Warpath: Firefight Detailed!

Back in May we revealed the alpha version of our latest Warpath rules. Warpath has gone through various iterations since the initial tests back in 2011, and this latest version goes back to the roots – it is a mass-battle game with abstracted details to make it quick and simple to play – something we’ve had huge success with, as Kings of War fans will know. However, we will cover that version of Warpath in detail tomorrow.

Today we’re here to talk about something a little different…



The feedback on this year’s alpha was varied. The mechanics largely went down well as we’d hoped, and the players who had a chance to test out the rules gave us some really reassuring comments. However, for a portion of our community the rules didn’t provide the gaming fix they were looking for. The Warpath we put out is something quite different, whereas a lot of people were searching for a viable alternative to the other games on the market that they are currently playing, and wanted certain design points of those games carried through to Warpath.

These gamers wanted a game that had more granularity – something that could be played with smaller forces (somewhere from platoon to company level, as opposed to an “army”, but not single squad level like Deadzone) and something that gave more weight to the individual figures, rather than the units. This is understandable – wargaming is a hobby after all, and you will have all spent many hours lovingly painting your models – making them a more integral part of the action is a just reward.

In response, we commissioned Warpath: Firefight. The brief was to take the same objectives that we had with Warpath, and carry forward some of the game mechanics, but build them into a game that ticked all of these boxes – individual casualty removal, more detail, and less abstraction of stats and abilities – a more cinematic game. The game would use fewer figures, and zooming in on the action would alter some of the strategic choices, but the mandate to create a fast, slick, sci-fi game still remained.

The core objectives of the game were to firstly create something that “felt” sci-fi, with a focus on shooting and advanced tech. The game was to be dynamic and reactive, with emphasis on suppressive fire, tactical formations, combined arms, and as much tactical choice as possible. Terrain was to be majorly important both as an in-game objective, and to make the playing field obviously different from other wargames like Kings of War. In between all of these things, we absolutely had to keep the core rules as simple as possible, as you have come to expect from Mantic. These goals are something that we are taking forward with both Warpath and Firefight, but in different ways.


To ensure that Firefight was approached with fresh eyes and to avoid confusing it with the “mass-battle” mindset of Warpath, we wanted it written by a completely different designer to the original game, and who better than Mark Latham? Mark has previously been in charge of Warhammer 40,000 and also headed up the White Dwarf team, so he knows his way around a sci-fi wargame.

Mark is still working on the rules themselves, but he has put together some notes on some of the things to expect from Firefight as opposed to Warpath.

• Every model matters – casualty removal, positioning and variation of weaponry and equipment within a unit are all important.

• Detailed rules for unit interaction considering the more free-form approach.

• More detail for weapon types and special rules.

• Get into the thick of the action, using true LOS, per-model hits in shooting and melee, improved terrain occupying rules, and Warpath’s Orders system.

For those of you eager to try out the Firefight rules, if there is anything else that you want to see, please let us know below and we will make sure Mark sees all of the comments. This game is for you guys after all – we want it to be perfect!

Let us know what you think in the comments below, and check back tomorrow for more information on the Warpath rules!

Remember, the Kickstarter goes live at 1:30pm BST on Monday 21st September.

Previous Articles on Warpath:

Warpath Kickstarter Launches 21st September

About the Warpath Kickstarter


  1. I think Warpath: Firefight is going to be a big success if they get the mechanics right. There are plenty of squad-level skirmish games out there (including Deadzone), and there are a fair few ‘big’ sci-fi games as well (Warhammer 40,000, Dropzone Commander and others), but I think what’s missing at the moment is a really good ‘platoon level’ sci-fi game that allows you to put together an army with a few squads, a battlefield commander, a vehicle or two and have a fun, fast-paced, tactical game. I hesitate to mention GW again, but the kind of game 3rd edition 40k was before they started pushing huge games with colossally sized vehicles and monsters. If Mantic can deliver that, I think they will be on to a real winner.

    • I will have to agree with everything that Pete just said. Warpath: Firefight sounds like the game scale that I am looking for in a sci-fi miniatures game.

    • Have to agree with pete above, thats sounds like the ruleset I was expecting. I would add that I’d prefer a different system to True LOS, but it’s not a deal breaker. I’d definitely like to see alternative activation with the ability to retain the initiative.

