It’s not that complicated and would add a whole new layer to tactics and army building. How close am I to what you’re already planning?
First post so don’t crucify me, I really like the look of this. As someone who’s getting back into war gaming after a few years out I must say the pricing is amazing and the rule seem simple enough that my dad could learn them but they don’t loose to much tactical depth, also as someone who has played a lot of tournament level magic the gathering over the past few years the idea of an “optional” chess clock sounds really fun. I will be ordering some today.