@@StevanEC far from it. GW is bad when it comes to 99.9% of things. Especially with price and game design. But their models are beautiful and I can understand the price tag. While I don't agree with said price tag, I understand why it is that. KOW? They have the UGLIEST models I have seen and worked with. Till this day I am convinced someone busted a nut on my models because when I opened the bag it felt very stinky. Like unnaturally sticky.
@@KallenMalefic KOW models are not the best by any means, and I agree with you about GW models being beautiful, there is no other company to have such great sculpts, but, that for the new models and main game systems, did you already see the Old World models? Most of them are old and ugly, as an example, see the difference between Empire of Dust and Khemri models. Mantic ones are a lot better. And for a mass-battle game we want good and cheap models.
@@StevanEC Oh please. Nobody under the age of 60 cares about Old World. It was a cash grab by GW to get money from out of touch boomers and people who unironically think "the old days were better". Of course they are ugly. Nobody was actually buying them. And anyone playing that game already has their army from before you and I were even born.
Being 'devastated' is where you get the difference in unit effectiveness after they've taken enough damage that their effectiveness is hampered. half attacks and -1 to hit.
Kings of war for me is the game I wished fantasy had been. Amazing game better than the old world for me. I find it to have amazing complexity and as such in depth tactics that matter more than big dragon. Actually in most battles once a unit broke that was it.
KoW is a streamlined masterpiece of a rules set. It’s like chess, with every piece belongs a set of stats and with only a small bit of chance involved. TOW meanwhile is a masterpiece of flavor, with enough rules for everything to feel right, but not enough to plug every gap. In this game of chess, every piece isn’t just a ‘knight’ or a ‘pawn’, but has a set of special rules, lore and art that separates itself so much that it barely resembles the opponent’s ‘knight’ or ‘pawn’. I play them both, but they couldn’t feel much further apart.
One thing to be aware of is that because of the IGO-UGO aspect of KOW and the fact that you track damage to a unit across turns, since it won't attack you back on your turn you can absolutely setup situations where it is damaged but although it COULD still hit you hard, you are able to take it out before it does so. It's just a matter of practice to know the right tactics to get the most out of the system and your army. The other thing I'll note is that in KOW the amount of practice you put into a particular army very, very much matters. It rewards practice and skill more so than list building or chance.
I've been playing kings of war for 8 years at a high level and it isn't even close its the best fantasy rank n flank mass battle game out there. It's got a near flawless and balanced rules set that's easy to grasp but hard to master. It's fast and fun with unambiguous rules and has an excellent scope for modelling with multibasing and being mini agnostic. It's also a damp sight cheaper than warhammer on every level. I also play old world and played every edition of fantasy prior. I like both systems but I play warhammer for the setting and fluff which is exceptional and something of a genuine criticism of kings of war which lacks a depth of fluff and never felt immersive in the war hammer did. As a side by side comparison the two are very different games sharing a similar arena but as a game kings is king by a long long way.
Great that you took the time for this comparison. Clearly it was very influenced by your experiences , of which you have more on the GW game. Knowing both games and WHFB from 3rd edition onwards, I think the games are not comparable at all except that you can use the same dice and the same minis. Warhammer Fantasy was always more or less focused on individial Herous, Monsters etc. Clearly given by the background of the vast and extensively worked out Warhammer World - which is/was a kind of persiflage of our existing world with nations we all know. When KoW came out, it no rela fleshed out World or lore , so no named Heroes , no famous regiments etc. And yes, the idea was not to imitate WHFB but to bring something new to the table which plays way faster then any WHFB game, has more streamlined rules and, was not a convolute of rules, special rules and exemptions of those published over a variety of costly rule and armybooks aside from those publications like White Dwarf. Alessio did exactly that. A lot of what KoW is today, stems from the players themselves, as , contrary to GW, Mantic has tried to include the players in rules development from the first day on. And it is a blessing, that rules don't change any other year or get updated to an eextend, that armies become totally worthless. As for the miniatures count : WHTOW is for me not a "Mass Fantasy battle game system" . With 50 - 60 Minis on the table you can hardly speak of "Mass". You could call WHFB 8th. Edition that. My Skavenarmy back in 2012 or so was close to 300 models and even the expensive Warriors of Chaos fielded easily more than any ToW Army today at similar point ranges. TOW is for me a better skirmisher. Too many complex rules written in an unclear way leaving too much questions unanswered for such a small skirmish game. But I do get it that many people seem to have no patience to built and paint an army with maybe 150 models. But that is a general development these days. Then you have what's called The Magic System : You didn't mention it during your comparison explicitely, but it was a huge thing back in WHFB 8th.Edition and became a neglectable one in TOW, at least in comparison. While I do like certain aspects of the new magic system in ToW and found the one on KOW rather rudimentary, I do not want the system of 8th. edition back, as it was highly debatable and ceratinly gamechanging in many aspects. I dropped TOW after a couple of games because it is again a convolute of rules , special rules and exemptions spread over a variety of sources and over many different chapters in the main rulebook. On top, quite a few TOW rules seem not to have undergone actual playtesting ( despite the crew having worked more than 4 years on the project and the company had about 35+ years experience with WHFB editions and their shortcomings). So TOW is for me today a mix of 4th. with a bit of 6th. Edition, stirred up with some AoS, Warmaster and "The Hobbit" spices. If I would go back to any of the WHFB editions, it would probably be 6th/7th. or 8th. but with the restrictions usually needed when playing tournaments because of the unbalanced nature of most WHFB editions in vanilla. Sorry for the wall of text.