      I’m also really glad you’ve selected Mark to write the rules, knowing his work it should be a great system and has reignited my interest after my disappointment with the mass battle rules (just not my cup of tea, although I can see how some people like them)

    • Stargrunt II.

      Seriously. Look it up.

    • I found both Dirtside and Stargrunt recently. I liked what I saw, but Stargrunt lacks a points system and relies on player agreement to decide balance for scenario. That is fine, but I want a game with more structure. I also want something that I can likely see and play at bigger conventions, which I don’t think that Stargrunt has in the cards.

      I am super excited for Warpath, I need something to scratch my 28mm wargame itch. I need something bigger than most of the smaller skirmish offerings on the market right now, and also something that can have a real chance at being a mainstream game like Warmachine, 40k, or even Flames of War. Warpath might do this for me, so my Kickstarter dollars will go to them.

      Help me, Mantic Games. You’re my only hope.

  2. True LoS is such a major turn-off, but hopefully it’ll get weeded out in playtests.

    • I Like it, but what do you see as the down side to true LOS?

    • The issue with True LOS is that the pose and modifications to the model now have an affect upon gameplay. Why have a sniper that stands with their gun in the air like the limited Reb Commander when one kneeling like the enforcer sniper provides less of a target in game, and better use of cover. The models are supposed to be representative of someone that’s always moving so why does a static pose dictate line of sight?

    • The problem with true line of sight is that it creates a situation where artistic choices–the pose and positioning of the model on its base–have tactical consequences.

      For example, if I have a bunch of close combat models, and they don’t need line of sight to declare a charge, why would I ever want to model them standing up? I may as well model every single close combat guy face down on the ground so that they are as hard as possible to see.

    • Yeah I have never seen a negative for True Line of Sight, other than argumentative opponents (just let them have their way and don’t play with them again, sorted!). Laser Pens are cheap enough if you really need to prove you can see a model. Though I do really enjoy Kings of War’s Line of Sight system. Makes it dead simple and has some logic behind it.

  3. *Casualty Removal* is a must for me. I don’t want to play a 28mm version of Epic 40k!

    But frakkin hell, *Firefight* now means I’ll need to pay close attention to the Warpath KS. Which I was gonna skip.

    Well played Mantic!

  4. True los sounds great, until you start using it… I’d rather a height system where each model has a height that’s compared to terrain and other figures.

    • yeah, agreed but then again, i like the idea of collecting different posings so that each terrain piece differently allows different poses to gain LoS.

      still consider in this way:
      dwarves will be able to see through short openings without going prone, will suffer to see over taller obstacles and spend more to traverse them, and yet should gain better cover for their short stature that in many instances will turn a short wall from partial or half cover into full cover without having to, again, go prone and suffer movement penalties.

  5. I’d like to see previews before the KS if at all possible. Are you looking at doing target selection similar to Warmachine/Hordes where models can chose their targets? Or is combat more of a straight re-skin of 40k?

    I assume the TLOS is volumetric for infantry, but honestly game groups can decide if they would prefer model or volumetric based on their own play style.

  6. So I’ve played a couple of games of Deadzone. Pledged 300+ dollars on the Deadzone: Infestation kickstarter. I haven’t gotten the stuff yet (looking forward to January).

    From my pledge I should have enough stuff to make both a sizeable Enforcer and Ver-Myn army for something like Firefight.

    … But despite not having received the Deadzone stuff, I’ll have to watch this kickstarter campaign. …

  7. Nice. I’d be interested in the beta.

  8. What I want to see in firefight above anything else is emphasis on the morale of the units.

    I saw some elements from the epic armageddon supression system in the warpath beta rules. I liked that really much. So rules for crossfire and unit supression is high on my wishlist.

    One thing that really irks me in 7th ed 40k is the too abstract terrain and building rules. Bikes charging to upper floors in buildings seems just silly. So proper rules how infantry fight around ruins and buildings would be appreciated. Setting up defensive position behind barricades or on the higher floor should have impact if enemy decides to take a risk and charge them.

    If these are implemented in some fashion I’m happy. 🙂

    Anyway thanks for the great job.

  9. Since this is supposed to be about your beautiful models (probably with HUGE guns) I can also see TLOS hampering this, definitely keen for more of the Mars Attacks type rule or at least a height/volume space rule. something that will reduce argument. Although according to my partner my Soldiers in Mars Attacks always ‘count as’ being in the open, handicap rules….apparently not in the rulebook I read :p

  10. I have two questions.
    1) Will both these rulesets be included in the rulebook?
    2) are you going to honor the vouchers for the warpath rulebook that you gave out with warpath army boxes a few years ago? (i’ve been saving mine just in case.)

