Kings of War Reviewed

(Warning: Don't bother reading this if you have ever said "it's fantasy, it doesn't have to be realistic." You've already excluded yourself from the conversation.)

For the last year or so many members of my gaming club, the Spotsylvania Area Gamers have been pretty focused on a fantasy wargame, Kings of War 3rd edition published by Mantic Games. see a beginner's guide here.) It has taken the place of the fantasy game we tried briefly the year before, Age of Sigmar by Games Workshop. I've played enough Kings of War now to review it, I believe.  

Since this is the first war game review I've done for this blog, I thought I should detail my gaming background. I started war gaming in 1979 with Avalon Hill's Panzerblitz. I started miniature wargaming in 1986 when I was a Freshman at Norwich University and joined the the N.U.T.S. (Norwich University Tactics Society).  I've had a lot of experience playing a lot of different systems. My favorite fantasy wargaming system was Battlesystem 2nd edition by TSR, I rejected Warhammer in the '90s because I disliked Games Workshop's marketing practices.  

My dislike of Games Workshop has never really faded over the years, but in a club, you play what the majority prefers.  Many of our club members got their start in gaming with Warhammer 40k or Warhammer, and they were excited to try Age of Sigmar. I had some old GW lizardmen figures I had purchased used years ago so I jumped in. I didn't really like the game, when I beat a player who was far more skilled then I simply through dumb luck, I was convinced it wasn't the game for me.  And after a year the clubs interest in that system evaporated.  

Still, I loved fantasy war games and wanted to play more fantasy rather then simply go back to science fiction or historical war games. So when the club's interest turned to Kings of War I was very willing to try it.

I like it better then Age of Sigmar but that really is faint praise. After playing for over a year now, albeit stop and go due to the pandemic, I do have some thoughts on the good and the bad of Kings of War. I prefer intuitive games that start from a foundation of relative historical simulation and adjust from there for playability, I understand that many younger players are not interested in simulation at all. 

Good: Figures from all manufacturers welcome.  This really should be the norm, but companies like Games Workshop and Battlefront have pushed to crush the independence of the war gaming hobby by trying to limit 'organized play' to 'official' figures only.  I can't imagine that 3d printers are going to allow that nonsense to last with any game company for long.  

Bad:  'Group' basing and rigid formations.  All troops are in a single square or rectangular block and they cannot change formations. while this allows for gorgeous gaming dioramas as play pieces, it prevents anything resembling realistic play. Just as bad, from my point of view, is that the rigid basing discourages using the figures for other systems. Either you base them for Kings of War or you do a lot of additional work to allow your individually based figures to stand properly on Kings of War unit bases. As a firm believer in using figures in multiple settings and systems, this really bugs me. 

Good: A wide variety of fantasy archetypes are given statistics.  Nearly every fantasy trope is represented.

Bad: But they still have those different fantasy types rigidly defined. You can only play the armies designed by Mantic in Mantic's world. The system is not designed to be used for any other setting, there is purposefully no player freedom here.  You cannot decide to use Kings of War to fight out battle between orcs and dwarves on Middle Earth or in the Forgotten Realms. There is no way to create personal units or creatures. Basically, no room for player innovation or imagination.  

Good: The nerve checks with wavering and rout results, and hits instead of removing figures from units, is pretty good. Combining damage and morale results for a hybrid, cumulative effect on a unit is usually solid wargame design and the same holds here. 

Very Bad: Of course, the solid design of the combat results roll is nearly wiped about by the very broken melee combat system.  Melee combat is not simultaneous in this game. If someone charges you, their damage is done and results applied long before your unit gets a chance to strike back. The result is that often units will die in this game without ever striking a blow back.  It's simply ridiculous. Melee in the game should be simultaneous.  Regardless of which player's turn it is, if units are locked in hand to hand combat then they should both make attacks.  Yes, this will make for bloodier battles.  But as it stands, 90% of game play in this game is pre-measuring to stay out of charge range, unless you want to charge first.  It makes for games that don't feel like battles at all.  

Good:  The magic system.  The spells and magic items are straightforward and simple, and not overly complicated nor generally unbalanced. 

Very Bad: The bonuses for attacking the flanks and rear of enemy units are overwhelming.  Combined with the rigid unit base shapes, the elementary terrain rules, and the odd movement rules, the game devolves into "gotcha" geometry that resembles no real life battle I can think of.  

Good: A solid army building system. Like so many systems today, this one is focused on "organized play" or tournaments. It is obvious that the designers spent far more time on their army building system then on any other aspect of the rules, the result is a system that seems incredibly balanced.

Bad: The terrain and movement system are extremely simple and poorly done. This is especially noticeable in a fantasy system, where often units will have odd, interesting movement abilities. Kings of War has frog like creatures who can hop, amphibious fishmen, elementals, and flying creatures but all of their special movement abilities get watered down and rendered boring by the system. Castles, towers, magical swamps, and crystal groves are equally muddied up. 

Good: The game has a decent scenario system. It produces relatively random scenarios that are basically even. 

Bad: It doesn't lend itself to individualized scenario play.  The game just doesn't lend itself to anything beyond organized play. I would be astounded to see someone running a convention game using Kings of War.     

There are a few other issues, for example artillery is overly effective and missile fire too ineffective, but those issues have more to do with individual unit ratings then they do the game system as a whole. 

Overall, Kings of War is a simple game that does not produce battles that feel "real", it favors simplicity over simulation to a fault. It's reasonably well balanced.  But most figures used for the game will be useless for use in any other gaming system, making it relatively expensive for multi-system wargamers. It feels like a step backwards in game design but caters well to its target audience of former Games Workshop players.

I'll keep playing the game though, because that's what my club plays. 

Edit: A couple 'Good' points about the game that I was reminded of by 'Clement' in the Facebook Kings of War Fanatics group. First, all of the rules and a decent selection of army lists are included in the main book. The game system keeps splatbooks to a minimum, the only current splatbook simply adds more army lists, not more rules.  That's a big positive. And second, the game lends itself well to a chess-style turn clock. This is another way it is well suited for tournament play.  Neither of these change my view of the game, I was aware of them, but they are important positives that it is only fair my review mention.

All views in this blog are my own and represent the views of no other person, organization, or institution.