KoW So guys, why should I play Kow?

In defense of aos, the fixed hit and wound values are so that if a model has high wounds, you have a set chance of dealing a small percentage of the damage needed to kill the model. In eigth you had a low chance of dealing a high percentage of the damage needed to kill the model.

Onto kow. I have tried a game of it using proxies and it was fun. The game was fast and not as complex as eighth but more so than aos. Personaly I am still loyal to aos, but I think kow is a great system to get into!

 

I'm getting more and more sold on the KoW as a game I seriously need to try out and the salamanders looks pretty neat, so I could be tempted to start creating a small army for a playtest of the game in the near forseeable future

 

8th was a mess? I'd argue that AoS is far more of a mess.

 

I started fantasy in 7th edition so I can not speak of how good 6th edition may have been.

 

6th took away the hero hammer aspects of 5th and it felt more balanced for a long while — until the book by book power creep process of late 6th and 7th edition set in.

 

I know 7th edition was notorious for that. I didn't know that 6th had suffered from it as well. How bad was the power creep in 6th edition (as compared to 7th or 8th).

 

It was kind of hit or miss. The last 3 or 4 books were kind of looking forward to 7th. FREX The Bretonnian book didn't prove to be much of a boost, so it quickly got left behind...never got a new book in 7 or 8 ...now being dropped.

The power creep started off slow, there were exceptions, and it really got going in seven.

 

Those Daemons were nearly unstoppable.

 

To provide a summary of my own favourite aspects of the game-

Practicality-Quite simply, the Rules work, both in the sense of the armies being amazingly well balanced, and in the sense of being a clear, precise rules set with very little ambiguity. This is as much about what it doesn't have as it is about what it has, namely rules that the game doesn't need, but add unnecessary awkwardness for the sake of character. It also doesn't have rules like True LOS that are very easy to write, and simple in principle, but horribly difficult to implement on the tabletop.
This means I can concentrate on the tactical aspect of a game, rather than on trying to keep a tangled mess of rules straight.

Scenarios- There are six different basic scenarios, and none of them have *exactly* the same scoring conditions. Also, five out of six contain elements of objective or area control, so it's rare for a game to be just about killing your opponents. The different objectives really add a lot of variety to the game, and I always feel a little disappointed when I end up with boring old 'Kill'.

Effective management of timed games- Every tournament game, and the vast majority of casual games, have a time limit on them. Kings of War takes this into account and manages it, partly with streamlined rules that keep games fast to play, but also through allowing the use of chess clocks to make each player personally responsible for playing his own moves within an agreed time frame. This has two important benefits-
Firstly, you are at least not being limited to a draw, or even losing games, because you're opponent wasn't playing fast enough to finish the last few turns.
Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, a solid reminder of the time limit trains players to play faster, and keeps them playing faster.
'If you play too slowly, you lose' is, for me, both fairer and a much better incentive to play faster than 'If you play too slowly, you still have a chance to draw or win by being ahead on VPs mid-game.'
The clocks are optional, but it's an important option to have, especially in a tournament setting, and I personally always use one.

Flexibility in list building- Because, the game is so well balanced, I can play with strongly themed or quirky lists without compromising my competetiveness too far. Lists can be characterful *and* powerful on the tabletop. That's not too say that all lists are equal, quite, but neither am I having to choose between playing the sort of army I want to play and having a chance of winning against the top lists. Again, there's more focus on tactics in using a list effectively.


My dwarves get killer badgers and Earth elementals- Oops, wrong forum. Well, Salamanders have Fire Drakes and Ember Sprites, and even pirates. They aren't your familiar WFB lizardmen, but neither are they WFB Lizardmen with elements removed, they've got a few fun units of their own to play with.

 

To complete the initial post, some people might feel that they have less choice in KoW compared to Warhammer due to having fixed unit sizes.

While it might seem true at first glance, in practice Warhammer always had a sweet spot for each unit model count that you always saw everywhere.

"Unit A ? Don't bother with anything else than a horde of 40 models"
"This unit is only cost useful as a chaff, only pay for the minimum size"
and so on ...

In other words, most Warhammer units had in fact only one or two optimal size and formation, making other sizes suboptimal options, so not really viable options at all.

Furthermore In KoW, due to the size being fixed and not changing during the game, the units points have been fixed according to their respective value in the game, and not simply by counting the models. A horde of 40 soldiers won't cost exactly twice the price of the regiment of 20, it will be slightly cheaper (and most cost effective in general), but it's because two regiment can bring more than one horde can (able to target two different ennemies, to occupy different objectives, or to outmanoeuver a huge horde so one of the regiment can attack a flank)

A good KoW general will usually make a good use of all unit sizes, if you try to take only hordes because on paper they seem the most cost effective option, then you will find you out-deployed (less drop than your opponent), out manoeuvred (hordes have a large footprint and can have a hard time to pivot in situations where a square regiment would be able to change orientation without problem), and generally you will end with your units surrounded, flanked and killed.

If is possible to build an effective army without taking all 3 units sizes, I have seen MSU armies with nothing bigger than a regiment (well, if you don't count the occasionnal monster), as well as armies with lots of cheap hordes (goblins or ratkin (skaven) usually)

The trick is that whatever composition you take, try to have as many units to deploy (heroes included) as you can so you still have a decent number to deploy.

 

I've done something similar with the units I do have built and painted, so it will be nice to compare them when you are finished.