  11. Im so glad that Mantic has again showed that what the fans think is important.
    I think Firefight sounds like alot of fun. But that if you want a large scale game using the same miniatures youll have the option for both.
    One of the rules i really liked in the original Warpath rules was the ability for support weapons to be used agaisnt a seperate target than the the rest of the unit{BFG’s}.

  12. Dammit to hel Ronnie, I’m trying desperately to kick the wargaming habit and stay clean and sober – you’re making it so frakkin difficult!!!

    Sounds great though. I was there with the first Warpath iteration, gave the alternate activation a try, and now Firefight sounds like a game I could really sink my teeth into. And now I’m earning in a full time job again, dammit dammit DAMMIT!!! And damn you too, you sexy Beast!!

  13. As usual, I’m going all in as I did for Deadzone, even though I probably won’t get around to actually playing it for a while. Firefight sounds right up my alley, although I’m still longing to play Deadzone and Warpath also sounds interesting.

  14. I think there are a fair few similar “platoon” level systems already available (Bolt Action, Warzone Resurrection, Dust to name a few). It will be interesting to see what distinguishes this game from those.
    I think I would probably have called it something completely different rather than just add a sub-title (even while continuing to set it in the same Universe) just to make newcomers distinguish between it and the main Warpath.

  15. Reading through the comments and article above I wanted to confirm the format of the firefight rulebook.

    Will it be a separate rulebook? will it be folded into the Warpath rulebook (as certain mechanics will stay the same across both games)

    Essentially what we would be getting is miniatures that can function in 3 different games (deadzone (if rules are included) warpath and firefight.

    What about rules that be played over various miniature ranges; for example, if warpath is scaled in inches then simply changing the unit of measurement to cm gives you a viable 10mm game.

    How does warpath scale up to ‘BIG’ battles? Would mantic consider producing a 10mm range (taking advantage of suitable opportunities for super heavies and the like!).

    As an aside I would really like to hear more about how the games interact with terrain, I am hoping for breech and clear style tensions as in the fallen frontiers skirmish game.

  16. Awesome.
    The alpha rules were brilliant apart from the model-by-model tangibility.
    Will be interesting to see how the damage/suppression rules play.

    Very keen to see:
    – Vehicle explosions and a feeling of momentum moving. Very early WP did this well.
    – Tanks demolishing buildings, maybe removing them from the board
    – Building like (like power generators or ammo dumps) that can explode
    – Aircraft ramming tanks or objectives – sounds silly but Plague 3rd Gens know how to fly

    Happy to keep the stripped-back commands of the alpha rules, no need to go all WHFB magic card / 40K general abilities. Would be great to keep the core game clean for balance and maybe add that sort of thing as an optional add-on to army lists.

    Can’t wait to start playtesting my Enforcers and writing army lists to fit my shelved 40K armies!

  17. Could we please have a 6 x 4 mat like the Deadzone 2 x 2 ones?
    Would make a corker of a stretch goal.

  18. Even though we’ll have two sets of rules, I hope there is 100% consistency between them. The last thing we all need is to learn two completely different sets of rules.

    Games being simple and fast make for a smooth, quick, easy to learn game. However, some of the suggestions above, although adding more rules/complexity, also add to the immersive feel and flavour (and can also add to the strategy).

    Interactions with scenery
    Compatibility of every miniature with all Warpath-Universe games
    Unit upgrades, weapon/skill, etc.
    I like the way WarmaHordes restricts unit sizes to a Min/Max only… make it a much smoother system to build armies with. However their system does lack any flexibility to customize each unit with variable weapons/equipment.
    Stat cards ala WarmaHordes is also a great idea. People love them so much, there are many fan solutions, which goes to show that an official addition would please us all!

  19. I wouldn’t miss True Line of Sight. I certainly don’t lament the lack of blast templates either. Height Values, simple LOS rules and random Blast values for the win. If you can make the individual vs individual level make sense and still play with minimal arguments then do it.

    Also, for Mass Battles at least, would like to see personality figures as an upgrade for certain units but perhaps offer new Orders, Tactics and Actions that serve as variety rather than just giving the unit a better version of a regular unit member or some sort of one man army monster that costs as much as ten grunts for some silly reason. Maybe the personalities don’t figure into the Force Value, but get X of them available for taking certain options instead. They’d be worth a different amount of scenario points depending on the situation, rather than a force value that seems better off buying a team or two or a tank in their place.

