Wrath of KIngs v2

By September 18, 2016Boardgames, Sheet Updates
Wrath of Kings

I’m jus’ pain covered with skin.

A second version of the rules means a second version of the Wrath of Kings rules summary and reference.

Cool Mini or Not’s Wrath of Kings is a strange beast, one that I think would benefit from more resources. After a very successful Kickstarter, things have been quiet for a while; but finally a new supplement (Wrath of Kings: Rising Conflicts) and new models are on the way. It’s all geared towards new figure releases of course, because every miniatures game is in the business of selling figures, but there seems to be little impetus to promote and develop the game in a wider way.

We have some interesting factions, but very little world-building or background beyond a bit of (well-written) fiction. And while there’s been a re-write of the rules for this new book, it’s still saddled with an amateurish layout and too many typos and rough writing (IMHO, the expression ‘off of’ may be acceptable in casual speech, but not in a published book).

The models are bursting with character and the potential is there for WoK to be a very popular fantasy miniature battles system – and I’d argue that with Games Workshop’s Age of Sigmar polarising fans now is the perfect time to jump into the gap before other games like FFG’s upcoming Runewars game start stealing market share. But – perhaps because CMON is still a relatively small company – the game is still not very well known and somehow feels undeveloped.

Anyway, I invested heavily in it with the Kickstarter campaign, which was amazing value, and as you can see by the battle reports I’m enjoying playing it; though I’d argue the defense chart the game is built around is a bit clunky and it’s frustrating to not know exactly what you’re trying to roll before you roll it.

Here’s version 2 of my rules summary and reference. The main change has been to motivations, which have had a complete revamp (which is good, as I was recently ranting that they were too fiddly in a recent forum post).

As I mention in that post however, what I’d really like to see are story-based scenarios that bring the world of Arikania and its factions more to life. At the moment, I feel like I’m pitting armies with lots of interesting models in them against each other, but I don’t really feel invested in why they’re fighting, or what the story is behind the conflicts. It may seem like an unimportant thing when you’re pushing toy soldiers around, but the popularity of GW’s games have clearly shown that it’s vital to have players swept away by a universe behind the miniatures – not just the miniatures themselves.


  • The8thPagan says:

    In short…you can’t have everything. Setting. Story. Rules. Miniatures. Something is always substandard and often more than one thing. We have to change what we can and put up with what we can’t. Sad but true.

  • The8thPagan says:

    “I want it all…. want it all…. and I want it now”….

  • CK Lai says:

    “I’d argue the defense chart the game is built around is a bit clunky and it’s frustrating to not know exactly what you’re trying to roll before you roll it.”

    Errrr… For melee combat it’s 8, 9, 10. Usually guaranteed hits. For magic and will it depends. But usually higher the better.

    • Sure, but knowing you have to roll ‘usually higher or better’ is very different from knowing you have to roll a 9+ for that crucial hit to land and win the game. Psychologically, I find it a flawed approach. Your opponent tells you the result after the roll, instead of you shooting for a result.

      It reminds me of our early D&D games, in which players would always know what they needed to roll to hit the monster. In recent years, when I played Pathfinder with some friends and someone else was DMing, I was surprised to see the players rolling and the DM telling them if it was a hit or not. To me, it took the fanticipation and fun out of the act of rolling the dice.

  • CK Lai says:

    Ah. Well… OK. I get your point. Never bothered me much, though. But yeah. I do see your point. 🙂

  • razide says:

    Thanks for the updated rules summary.

What do you think?