I think you need to play a few more games. KoW is really hard to appreciate the differences until you've played quite a few games. I must be in my hundreds of games now and i am still learning things every game - usually how to use something better or set things up better.
KoW has been my go-to. But it's great to have comparisons! It's quick etc. Also I kind of contest your idea that in old world taking damage diminishes your effectiveness. That only matters for some infantry and cav units that are not killed at one go. As there is no stepup and only first rank fights, youre only basically as effective as your first rank is (not counting combat res from some ranks and line hammer). Monsters and heroes in old world perform as long as they're alive. You're correct both have pros and cons. Neither is really better. It's about preference.
i think you should give oathmark a go. the activation system means you can be very tactical and the flow of the battle can swing dramatically. and heroes impact the battle but not so much that they are unkillable.
Different games doing different things. To me ToW is about list building and trick execution, KoW is about toolkit building and on table tactics. ToW is more fun narratively, KoW is a better wargame. ToW is fiddly and time consuming to do little, whilst KoW you essentially have armies twice the size and you're playing way faster. For something FAIR or COMPETITIVE there is no comparison - KoW hands down thrashes ToW.
Tried KoW when GW murdered Fantasy. Didn’t care for it then. It’s easy to tune TOW by playing with the army composition rules/points limits. And of course, as you said, there’s nothing stopping you from using whatever models you want, other than tournament rules requiring certain models, a certain level of wysiwyg and a certain level of painting standards.
Been in both worlds and I say KoW all day. So tired of Herohammer or Spellhammer, for an example; layer after layer with saves . Unbalanced army list with years between them.. KoW have more of tactical missions were unit is so important even the wek ones. The new minatures are much better quality in KoW, the old ones were not very funny at all. During one time per year the KoW armies and rules are balanced in Clash Of Kings. Mantic(company) RC - Rule Commity and the gamers actually is part of this balancing of rules and armies. The heroes/characters do have buff/leadership roles , not all but there are.
For all of its undeniable advantages over Warhammer Fantasy Battle, King of War still fails in the one thing it most pretends to be: a substitute for Warhammer Fantasy Battle. The model as the basic element of the game is one of the essential, defining features of WFB. KoW uses a unit-based approach like Warmaster. While this is the vogue in modern games design, it cannot capture the feel of making individual attacks with individual models, or plucking off casualties one by one as they fall from individual blows. In Warhammer, the player decides how big a unit is and which formation it will take. This fine manipulation of units is replaced in KoW with one of three set footprints: small, medium, and large. While each of these has a nominal number of individual models, they are often merely left as scenic pieces "decorated" with just enough ragtag soldiers to give them the impression of the unit they are supposed to represent. This works me for neither on an aesthetic nor a tactile level. Kings of War may be a better game, but it is not a better Warhammer.
I agree the models aren't as good, but the prices aren't comparable. You get at least double the cost of buying KOW models to TOW. It's £50 for 1 unit in TOW, £50 will get you an army in KOW.
Kings for me. Better rules. Use any models you like. Diorama bases. Faster play. Cheaper.
Cheaper? Lol sure. And KOW models are crap. Jever bought anything from that game that was worth ehat i paid for.
@@KallenMalefic A GW fanboy here...
@@StevanEC far from it. GW is bad when it comes to 99.9% of things. Especially with price and game design. But their models are beautiful and I can understand the price tag. While I don't agree with said price tag, I understand why it is that. KOW? They have the UGLIEST models I have seen and worked with. Till this day I am convinced someone busted a nut on my models because when I opened the bag it felt very stinky. Like unnaturally sticky.
@@KallenMalefic KOW models are not the best by any means, and I agree with you about GW models being beautiful, there is no other company to have such great sculpts, but, that for the new models and main game systems, did you already see the Old World models? Most of them are old and ugly, as an example, see the difference between Empire of Dust and Khemri models. Mantic ones are a lot better. And for a mass-battle game we want good and cheap models.
@@StevanEC Oh please. Nobody under the age of 60 cares about Old World. It was a cash grab by GW to get money from out of touch boomers and people who unironically think "the old days were better". Of course they are ugly. Nobody was actually buying them. And anyone playing that game already has their army from before you and I were even born.
Being 'devastated' is where you get the difference in unit effectiveness after they've taken enough damage that their effectiveness is hampered. half attacks and -1 to hit.
Kings of war for me is the game I wished fantasy had been. Amazing game better than the old world for me.
I find it to have amazing complexity and as such in depth tactics that matter more than big dragon.
Actually in most battles once a unit broke that was it.
KoW is a streamlined masterpiece of a rules set. It’s like chess, with every piece belongs a set of stats and with only a small bit of chance involved. TOW meanwhile is a masterpiece of flavor, with enough rules for everything to feel right, but not enough to plug every gap. In this game of chess, every piece isn’t just a ‘knight’ or a ‘pawn’, but has a set of special rules, lore and art that separates itself so much that it barely resembles the opponent’s ‘knight’ or ‘pawn’.
I play them both, but they couldn’t feel much further apart.
One thing to be aware of is that because of the IGO-UGO aspect of KOW and the fact that you track damage to a unit across turns, since it won't attack you back on your turn you can absolutely setup situations where it is damaged but although it COULD still hit you hard, you are able to take it out before it does so. It's just a matter of practice to know the right tactics to get the most out of the system and your army. The other thing I'll note is that in KOW the amount of practice you put into a particular army very, very much matters. It rewards practice and skill more so than list building or chance.
I've been playing kings of war for 8 years at a high level and it isn't even close its the best fantasy rank n flank mass battle game out there. It's got a near flawless and balanced rules set that's easy to grasp but hard to master. It's fast and fun with unambiguous rules and has an excellent scope for modelling with multibasing and being mini agnostic. It's also a damp sight cheaper than warhammer on every level. I also play old world and played every edition of fantasy prior. I like both systems but I play warhammer for the setting and fluff which is exceptional and something of a genuine criticism of kings of war which lacks a depth of fluff and never felt immersive in the war hammer did. As a side by side comparison the two are very different games sharing a similar arena but as a game kings is king by a long long way.
Great that you took the time for this comparison. Clearly it was very influenced by your experiences , of which you have more on the GW game. Knowing both games and WHFB from 3rd edition onwards, I think the games are not comparable at all except that you can use the same dice and the same minis. Warhammer Fantasy was always more or less focused on individial Herous, Monsters etc. Clearly given by the background of the vast and extensively worked out Warhammer World - which is/was a kind of persiflage of our existing world with nations we all know. When KoW came out, it no rela fleshed out World or lore , so no named Heroes , no famous regiments etc. And yes, the idea was not to imitate WHFB but to bring something new to the table which plays way faster then any WHFB game, has more streamlined rules and, was not a convolute of rules, special rules and exemptions of those published over a variety of costly rule and armybooks aside from those publications like White Dwarf. Alessio did exactly that. A lot of what KoW is today, stems from the players themselves, as , contrary to GW, Mantic has tried to include the players in rules development from the first day on. And it is a blessing, that rules don't change any other year or get updated to an eextend, that armies become totally worthless. As for the miniatures count : WHTOW is for me not a "Mass Fantasy battle game system" . With 50 - 60 Minis on the table you can hardly speak of "Mass". You could call WHFB 8th. Edition that. My Skavenarmy back in 2012 or so was close to 300 models and even the expensive Warriors of Chaos fielded easily more than any ToW Army today at similar point ranges. TOW is for me a better skirmisher. Too many complex rules written in an unclear way leaving too much questions unanswered for such a small skirmish game. But I do get it that many people seem to have no patience to built and paint an army with maybe 150 models. But that is a general development these days. Then you have what's called The Magic System : You didn't mention it during your comparison explicitely, but it was a huge thing back in WHFB 8th.Edition and became a neglectable one in TOW, at least in comparison. While I do like certain aspects of the new magic system in ToW and found the one on KOW rather rudimentary, I do not want the system of 8th. edition back, as it was highly debatable and ceratinly gamechanging in many aspects. I dropped TOW after a couple of games because it is again a convolute of rules , special rules and exemptions spread over a variety of sources and over many different chapters in the main rulebook. On top, quite a few TOW rules seem not to have undergone actual playtesting ( despite the crew having worked more than 4 years on the project and the company had about 35+ years experience with WHFB editions and their shortcomings). So TOW is for me today a mix of 4th. with a bit of 6th. Edition, stirred up with some AoS, Warmaster and "The Hobbit" spices. If I would go back to any of the WHFB editions, it would probably be 6th/7th. or 8th. but with the restrictions usually needed when playing tournaments because of the unbalanced nature of most WHFB editions in vanilla. Sorry for the wall of text.
I think you need to play a few more games. KoW is really hard to appreciate the differences until you've played quite a few games. I must be in my hundreds of games now and i am still learning things every game - usually how to use something better or set things up better.
KoW has been my go-to. But it's great to have comparisons!
It's quick etc. Also I kind of contest your idea that in old world taking damage diminishes your effectiveness. That only matters for some infantry and cav units that are not killed at one go. As there is no stepup and only first rank fights, youre only basically as effective as your first rank is (not counting combat res from some ranks and line hammer). Monsters and heroes in old world perform as long as they're alive.
You're correct both have pros and cons. Neither is really better. It's about preference.
KOW is a much better game for competitive play etc but it’s just not old world
i think you should give oathmark a go. the activation system means you can be very tactical and the flow of the battle can swing dramatically. and heroes impact the battle but not so much that they are unkillable.
Different games doing different things. To me ToW is about list building and trick execution, KoW is about toolkit building and on table tactics. ToW is more fun narratively, KoW is a better wargame. ToW is fiddly and time consuming to do little, whilst KoW you essentially have armies twice the size and you're playing way faster.
For something FAIR or COMPETITIVE there is no comparison - KoW hands down thrashes ToW.
How do both rank when compared to One Page Rules: Regiments?
Also, just know I have no agenda. My miniature game of choice is BattleTech/Alpha Strike.
I've not played One Page Rules so I don't know
Sounds like WH 2nd edition which I like
Tried KoW when GW murdered Fantasy. Didn’t care for it then. It’s easy to tune TOW by playing with the army composition rules/points limits. And of course, as you said, there’s nothing stopping you from using whatever models you want, other than tournament rules requiring certain models, a certain level of wysiwyg and a certain level of painting standards.
that was SO long ago, KoW has advanced quite a bit since then.
GW abandoned Oldhammer before. They will do it again.
You’re fooling yourself if you think GW will support The Old World in any real way
Been in both worlds and I say KoW all day. So tired of Herohammer or Spellhammer, for an example; layer after layer with saves . Unbalanced army list with years between them.. KoW have more of tactical missions were unit is so important even the wek ones. The new minatures are much better quality in KoW, the old ones were not very funny at all. During one time per year the KoW armies and rules are balanced in Clash Of Kings. Mantic(company) RC - Rule Commity and the gamers actually is part of this balancing of rules and armies. The heroes/characters do have buff/leadership roles , not all but there are.
GW is overpriced, overhyped and run by Slaaneshi wokies. I think it’s obvious.
For all of its undeniable advantages over Warhammer Fantasy Battle, King of War still fails in the one thing it most pretends to be: a substitute for Warhammer Fantasy Battle.
The model as the basic element of the game is one of the essential, defining features of WFB. KoW uses a unit-based approach like Warmaster. While this is the vogue in modern games design, it cannot capture the feel of making individual attacks with individual models, or plucking off casualties one by one as they fall from individual blows. In Warhammer, the player decides how big a unit is and which formation it will take. This fine manipulation of units is replaced in KoW with one of three set footprints: small, medium, and large. While each of these has a nominal number of individual models, they are often merely left as scenic pieces "decorated" with just enough ragtag soldiers to give them the impression of the unit they are supposed to represent. This works me for neither on an aesthetic nor a tactile level.
Kings of War may be a better game, but it is not a better Warhammer.
Given the history of both games and their designers, I am sure KoW never wanted to be "a better Warhammer".
KOW has ugly models and is just as expensive as GW. At least GW has quality.
I agree the models aren't as good, but the prices aren't comparable. You get at least double the cost of buying KOW models to TOW. It's £50 for 1 unit in TOW, £50 will get you an army in KOW.
@@mrzyggles9689 I live in the US. Idk where $50 gets you an army in KOW. The starter armies are $100+. So already your argument is shut down.