    • Agree with the Personality, and leaders make or would allow players to alter units and how they work tailored to how to like to fight, prefer or tailor to games.

      Would be useful for Mantic as they can sell figures or specialised figures with cards or sell cards that alter a key figure and how and what they do both with their abilities and a units. You could have a figure that has three variants depending on campaign and their place, etc.

    • This is good:
      would like to see personality figures as an upgrade for certain units but perhaps offer new Orders, Tactics and Actions that serve as variety rather than just giving the unit a better version of a regular unit member or some sort of one man army monster that costs as much as ten grunts for some silly reason.

      SO, the leader model will cost more points but due to tabletop influence, or squad will cost more?

      maybe the way to go is like this:

      leader models may be imported from rpg squad level rule system.
      buffs and experience bonuses will be costed in as an independent character cost.
      this leader may lead a unit with similar buffs, costed per unit,
      or may lead a unit with none in which case the unit does not benefit from leader skills.

      this way, a player may field a ‘veteran’ unit without ‘special’ character leadership,
      and may also plug ongoing squad level rpg results into firefight scale rules,
      which may then be scaled up to larger forces as these model-level adjustments disappear.

      ALSO< i agree that some emphasis on morale, along with terrain and LoS, will reinforce rpg elements/feel without adding to complexity. in fact being intuitive makes this approach easier to learn and play through.

    • This is the point really, and the ability to mod a unit with add-ons like a replacement unit leader.

      The ability to develop new leaders or existing personalities would also be useful, so a skill web would be nice.

      The cost would be to replace the exisiting unit leader/commander, support.

      You can also have a model with variant cards in so Lt Draygon first responder of the Dedilas incident who provides the unit with enthusiasm and double move, or Colonel Draygon grizzled vet, cynical bonus to ambush penalties etc. You could also have lesser leaders who boost existig unti skills, or Captain Suzzan Dessis Combat Medic, etc.

      It allows tailors to a unit ad how you play, creates bonus and penalties to help counter some of the Power gaming. It also offers great miniature-story tie-ins ad follow up deals. Allows every unit everyone plays to be different and while it may seem like Hero Hammer its not as a leader adds to a unit not himself, ad making it possible to target leaders with say snipers makes it a double edged sword, pay and use or pay and lose. However it makes your army unique to you.

    • leaders more like battlefield officers and commanders who make units better or opponents worse, but they also need to be considered in how they interact with units, so cowardly and hide behind or lead from front, or interact, etc.

  20. Can’t wait to take a look at the Warpath: Firefight rules.

  21. i agree with jirka, above, about interactivity of terrain.

    interested in rules testing/interpretation/editing
    send me a note.

  22. re-read the comments after a night to sleep on it.

    seems that there are two camps:
    one massed battle at some scale, epic or warmahordes i guess,
    the other more attentive to individual models, rpg in flavor, deadzone, necromunda.

    it seems to me that mantic should consider scaling a single system
    from small group to 100 models with rpg elements
    that then extend into epic scale conflicts,
    with some noteworthy elements translating from one scale to the next.

    at the small group level, this is a detailed rpg type game,
    with psychological effects and wound histories and skill development and so on.

    at the next level, this translates into wargear and leadership effects (hated enemy/feared enemy mods, specialist bonuses, strategy options and so on).

    at the next level, much of this disappears but for maybe strategy, for example.

    and then there is planetary bombardment, where the individual model disappears and the army itself becomes a marker.

    actually, i never understood why gw never bundled necromunda into 40k,
    so that players could craft their own epic leaders beginning with a small force,
    leveling up heroes in a small group who then – as the player buys new models and develops skills and understands what he/she wants to invest time and money into – become squad leaders for his 40k/firefight scale force leading the squads for which that individual character model’s specialist skill best contributes … so a scout character will lead a scout unit, the melee specialist will lead the melee specialists, the sniper will lead the snipers, the tanker will lead the vehicle pool, and like that.

    as for line of sight,
    again there are two camps.

    seems best is to allow for either, as agreed by players.

    in my opinion, “in principle” line of sight is best.

    for shooting, offense, seeing out:
    if any of the models in the unit can get line of sight,
    by positioning the model into the terrain as best as possible
    or by easy measurement as an approximation,
    then line of sight can be drawn
    though opportunities for drawing a shot on a target remain limited
    by terrain, and by anything that interferes with opportunities for line of sight that limiting terrain affords.
    for instand, a unit in a building with one low window can afford one model line of sight out of the building.
    if this line is clear, then the shot is clear. if the line is interrupted by intervening terrain, then the shot is not clear and suffers accordingly.

    this approach also represents practical differences between short and tall statures, as for instance a unit may have to go prone to get a single shot out of a low window if it is of a medium or tall stature, but a dwarf sniper may not be so affected, and may be able to move normally while a larger model may have to move more slowly in transitioning from prone to standing.

    this approach encourages the use of multiple poses in a collection, and this is good
    because it ultimately results in the best looking tabletop.
    as different poses can be placed in terrain to accentuate the realism,
    multiple poses are useful in gaging line of sight.
    but again, a simple scale measure suffices where this is not possible (in a closed building, for instance).

    also, this approach is simple enough,
    not time consuming,
    AND the laser pointer remains useful!
    both camps should be satisfied.

    that said, if players agree to handle terrain in another way, in order to save time, or in order to represent more terrain effects, then alternatives are easily enough provided and the choice left to the gamers.

    as well, the rpg elements may be used or left out, as well.

  23. oh, yeah and so far as defensive line of sight goes
    a dwarf should be able to benefit from full cover of a low wall without movement penalty, where a larger model would have to suffer a movement penalty to gain full cover or to gain benefits of only half cover.

    this is also very important.

    also, a line of sight through a single low window for example should be handled as such,
    if a model can be “in principle” seen by a an enemy, then it may be shot at and may also shoot back.
    if not, then no in either case.

    so, with the low window, looking in, a model in a unit can target a model behind that window if it can draw an in principle line of sight to that model.
    normal intervening terrain effects apply (partial cover for the window, likely, and so on).

  24. and one more thing.

    a general observation.

    from what i can see, people are looking to keep their universes alive while loosening a dependency on one company to do the keeping.

    in the face of this, some companies are isolating themselves by pissing all over their own IP so that no body else will want to touch it, and ultimately that will backfire.

    a good rules systems and miniatures company will recognize that it is part of a community not only of player-investors (cuz that is really what we are, at the end of the day) but also of other companies, often started up by fans of the game system and members of the same community of player-investors.

    so, deadzone, firefight, warpath, this represents a way to drive interest in a multitude of miniatures and personalities, and this is good for the industry and the community as a whole, and this is ultimately good for mantic.
    not overnight, but slowly, this is the cultural phenomenon that keeps a good company floating on the good will of the community and that inspires the best performance and product and this only further cements standing in the community, standing that other companies – sadly – have squandered.

    from the young gamer’s point of view, to pick up new players, an rpg squad level game that scales into a 40k scale game while retaining some of the rpg elements so that the investment of time and money is apparent in the army on the table top as it is built and enlarged, and new ones produced.

    of course, one need not play from small to large scales.
    points and abilities can be costed in at each level.
    but, for the player who wants to build up, when moving from squad to larger scales,
    that player can SEE his history in the force that he is compiling,
    and this is what a lot of people miss in more ‘board-gamey’ wargames…
    anyways, seems that this is the best way to grow a market.
    and i still don;t understand why gw never took this route.
    rather, they just said that ehy build models and screw the rules cuz it only costs r&d.
    idiots, imho.

    • The Dwarf issue is an easy fix as you just add a size tag to the Card stats, so Human 3, dwarf 2, Plague Monster 7 it allows then players to put in flexibility with out it being to difficult to work.

    • that is great of terrain is bad but with a good table, i think that putting the dwarf next to the window, in a pose that suits, and look at it.
      this is best.
      it is a miniatures wargame for a reason.
      if we just look at the numbers, and play by those, why do we bother painting so finely and building so accurately a beautiful tabletop stop-motion battle-sim?

  25. I think that Mantic pats themselves too much on the back and really takes a dig on the clientele by saying that Warpath is so “different” and they made firefight to respond to those that want to stay like other games.

    I was one that mentioned how unattractive the Warpath rules were because the squad movement is too similar to that other well known game. I am glad that they are creating an individual based game that is actually different.

  26. I would like a copy of the rules.

  27. I had no interest before in warpath until firefight was mentioned, so the following is just a wishlist for something filling a niche I’d love to see filled: a quick, high lethality streamlined system playing more like upscaled infinity than upscaled deadzone.

    1. Both inter-squad and inner-squad interaction, with postioning, targetting and casualties on mini-level. Squad-level activation turn, mini-level actions.

    2. Simple resolution of attacks – preferably a single roll-to-kill with modifiers, not roll to hit, to wound, to save… No wounds – soldier either fights at full capacity or is incapacitated (handling carrying wounded might make fun advanced optional rules). Of course, some weapons might be less effective against some armour, but it’s neither realistic nor fun to play in conditions where some units are completely unprepared for fighting other units (like in a another game…).

    3. Big emphasis on terrain and terrain denial. Cover and positionning crucial, reaction/overwatch a huge part of the game, as well as suppression fire.

    4. This is a level where communication and interaction between squads would be best visible; I’d love to see some rules for jamming signals; at the very least different squads shouldn’t be able to perfectly coordinate with each other; for example it would be unrealistic to expect perfect suppression+advance ‘frog’ combo between squads, or being able to switch activations between squads to get the perfect order of picking individual targets…

    5. Some technology warfare that would make it truly sci-fi: holo decoys, mines/traps, cloaking…

    6. True LoS only in combination with multipose minis, as suggested above. If I can’t kneel or lie down I don’t want a waist-level barrier to provide little cover. Abstracted LoS is fine and probably preferable for less modelling-heavy players. What is to stop me from converting all minis so they’re kneeling to gain an advantage?

  28. The more I think about it, the more I am sure that what I’d love to see is a system with no god-commander and/or squads/minis acting completely individually, but one which models inter-squad cooperation. So for example a pathfinder having los to a model/squad would give a boost to cover/attacks of other enforcers with regard to that enemy. Or having rules/possibility of executing coordinated manouvers such as one squad laying suppression fire and another advancing as part of uninterupted activation sequence.

    This also lays ground for a simple hacking/radio jamming system where a successful attempt would strip the opponnent of those bonuses. It looks like it wouldn’t require complex rules or resolution process.

    Platoon seems like the best level to model these things and it could make for truly a different game (to me, I’m not really a sf player though).

    • You ca have an army leader or unit leader ca have abilities or enhance a army in specific ways or target enemy units and make them worse without ever making it a God emperor type of system and one agrees with you on this, its about making the system more balanced from the start and planing for rule expansion.

  29. About true LoS, I like the way infinity solves the issue. Every model has a number that indicates the size (height and width), so when in doubt (like a prone soldier), you only have to put the cardboard marker that ocupies the right amount of space and check again.

    I agree too that I don’t want god-like commanders that can wipe out entire squads bare handed. Better to have improvements to that squad (like having a melee leader that gives you improved close combat stats), or other kind of support.

    • Infinity idea is not a bad one, ad at least allows for a inbook template example to help cut down on arguments.

      LoS and LoF need to be set and defined from beginning. This is where leaders and unit leaders and specialists can be used well, and designed with both in mind.

      The leader thing is a big one and they should like battle units in life they add or bring something to the unit, not win wars by self.

  30. Andreas Wemmenhed September 25, 2015 at 9:36 am

    Don´t forget “Overwatch” “pinning” “arc of fire” and alteranate activation system. Be it Dices from a bag, figures on the Dice, cards or whatever but please not anoteher “You go I go system”. That´s all I had.

    • “Overwatch” “pinning” “arc of fire” Thats something one was pondering along with “LoF”, “reactive Fire”, “resposive Fire”, and “combat Stress”

      If you also add troop types, so “Irregular”, “Green”, “regular”, “Vets”, “Specialist” its not so much for complexity for its sake but making the basic rules cover enough that any expansions have a more solid base to work from. And also would make the game more unit reality based

  31. “reactive Fire”, “resposive Fire”, would also stop the IGYG 40k’esk style of gaming where troops move aroud and the enemy do nothig while it happens.

  32. If I play sci fi 28 I play 40k 2nd edition. 20years are gone, the game with some simple house rules works very well. I will see if this set of rule, apparently the same scale, will give me something interesting. Not better, but simpler and still fun. I like the space opera and not hard scifi, I love the feeling of 40k 2nd edition, I never found a ruleset simpler and at the same time with different special abilities that made that old game so unique.

1 Trackback / Pingback

  1. Epic Warpath Rules: Uncovered! - BoLS GameWire

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: