Elbows wrote:So, in your opinion, people who don't agree with you don't actually play games? That's more or less all I got from your post.
That was not my intention, but it is an interesting correlation. Most campaign systems campaign fall apart utterly under the strain of accommodating casual players. Warcry's is written in such a way to make that a virtual impossibility. Anyone with a modicum of any campaign experience will be highly familiar with the struggle to maintain said campaign due to the requirement that all players, well, actually play. Any campaign system that does not hinge on 100% commitment from its' players already has a step up from every other campaign system. So, yes, I find the criticism that is leveled against a campaign system such as this is mostly likely coming from a place of inexperience.
lord_blackfang wrote:It's a remarkable success for GW to sell this idea of a personal campaign like it's some radical change when in effect it's exactly the same as any other campaign without a game master. You track your own advancement? Revolutionary!
It is remarkable in that so many other systems promise this but utterly fail in their execution due to the greatest variable of all, the players. Warcry makes it so that the dude who can only play once every couple of weeks can have an equally enjoyable time as the fella who plays three games in a row, every other day. I have yet to encounter any advancement-based campaign system that makes this possible without removing all granularity.
There seems to be a torrent of criticism against this campaign system but I do not see why. Can anyone provide clear examples of how it is bad or unplayable?
lord_blackfang wrote: I am amazed at how on the ball the communty team is, today's article reveals exactly what was spoiled in today's leak.
Lol where do you think the leaks come from
some leaks yes but I doubt they leaked the book and reviewers have apparently received their copies so it's out there, I'm more surprised it hasn't been pulled yet.
lord_blackfang wrote: I am amazed at how on the ball the communty team is, today's article reveals exactly what was spoiled in today's leak.
Lol where do you think the leaks come from
At this stage only a few weeks from release it could be anyone. Stock is likely already heading out toward distributors and packing and warehouses etc... Ergo its stuff heading out there into the wild and thus more leaks and such are going to happen as the circle aware and with access grows.
Of course they could also be seeding their own leaks as well, its not a bad idea since it does help satiate that "leak" desire people have for sneaky info and also means that they retain control over it.
On the whole, I really like what I've seen thus far - and am in for... almost everything. I do wish there had been a slight in the melee to really hammer home the importance of engaging, disengaging, tactics involed, etc, and that there were a few more ranged weapons. Here's hoping there will be rules for traps and special scenic pieces.
Next week is going to be pricey, but I quite like the campaign system they have. Not quite necromunda level, ut certainly far FAR more appealing than the current Skirmish ruleset.
Leaks are almost always sanctioned by the parent company, attaching the word leak makes it go viral.and let's face it ,the timing is perfect and it shuts out stuff about pricing hikes etc.
Could anyone summarize generally how to build your warband for this game - does each type of model in a faction have an individual point cost and can be mixed and matched, or are all warbands of the same faction identical, etc?
Thanks for the earlier clarification on the grot box, too!
Elbows wrote:So, in your opinion, people who don't agree with you don't actually play games? That's more or less all I got from your post.
That was not my intention, but it is an interesting correlation. Most campaign systems campaign fall apart utterly under the strain of accommodating casual players. Warcry's is written in such a way to make that a virtual impossibility. Anyone with a modicum of any campaign experience will be highly familiar with the struggle to maintain said campaign due to the requirement that all players, well, actually play. Any campaign system that does not hinge on 100% commitment from its' players already has a step up from every other campaign system. So, yes, I find the criticism that is leveled against a campaign system such as this is mostly likely coming from a place of inexperience.
lord_blackfang wrote:It's a remarkable success for GW to sell this idea of a personal campaign like it's some radical change when in effect it's exactly the same as any other campaign without a game master. You track your own advancement? Revolutionary!
It is remarkable in that so many other systems promise this but utterly fail in their execution due to the greatest variable of all, the players. Warcry makes it so that the dude who can only play once every couple of weeks can have an equally enjoyable time as the fella who plays three games in a row, every other day. I have yet to encounter any advancement-based campaign system that makes this possible without removing all granularity.
There seems to be a torrent of criticism against this campaign system but I do not see why. Can anyone provide clear examples of how it is bad or unplayable?
As someone who played a boatload of Mordheim campaigns back when I was younger and was able to do such a thing, I 100% agree with Judgedoug. Running a campaign is hard, because most adults have a lot going on in their time and very often have something more pressing going on then playing a game. A lot of campaigns would fall apart because 6-8 people would sign up, 2 of which would only play the first week, 1's warband would fall behind and stop showing up, 1 would get a new job and not be available at that time, and next thing you know you have 2-3 players, warbands become stagnant, match-ups become stagnant and the campaign just kind of stumbles to a close.
The Warcry system may not be perfect to me, but it will be absolutely fantastic for allowing people to play whenever they want and still have a good experience. You also won't have to worry about a newbie playing against someone who's warband has 15 stat and skill advances on each guy and having horridly lopsided games. I know for myself, as someone who works in a very busy hospital in a pretty critical roll (and as such has a terribly unreliable schedule), I love that I will be able to participate in Warcry campaigns and not ruin other people's experiences. For the last few years I haven't been able to sign up for any sort of campaign games because my schedule is unpredictable and I don't want to derail other people's gaming.
It is remarkable in that so many other systems promise this but utterly fail in their execution due to the greatest variable of all, the players. Warcry makes it so that the dude who can only play once every couple of weeks can have an equally enjoyable time as the fella who plays three games in a row, every other day. I have yet to encounter any advancement-based campaign system that makes this possible without removing all granularity.
There seems to be a torrent of criticism against this campaign system but I do not see why. Can anyone provide clear examples of how it is bad or unplayable?
As someone who played a boatload of Mordheim campaigns back when I was younger and was able to do such a thing, I 100% agree with Judgedoug. Running a campaign is hard, because most adults have a lot going on in their time and very often have something more pressing going on then playing a game. A lot of campaigns would fall apart because 6-8 people would sign up, 2 of which would only play the first week, 1's warband would fall behind and stop showing up, 1 would get a new job and not be available at that time, and next thing you know you have 2-3 players, warbands become stagnant, match-ups become stagnant and the campaign just kind of stumbles to a close.
The Warcry system may not be perfect to me, but it will be absolutely fantastic for allowing people to play whenever they want and still have a good experience. You also won't have to worry about a newbie playing against someone who's warband has 15 stat and skill advances on each guy and having horridly lopsided games. I know for myself, as someone who works in a very busy hospital in a pretty critical roll (and as such has a terribly unreliable schedule), I love that I will be able to participate in Warcry campaigns and not ruin other people's experiences. For the last few years I haven't been able to sign up for any sort of campaign games because my schedule is unpredictable and I don't want to derail other people's gaming.
You could already play any campaign system whenever you had time with whomever showed up. War Cry does not solve the problem of players dropping out. The one "innovation" is that nobody will fall behind because there is virtually no advancement. Which is then the same as just playing a series of pick up games. So yeah, it's fancy packaging with no content.
judgedoug wrote: Welp, this campaign system is pretty damn solid. Might be the best system I've seen.
Takes the best parts of Mordheim [...]
Massive variability based on pages and pages of different outcomes, in terms of both injuries and crazy magical items? It's not as lacklustre as I thought it might be, but I still don't see a huge amount of replayability, unless playing with a very different warband in consecutive campaigns. And as just posted above, if advancements and growth have limited meaning, the campaign doesn't add much more than just a series of balanced xxxxpts games, which anyone can always play with a made-up narrative to give them meaning.
It is remarkable in that so many other systems promise this but utterly fail in their execution due to the greatest variable of all, the players. Warcry makes it so that the dude who can only play once every couple of weeks can have an equally enjoyable time as the fella who plays three games in a row, every other day. I have yet to encounter any advancement-based campaign system that makes this possible without removing all granularity.
There seems to be a torrent of criticism against this campaign system but I do not see why. Can anyone provide clear examples of how it is bad or unplayable?
As someone who played a boatload of Mordheim campaigns back when I was younger and was able to do such a thing, I 100% agree with Judgedoug. Running a campaign is hard, because most adults have a lot going on in their time and very often have something more pressing going on then playing a game. A lot of campaigns would fall apart because 6-8 people would sign up, 2 of which would only play the first week, 1's warband would fall behind and stop showing up, 1 would get a new job and not be available at that time, and next thing you know you have 2-3 players, warbands become stagnant, match-ups become stagnant and the campaign just kind of stumbles to a close.
The Warcry system may not be perfect to me, but it will be absolutely fantastic for allowing people to play whenever they want and still have a good experience. You also won't have to worry about a newbie playing against someone who's warband has 15 stat and skill advances on each guy and having horridly lopsided games. I know for myself, as someone who works in a very busy hospital in a pretty critical roll (and as such has a terribly unreliable schedule), I love that I will be able to participate in Warcry campaigns and not ruin other people's experiences. For the last few years I haven't been able to sign up for any sort of campaign games because my schedule is unpredictable and I don't want to derail other people's gaming.
You could already play any campaign system whenever you had time with whomever showed up. War Cry does not solve the problem of players dropping out. The one "innovation" is that nobody will fall behind because there is virtually no advancement. Which is then the same as just playing a series of pick up games. So yeah, it's fancy packaging with no content.
In theory yes, in practice playing that way is a mess (trust me I have done it). Not having players fall behind makes a huge difference in the fun of the campaign. Instead of having to play against the person who has gotten every advancement and is near unstoppable, or the guy who has three models left, all of which are severely maimed, you get to play against relatively balanced groups. This means instead of the having a group that needs 8 dedicated players you can host "Warcry Tuesdays" or whatever and make it free to anyone. Someone that's in town for the week on business can stop in and play a game, the guy who normally works Tuesdays but had it off for whatever reasons can play, the person who just bought their warband last night. And they can all play, and feel like they are playing a on a relatively even playing field. You don't have to rely on the same people being able to make it every week.
Having played in BB leagues before, you certainly wouldn't want to join a BB league in week 12. Warcry league in week 12? Sure, no problem.
Also, for all this talk of "everybody plays their own solo campaign" it sure is weird that you have to then beg/bribe/bully an opponent into playing your specific narrative scanario to progress in the campaign. And means that two players who are both in the same stage of their campaigns can't both progress if they play each other. Which goes directly against this overarching premise of playing whomever whenever.
It is remarkable in that so many other systems promise this but utterly fail in their execution due to the greatest variable of all, the players. Warcry makes it so that the dude who can only play once every couple of weeks can have an equally enjoyable time as the fella who plays three games in a row, every other day. I have yet to encounter any advancement-based campaign system that makes this possible without removing all granularity.
There seems to be a torrent of criticism against this campaign system but I do not see why. Can anyone provide clear examples of how it is bad or unplayable?
As someone who played a boatload of Mordheim campaigns back when I was younger and was able to do such a thing, I 100% agree with Judgedoug. Running a campaign is hard, because most adults have a lot going on in their time and very often have something more pressing going on then playing a game. A lot of campaigns would fall apart because 6-8 people would sign up, 2 of which would only play the first week, 1's warband would fall behind and stop showing up, 1 would get a new job and not be available at that time, and next thing you know you have 2-3 players, warbands become stagnant, match-ups become stagnant and the campaign just kind of stumbles to a close.
The Warcry system may not be perfect to me, but it will be absolutely fantastic for allowing people to play whenever they want and still have a good experience. You also won't have to worry about a newbie playing against someone who's warband has 15 stat and skill advances on each guy and having horridly lopsided games. I know for myself, as someone who works in a very busy hospital in a pretty critical roll (and as such has a terribly unreliable schedule), I love that I will be able to participate in Warcry campaigns and not ruin other people's experiences. For the last few years I haven't been able to sign up for any sort of campaign games because my schedule is unpredictable and I don't want to derail other people's gaming.
You could already play any campaign system whenever you had time with whomever showed up. War Cry does not solve the problem of players dropping out. The one "innovation" is that nobody will fall behind because there is virtually no advancement. Which is then the same as just playing a series of pick up games. So yeah, it's fancy packaging with no content.
In theory yes, in practice playing that way is a mess (trust me I have done it). Not having players fall behind makes a huge difference in the fun of the campaign. Instead of having to play against the person who has gotten every advancement and is near unstoppable, or the guy who has three models left, all of which are severely maimed, you get to play against relatively balanced groups. This means instead of the having a group that needs 8 dedicated players you can host "Warcry Tuesdays" or whatever and make it free to anyone. Someone that's in town for the week on business can stop in and play a game, the guy who normally works Tuesdays but had it off for whatever reasons can play, the person who just bought their warband last night. And they can all play, and feel like they are playing a on a relatively even playing field. You don't have to rely on the same people being able to make it every week.
Having played in BB leagues before, you certainly wouldn't want to join a BB league in week 12. Warcry league in week 12? Sure, no problem.
Another point is that Necromunda and the like try to get around the balance issue by having one person "DM" the game. Ergo manage and control it. So a lto of the experience relies upon them. Do they play favourites in the group; are they any good at it all; do they turn up regularly; what happens on that week where they are off sick and don't turn up.
By removing even the need for a single person controlling the unity of a player team it further frees things up. Of course there will be limitations and aspect which differ, this new campaign method isn't looking to replace, but to compliment; acting as another mode of play that's ideal for pick-up games whilst at the same time giving some sense of advance game to game. It will likely really encourage people to keep playing way more so.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
lord_blackfang wrote: Also, for all this talk of "everybody plays their own solo campaign" it sure is weird that you have to then beg/bribe/bully an opponent into playing your specific narrative scanario to progress in the campaign. And means that two players who are both in the same stage of their campaigns can't both progress if they play each other. Which goes directly against this overarching premise of playing whomever whenever.
Or because the game is a lot faster you play both games in one evening.
lord_blackfang wrote: Also, for all this talk of "everybody plays their own solo campaign" it sure is weird that you have to then beg/bribe/bully an opponent into playing your specific narrative scanario to progress in the campaign. And means that two players who are both in the same stage of their campaigns can't both progress if they play each other. Which goes directly against this overarching premise of playing whomever whenever.
I will agree about this point, it is odd that two players won't be able to play their convergences at the same time. I suppose this way it makes the missions more unique, but on the other hand it is weird to play a mission focused mainly on one warband. I don't imagine their will have to be lots of beg/bribe/bullying though. Pretty much everyone I have played games with regularly it would simply be a kind of agreement "when someone's convergence comes up, play them, and then they will play yours when it comes up."
There seems to be a torrent of criticism against this campaign system but I do not see why. Can anyone provide clear examples of how it is bad or unplayable?
It's playable, but I feel it lacks the sense of danger. Everything is made so that if you lose or have someone dieing in your warband, it's no big deal - you can replace your losses as you want, the number of fighters on your roster can always be full. It's the same system in Kill Team. Players have indeed full freedom to have their own campaign for their warband, but it feels like the games themselves don't matter. The player can forge his narrative however he sees it fit.
I guess that's the spirit behind that campaign system and, indeed, for people who want to write their own story, it can be fine. But here, it's like no matter what your fighters will do personnally, they won't really be rewarded/punished for it. They don't lose an arm, an eye or a leg, they won't be crippled by their savages battles. Sure, a grunt may die or lose a destiny level, but if he dies another will replace him at no cost and a destiny level can never be negative, so...he can get it back later anyway. Oh, and your leader will never die no matter what.
In Mordheim, there was this sense of danger. You could fear for your warriors - and not just for their life, because a crippled warrior could make a marksman become nearly useless. They could also gain abilities and new skills as well as getting indeed stronger by gaining experience with some actions instead of just having artifacts or rerolls no matter what they did during the game. Players can be more "relaxed" when playing Warcry, sure, but that sense of danger is partly why Mordheim is still remembered fondly after all these years I think. With Warcry, with what I have read so far, I don't think I will feel the same thing. It's something more like I'll enjoy on the moment but I don't see this particular system thrives years after.
Or because the game is a lot faster you play both games in one evening.
That's not a convincing counterargument to actual rules design being directly contrary to their declared design goals. More like bending over backwards making excuses for GW.
If the game plays quickly why isn't it okay to play two games if both players want to get a convergence thing done? I get you see yourself as standing on principle, but if it works in actual play then isn't that enough? Isn't that really the only thing that matters? How can it be an excuse for GW if it actually works?
Or because the game is a lot faster you play both games in one evening.
That's not a convincing counterargument to actual rules design being directly contrary to their declared design goals. More like bending over backwards making excuses for GW.
It's a counter argument if you're looking to play the open campaign system. If you want to play a more strict system with more risk and reward and more dynamic changes then there's the regular campaign system you can use instead. There's both choices for both kinds of player and heck you might even run two warbands at once in different campaigns. One your "open campaign" band for when you just want an ad-hock game or if half the regular aren't turning up on one night; and a campaign team set aside for a dedicated formal campaign.
Thanks for the leaked rulebook - enjoyed the few bits of lore it had.
I do really like some of the models - likely stick to buying them.
Campaigns are really difficult to admin - agreed - in fact the most successful/enjoyable one I ran had only one player so it was more a series of narrative scenarios.
Will keep getting my campaign kicks from Mordheim online
Hopefully we see a greater selection of units from each non-chaos faction. I am having tons of fun playing the skirmish version of fantasy from One Page Rules. The gameplay is quick and simple (on purpose) but each faction can take figures from nearly every type of troop unit in Age of Sigmar.
Same thing with Hinterlands and the expanded unit lists for AoS skirmish. A Stormcast force could have everything from Retributors to Liberators to Prosecutors in one warband (even though Stormcast ended up being the smallest warband type, for good reasons).
AegisGrimm wrote: Hopefully we see a greater selection of units from each non-chaos faction. I am having tons of fun playing the skirmish version of fantasy from One Page Rules. The gameplay is quick and simple (on purpose) but each faction can take figures from nearly every type of troop unit in Age of Sigmar.
Yeah the launch "variety" or lack of seems pretty pitiful for the non-chaos factions
I don't think anyone here said anything (at all) about the campaign being unplayable. Not sure where you're reading that. What we did say is that it looks boring/shallow/uninteresting. That has nothing to do with the playability aspect.
It will add no character or interest to your warband going forward. It looks to give you pretty much nothing of interest to even talk about. Mechanically? Sure, it's fine. But mechanically sound games which don't promote actual interest and excitement don't help with the game's longevity. I read that campaign section and thought "eh...boring.".
To some of us, that's an actual concern. Heck, if anything games like Mordheim were the opposite: thoroughly interesting and mechanically poor. Mordheim had no less than 800+ pages of printed support materials over its lifetime. You could play that game forever (and plenty of people still do - myself included when I feel like it). I can put up with the mediocre basic rules, tweak a few and enjoy the "cinema" provided by the campaign and all of the additional options added to the game.
However, that old "passion before profit" kind of stuff from the 90's is dead now. It wasn't great business, and thus is no longer a consideration, but it's why people play WHQ, Mordheim, original Necromunda 20+ years later - even when more modern/streamlined options exist. I don't imagine anyone will be running a die-hard forum for Warcry in 20 years time. So, I'm sorry if the game isn't interesting enough for some of us - that's our opinion. You can enjoy the hell out of your own Warcry experience.
Sotahullu wrote: My problem with Mausoleum set is the lack platforms. Few tombs and spiky fences don't make good playground in skirmish game where being able to jump from 2 stories high to slash opponents is possible.
Variety is the spice of life though. As a person that has played pretty good amount of Kill Team, I can tell you if you strip the aesthetics of the Warcry starter and a similar amount of Sector Imperialis the play patterns are going to strikingly similar. It is part of the reason I am hemming and hawing over getting this is the idea I might not actually play Warcry (I don't know if there will be a group). I already have the Kill Team starter which does function as basically the same battlefield the Warcry's terrain. Warcry is just a little too expensive for me to have a different looking but mostly the same play pattern terrain.
A while back someone posted (I can remember who, where or when) that the Deathword Killzone was getting the most in his group simply because it offer different terrain challenges. I have actually noticed the same last weekend with my Kill Team group where I setup one board with Kill Team starter stuff and the other as a woodland area. Players actually preferred the woodland one. Eventually, I will ask if someone in the group wants make use of the special death world rules which crank the random bad stuff for a just a chaotic misadventure of two forces trying to kill each other.
I do agree with you to a point though. I am certainly glad the Mausoleum set isn't the starter as it would be rather boring as the example board set I think any starter box implies. But as a second alternate board, I think it could work pretty well. Honestly, I would probably pick it for use in Kill Team if it included the full terrain set and the board was essentially free. It would give me a different kind of 1 level board as well as a good snow board that I could make use of all of my winter/Battle of the Bulge terrain.
AegisGrimm wrote: Hopefully we see a greater selection of units from each non-chaos faction. I am having tons of fun playing the skirmish version of fantasy from One Page Rules. The gameplay is quick and simple (on purpose) but each faction can take figures from nearly every type of troop unit in Age of Sigmar.
Yeah the launch "variety" or lack of seems pretty pitiful for the non-chaos factions
It doesn’t look far off the Chaos factions, honestly. The one Savage Orc kit can make 7-8 different troop types (bow, spear, hand weapon, 2 hand weapons, leader, musician, standard bearer, big spear thing). That’s about what the Iron Golems have.
That's why I thought that something like Liberators would have at least made the cut for Stormcast, with all the arming options the kit comes with.
But I also don't care for games like Kill Team which are tied so heavily to a player buying one unit box and making their force from it. Great for boxes like Genestealer Cults, not so much for others.
That's why I thought that something like Liberators would have at least made the cut for Stormcast, with all the arming options the kit comes with.
But I also don't care for games like Kill Team which are tied so heavily to a player buying one unit box and making their force from it. Great for boxes like Genestealer Cults, not so much for others.
Would your prefer the player had to buy multiple boxes units to build their force instead for a skirmish game? I don't quite follow what you are saying there.
Are you lamenting the lack of options? Because while there are a fair number of factions that only a few datasheets of which some have only a few load out options others having a bunch despite the lack of data sheets. Elites greatly expanded the number of options for most factions too. If that is the case, just play Space Marines, Imperial Guard, Genestealer Cults, Orks, Tyranids or one of the factions that does have a bunch of options to pick from and stay away from Harlequins. Kill Team has both with several factions having tons of options and other having like six total options.
I would much rather the game's scope, and balance too, be maintained rather than just add options that really aren't going to do much save be different for difference sake, or for the power gaming minded, create a lot of white noise of false options.
One thing I hadn't considered about not having army lists in the corebook and instead having stat cards in with the Warbands, is it would be very easy for GW to expand factions. If they wanted to expand Iron Golems for example they could simply release a kit with a few models in it and some new cards without invalidating any army list.
AegisGrimm wrote: That's why I thought that something like Liberators would have at least made the cut for Stormcast, with all the arming options the kit comes with.
But I also don't care for games like Kill Team which are tied so heavily to a player buying one unit box and making their force from it. Great for boxes like Genestealer Cults, not so much for others.
Liberator wouldn't bring anything new to the game other than being walking beaststick brick, but I do think they'll eventually make their way into the game in later expansion.
And about GSC in KT, they had 4 different boxes choice of units. And it's usually ill-adviced trying to make a force out of a single unit box with them.
Sabotage! wrote: One thing I hadn't considered about not having army lists in the corebook and instead having stat cards in with the Warbands, is it would be very easy for GW to expand factions. If they wanted to expand Iron Golems for example they could simply release a kit with a few models in it and some new cards without invalidating any army list.
Given GW's recent history of issues with printers, I fear the opposite. If you print all your cards in bulk in China, it's also difficult to add a single model through Forgeworld, for example.
And cards are super awkward to errata. Can you imagine? "Iron Golems Burninator Card: Replace flamey skull icon with spiky mandala icon."
Warcry is a lot closer to a Kill Team version of AoS than to a Mordheim revival.
I think it's going to be good for quick pick up games, and the campaign system is great for someone who just wants to play many pick up games at the store. There is a tiny bit of advancement, but nothing that matters so much that you can't play against someone playing their first game in their own campaign. The models are great, and the rules seem okay.
But there is close to no customization, no exp and no lasting injuries. These are all elements that I need to enjoy a campaign system. You'll never end up with a dwarf who's an absolute beast in combat, yet struggle like hell because a leg injury reduced his movement even more. Or roll +1A and +1WS on a group of archers. You'll never have the same thrill when rolling on injury tables, advancements or loot.
In Warcry, if a guy dies, you just replace him. You lost a little upgrade, but nothing big. Because of that, you can never become invested in your warband very much.
I'm still very exited about this game, and will buy a few warbands. I think I'll enjoy some games once in a while, especially if it takes off at my store. But I'll still very much play Mordheim, and I'll probably convert some warbands to play Mordheim with them, given how good the models are.
Sabotage! wrote: One thing I hadn't considered about not having army lists in the corebook and instead having stat cards in with the Warbands, is it would be very easy for GW to expand factions. If they wanted to expand Iron Golems for example they could simply release a kit with a few models in it and some new cards without invalidating any army list.
Given GW's recent history of issues with printers, I fear the opposite. If you print all your cards in bulk in China, it's also difficult to add a single model through Forgeworld, for example.
And cards are super awkward to errata. Can you imagine? "Iron Golems Burninator Card: Replace flamey skull icon with spiky mandala icon."
Yeah, they haven't had great success recently. That said, a new expansion of models would require all new cards so I don't see how they would be all that affected (other than being delayed like the new Slyvaneth). Keeping cards in stock to stuff in to boxes may be another issue, as they had a ton of issues with the AoS warscroll cards for a while.
And yes, cards are pretty awful to errata. I don't really look forward to that at all.
Maybe someone will pull a Hinterlands 2 to Warcry, like Bottle did for Skirmish
I expected a lot of campaign stuff, maybe like HATE with those clear cards to put on top of your fighter cards. The community might still provide such rules. And missing models for other Warbands*. Maybe not, since people are less inspired by the newer games, but it's at least a chance.
*I need boingrot rules for my "knightly" Orda Zalamandra gobbos!
Well, the iron golems look really great. But these guys are at 28'' bases. Strange. For the first time.
I wonder why not using them in 40k say proxying Grotesques?
Regarding people asking about the Underworlds war bands.
Half of them are just going to be playable straight away by picking their faction cards anyway.
So the one with all the skeletons would be that one and you’d just buy whatever else you need.
For a lot of Underworlds warbands they are just nicer sculpts than the troops boxes of what they resemble..
Binabik15 wrote: Maybe someone will pull a Hinterlands 2 to Warcry, like Bottle did for Skirmish
I expected a lot of campaign stuff, maybe like HATE with those clear cards to put on top of your fighter cards. The community might still provide such rules. And missing models for other Warbands*. Maybe not, since people are less inspired by the newer games, but it's at least a chance.
*I need boingrot rules for my "knightly" Orda Zalamandra gobbos!
You are aware that Warcry was written by Bottle? Based on the design pitch he got And he surely welcomes people expand/change it to their liking.
This game seems to be the ultimate distillation - the endgame if you will - of GW's dream skirmish game.
1. No customisation (so no options for minis). 2. All terrain is set configuration, built to specific parameters only with Official Citadel Scenery™ kits.
Well played.
Oh, and blackfang, you get to say "I told you so!" about the mausoleum terrain.
At first I was disappointed the campaign system isn't as deep and varied as Mordheim but then I remembered Mordheim still exists and I can just play that if I want. Warcry seems like a system I can have a lot of fun with too, but on a more casual level, kinda like how Kill Team is to Necromunda.
Not-not-kenny wrote: At first I was disappointed the campaign system isn't as deep and varied as Mordheim but then I remembered Mordheim still exists and I can just play that if I want. Warcry seems like a system I can have a lot of fun with too, but on a more casual level, kinda like how Kill Team is to Necromunda.
Which is basically what GW wants - this isn't Necromunda, this is a super-light version of AoS designed to entice people into the game with a single box of miniatures. Get a box - build it - start playing.
Also lets not forget there's the AoSRPG game coming at some point which will certainly flesh out adventuring in FAR more detail.
H.B.M.C. wrote: 1. No customisation (so no options for minis).
Don't the iron golems come with some guys where you choose the weapon options? Or to have a signifier/standard?
Though if our point of comparison is the era of late 90s/early 2000s kits where every arm, torso, legs and weapons are individual pieces and interchangeable, then I guess nothing GW has made for quite some time counts as customizable.
frozenwastes wrote: So different arm and weapon options for a miniature doesn't count...right. lol
I suppose if you're delusional enough to claim that the baseline is 6 different fighter types just so you can argue that we got 3 extras thanks to the arm options, then go ahead.
If I have a miniature and I pick from different parts to build the one I want that's an option I choose.
If one entry says I can give something a sword or an axe and another version has two entries, one with a sword and another with an axe, they are functional equivalents.
Automatically Appended Next Post: 90s style armoury lists are not coming back. They also sucked because the same weapon isn't equal in different hands and the cost in gold/credits/points never reflected the wielder back in those games.
I have no idea if the balance is going to be better in this game but at least when the wielder and weapon are coated together there's a chance it's accurate.
frozenwastes wrote: If I have a miniature and I pick from different parts to build the one I want that's an option I choose.
If one entry says I can give something a sword or an axe and another version has two entries, one with a sword and another with an axe, they are functional equivalents.
Yes. So do we both agree on "You have 9 different, preset fighter profiles. Your only customization is in picking how many of each you field." which is what I originally said?
Making more option/unit variety mean they had to spent more to make bigger molds, less profit = bad.
At the 50US$ price mark this could easily be a 2 normal sprue kit, which give plenty more space for more spare bits. Not this 1.5 normal sprue cost-saving product. Again, don't like it, don't buy it, nothing will change, people will buy it regardless.
Iron Golem at least get to see some unit varieties.
Untamed Beast on the other hand, doesn't seem so. The only "options" for them that I can see is two weapons swap for the 2-handed dudes. And they're completely cosmetic.
Binabik15 wrote: Maybe someone will pull a Hinterlands 2 to Warcry, like Bottle did for Skirmish
I expected a lot of campaign stuff, maybe like HATE with those clear cards to put on top of your fighter cards. The community might still provide such rules. And missing models for other Warbands*. Maybe not, since people are less inspired by the newer games, but it's at least a chance.
*I need boingrot rules for my "knightly" Orda Zalamandra gobbos!
You are aware that Warcry was written by Bottle? Based on the design pitch he got And he surely welcomes people expand/change it to their liking.
I am. But there's still nuGW design DNA in the game, no matter who designed it.
Can't wait to get my beastdude spear chucker Anyone not wanting theirs...I might be interested.
It’s weird—I was stoked for this when first announced. Unfortunately most of the miniatures are of a chaos style that I just don’t love. The terrain is of a style that I can (and do) easily duplicate with my 3d printer (obviously with a slight quality loss).
No rules for Seraphon and the only Stormcast are the Vanguard that I find pretty unappealing and don’t own. I would even justify buying Kharadron for this as I LOVE the models but they’re so damn limited in AoS I can’t justify buying any.
It’s a real shame because I know my wife would play this (she liked kill team) but there’s just nothing there for the armies we have.
It’s really strange that it’s so heavily skewed to chaos when they’re pitching it as Kill Team for AoS.
90s style armoury lists are not coming back. They also sucked because the same weapon isn't equal in different hands and the cost in gold/credits/points never reflected the wielder back in those games.
Necromunda -- a currently supported, in-development Games Workshop system -- is exactly this.
It was reasonable for people to hope that Warcry would be the successor to Mordheim and a peer of Necromunda '18. Mordheim probably needs a successor, rather than a straight rerelease -- the Underhive still exists in current 40K lore, whereas Mordheim was blowed up with the rest of the Old World. The fact that Warcry was introducing new warbands/kits hinted that it might be different from Kill Team (which was built around existing available units).
So it's wrong to act like people had unfair expectations or were hoping for a ruleset with unprecedented granularity. Up until the last few days of previews/leaks it was entirely possible that Warcry was going to go the Necromunda route and not the Kill Team route. Give us some time to grieve.
Yes. So do we both agree on "You have 9 different, preset fighter profiles. Your only customization is in picking how many of each you field." which is what I originally said?
Well, the campaign does allow you to pick up artifacts of power as you play.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Quasistellar wrote: It’s weird—I was stoked for this when first announced. Unfortunately most of the miniatures are of a chaos style that I just don’t love. The terrain is of a style that I can (and do) easily duplicate with my 3d printer (obviously with a slight quality loss).
No rules for Seraphon and the only Stormcast are the Vanguard that I find pretty unappealing and don’t own. I would even justify buying Kharadron for this as I LOVE the models but they’re so damn limited in AoS I can’t justify buying any.
It’s a real shame because I know my wife would play this (she liked kill team) but there’s just nothing there for the armies we have.
Well, none of that is Warcry's fault. I mean, should they design the game around the fact that you have a 3D printer? Or that you don't like Stormcast Vanguard? They aren't making a game with the audience of just you. I mean, I sort of go back and forth on how excited I am for this game too, but I think it is silly to blame Warcry for being Warcry and not something else. It's kind of like saying Warhammer Underworlds would be great, but you'd like the game better if they replaced all the miniatures with cakepops.
It’s really strange that it’s so heavily skewed to chaos when they’re pitching it as Kill Team for AoS.
The recent video is the first time they've even mentioned Kill Team. For the last few months, it was always pitched as chaos warbands fighting against each other. They still haven't even technically announced which non-Warcry models you can use (that was from a leak).
90s style armoury lists are not coming back. They also sucked because the same weapon isn't equal in different hands and the cost in gold/credits/points never reflected the wielder back in those games.
Necromunda -- a currently supported, in-development Games Workshop system -- is exactly this.
It was reasonable for people to hope that Warcry would be the successor to Mordheim and a peer of Necromunda '18. Mordheim probably needs a successor, rather than a straight rerelease -- the Underhive still exists in current 40K lore, whereas Mordheim was blowed up with the rest of the Old World. The fact that Warcry was introducing new warbands/kits hinted that it might be different from Kill Team (which was built around existing available units).
So it's wrong to act like people had unfair expectations or were hoping for a ruleset with unprecedented granularity. Up until the last few days of previews/leaks it was entirely possible that Warcry was going to go the Necromunda route and not the Kill Team route. Give us some time to grieve.
Anyone who think this will be like Necromunda is naive and have unfair expectation. With the preview showing everyone in elaborated pose, and so diverse in body type and race, it is impossible to have anything that resemblance Necromunda, which had arms interchangeable with all bodies. What (more reasonable) expectation from people is...more variation , because from the preview it was show that the same dude had different weapons, that's what gave people hope. Turn out those variation are... sprue filler because only a few got it and some warband got less than the other.
I really have no clear idea how the rules work, but it seems that there are not really rules for separate weapons right? There are just different fighter types? If true,that is in a sense kinda nice from modelling perspective.
You could model a fighter with a ranged attack with a spear, a bow or even a gun, a big brute with a powerful melee attack could have a giant axe, a hammer or a flail etc.
Sqorgar wrote: The recent video is the first time they've even mentioned Kill Team. For the last few months, it was always pitched as chaos warbands fighting against each other. They still haven't even technically announced which non-Warcry models you can use (that was from a leak).
Today's Warband Focus does give us an idea of what non-Chaos models/kits can be used in Warcry. The top picture shows the Untamed Beast facing off against Vanguard-Hunters, while the previews for the First Fang and the Harpoon Snag ability mention Orruk Brutes and Khinerai Heartrenders respectively. And looking back, the Warband Focus for the Iron Golems has a picture of them facing off battling some Grimghast Reapers.
Sqorgar wrote: The recent video is the first time they've even mentioned Kill Team. For the last few months, it was always pitched as chaos warbands fighting against each other. They still haven't even technically announced which non-Warcry models you can use (that was from a leak).
Today's Warband Focus does give us an idea of what non-Chaos models/kits can be used in Warcry. The top picture shows the Untamed Beast facing off against Vanguard-Hunters, while the previews for the First Fang and the Harpoon Snag ability mention Orruk Brutes and Khinerai Heartrenders respectively.
And leaked pages from the book showed Namarti Thralls and Reavers alongside of Akhelian Knights for Idoneth--so the "leak" seems legit.
Sqorgar wrote: The recent video is the first time they've even mentioned Kill Team. For the last few months, it was always pitched as chaos warbands fighting against each other. They still haven't even technically announced which non-Warcry models you can use (that was from a leak).
Today's Warband Focus does give us an idea of what non-Chaos models/kits can be used in Warcry. The top picture shows the Untamed Beast facing off against Vanguard-Hunters, while the previews for the First Fang and the Harpoon Snag ability mention Orruk Brutes and Khinerai Heartrenders respectively. And looking back, the Warband Focus for the Iron Golems has a picture of them facing off battling some Grimghast Reapers.
The list already got leaked for a while, and seem to be correct.
Sqorgar wrote: The recent video is the first time they've even mentioned Kill Team. For the last few months, it was always pitched as chaos warbands fighting against each other. They still haven't even technically announced which non-Warcry models you can use (that was from a leak).
Today's Warband Focus does give us an idea of what non-Chaos models/kits can be used in Warcry. The top picture shows the Untamed Beast facing off against Vanguard-Hunters, while the previews for the First Fang and the Harpoon Snag ability mention Orruk Brutes and Khinerai Heartrenders respectively.
And leaked pages from the book showed Namarti Thralls and Reavers alongside of Akhelian Knights for Idoneth--so the "leak" seems legit.
I think it is only partially correct. I actually consider it being weird that there was only boxes mentioned but actually no heroes available to take (expect for sole necromance).
Sqorgar wrote: The recent video is the first time they've even mentioned Kill Team. For the last few months, it was always pitched as chaos warbands fighting against each other. They still haven't even technically announced which non-Warcry models you can use (that was from a leak).
Today's Warband Focus does give us an idea of what non-Chaos models/kits can be used in Warcry. The top picture shows the Untamed Beast facing off against Vanguard-Hunters, while the previews for the First Fang and the Harpoon Snag ability mention Orruk Brutes and Khinerai Heartrenders respectively.
And leaked pages from the book showed Namarti Thralls and Reavers alongside of Akhelian Knights for Idoneth--so the "leak" seems legit.
I think it is only partially correct. I actually consider it being weird that there was only boxes mentioned but actually no heroes available to take (expect for sole necromance).
I wouldn't expect any heroes showing up (yet) but unit champions being selected as Leaders, makes perfect sense for a skirmish game with just over half a dozen minis a side.
BlueGrassGamer wrote: Today's Warband Focus does give us an idea of what non-Chaos models/kits can be used in Warcry. The top picture shows the Untamed Beast facing off against Vanguard-Hunters, while the previews for the First Fang and the Harpoon Snag ability mention Orruk Brutes and Khinerai Heartrenders respectively. And looking back, the Warband Focus for the Iron Golems has a picture of them facing off battling some Grimghast Reapers.
The point is that GW is not pitching Warcry as Kill Team, to the point where they've barely said anything (officially) about what non-Warcry models you can take in it.
Technically, they used an analogy of Warcry is to AoS what Kill Team is to 40k, which if your SAT score is fine, is not the same thing as saying Warcry is Kill Team. The big thing is that Warcry is a skirmish game with kill zone-like terrain expansions that will be heavily supported (in the near future at least, KT's support has kind of dried up over time) - not necessarily that it allows you to use all your AoS models in a smaller version of AoS. AoS already has skirmish, so that function of Kill Team is unnecessary.
It's also interesting that Kill Team has basically no Open Play stuff, while Warcry has several major Open Play systems, and arguably the Open War-like Battleplan decks are a core component of its design. AoS' design team has a very different focus than 40ks, which is another way in which Warcry will probably end up diverging heavily from KT. I'm actually surprised they included strength and toughness, but in a way, they made it even simpler than AoS already was.
Sqorgar wrote: The recent video is the first time they've even mentioned Kill Team. For the last few months, it was always pitched as chaos warbands fighting against each other. They still haven't even technically announced which non-Warcry models you can use (that was from a leak).
Today's Warband Focus does give us an idea of what non-Chaos models/kits can be used in Warcry. The top picture shows the Untamed Beast facing off against Vanguard-Hunters, while the previews for the First Fang and the Harpoon Snag ability mention Orruk Brutes and Khinerai Heartrenders respectively.
And leaked pages from the book showed Namarti Thralls and Reavers alongside of Akhelian Knights for Idoneth--so the "leak" seems legit.
I think it is only partially correct. I actually consider it being weird that there was only boxes mentioned but actually no heroes available to take (expect for sole necromance).
I wouldn't expect any heroes showing up (yet) but unit champions being selected as Leaders, makes perfect sense for a skirmish game with just over half a dozen minis a side.
Not as heroes exactly but rather as specialist for any given warband. Gobbapalooza for example could easily give Gitz good amount of support to give those lowly grots fighting chance against… anything.
Yes. So do we both agree on "You have 9 different, preset fighter profiles. Your only customization is in picking how many of each you field." which is what I originally said?
Well, the campaign does allow you to pick up artifacts of power as you play.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Quasistellar wrote: It’s weird—I was stoked for this when first announced. Unfortunately most of the miniatures are of a chaos style that I just don’t love. The terrain is of a style that I can (and do) easily duplicate with my 3d printer (obviously with a slight quality loss).
No rules for Seraphon and the only Stormcast are the Vanguard that I find pretty unappealing and don’t own. I would even justify buying Kharadron for this as I LOVE the models but they’re so damn limited in AoS I can’t justify buying any.
It’s a real shame because I know my wife would play this (she liked kill team) but there’s just nothing there for the armies we have.
Well, none of that is Warcry's fault. I mean, should they design the game around the fact that you have a 3D printer? Or that you don't like Stormcast Vanguard? They aren't making a game with the audience of just you. I mean, I sort of go back and forth on how excited I am for this game too, but I think it is silly to blame Warcry for being Warcry and not something else. It's kind of like saying Warhammer Underworlds would be great, but you'd like the game better if they replaced all the miniatures with cakepops.
It’s really strange that it’s so heavily skewed to chaos when they’re pitching it as Kill Team for AoS.
The recent video is the first time they've even mentioned Kill Team. For the last few months, it was always pitched as chaos warbands fighting against each other. They still haven't even technically announced which non-Warcry models you can use (that was from a leak).
What a strangely hostile response to me saying why I lost interest and why they lost a potential sale. *shrug*
Just for an example: having only the vanguard for stormcast is akin to having only Reivers available to space marines in kill team. It’s just really strange, fluff notwithstanding. Plus I’m pretty confident the leaks are legit.
If they don’t want it compared to kill team, then they shouldn’t have compared it to kill team, maybe? I think I’ll let GW speak for themselves, thanks.
Hanskrampf wrote: Not sure if this was answered before: the additional battleplan cards are only sold separately or are they identical to the ones in the starter set?
Apparently they are the same ones in the box just sold separately for those that don't buy the box.
They would have to do a Shattered Stormvault terrain set just after releasing the original kits. I'd like the mat but can't justify getting more of this terrian.
The Ruined City picture shows Azyrite Ruins but the text suggests it's a separate release for the box set terrain.
Included in the Warcry Core Set, the Ruined City is a maze of shattered masonry and rickety wooden walkways. Warbands skulk amid makeshift alleys, or scramble alongside hastily assembled platforms to make deadly strikes from above. To secure victory here, you’ll need to be cunning, luring your enemy into crucial chokepoints and taking advantage of line-of-sight-blocking obstacles.
That's the final part needed to get the starter set parts separately so it might well be a limited run.
Bummed there's no Sylvaneth for my wife to put her favorite stuff in! She has Stormcast as well, but...no Sylvaneth. I've got the Chaos portion covered myself.
The website confirms the leak was real. No Stormcasts except Vanguard. I think there is a real missed opportunity here to make the Warhammer Underworlds warbands into 1000 pt Warcry warbands.
Edit: Also confirms a third Ravaged Land, Shattered Stormvault using Dominion of Sigmar terrain. And it seems Corvus Cabal will be the next warband released.
Hanskrampf wrote: Not sure if this was answered before: the additional battleplan cards are only sold separately or are they identical to the ones in the starter set?
Apparently they are the same ones in the box just sold separately for those that don't buy the box.
Rather fittingly, it seems like the Daughters of Khaine and the Gloomspite Gitz are able to field the widest selection of fighters in the non-Chaos warbands...
SHATTERED STORMVAULT The Shattered Stormvault lets you fight amid the ruins of one of Sigmar’s arcane prisons, designed to secure the most dangerous treasures in the realms. Now, it forms a brutal battleground. Scale massive stepped temples and dodge around ruined statuary as your Warband attempts to attain subterranean supremacy.
This Ravaged Lands set contains several sprues of Dominion of Sigmar scenery, allowing you to build all sorts of unusual layouts to battle over. Combined with the included Terrain Cards, it’ll be sure to add all sorts of new tactical challenges to your game, with loads of line-of-sight blockers to hide behind and high ground to seize.
The Ruined City as shown isn't actually the terrain from the box, it's the Azyrite Townscape. I wonder if that will be repackaged? Nice to be able to get the statues from the Sigmar stuff without buying the giant package.
Sqorgar wrote: The website confirms the leak was real. No Stormcasts except Vanguard. I think there is a real missed opportunity here to make the Warhammer Underworlds warbands into 1000 pt Warcry warbands.
Edit: Also confirms a third Ravaged Land, Shattered Stormvault using Dominion of Sigmar terrain. And it seems Corvus Cabal will be the next warband released.
As mentioned before.
They wouldn’t play very well probably as they are so small.
And all they are is better posed versions of (some of) the stuff that’s already in a Warcry list.
So some of them can probably be mixed in with a kit of AoS and will fill out a warband.
Goblins have hoppers, squigs and Gobbos right?
So buy a box of Hoppers, then use Underworlds warband with them which had some goblins and squigs in.
Warcry warband done.
ecurtz wrote: The Ruined City as shown isn't actually the terrain from the box, it's the Azyrite Townscape. I wonder if that will be repackaged? Nice to be able to get the statues from the Sigmar stuff without buying the giant package.
Or the giant package gets repackaged and discount sold for a time. Either way I'd love that set!
SHATTERED STORMVAULT
The Shattered Stormvault lets you fight amid the ruins of one of Sigmar’s arcane prisons, designed to secure the most dangerous treasures in the realms. Now, it forms a brutal battleground. Scale massive stepped temples and dodge around ruined statuary as your Warband attempts to attain subterranean supremacy.
This Ravaged Lands set contains several sprues of Dominion of Sigmar scenery, allowing you to build all sorts of unusual layouts to battle over. Combined with the included Terrain Cards, it’ll be sure to add all sorts of new tactical challenges to your game, with loads of line-of-sight blockers to hide behind and high ground to seize.
I hope the cardboard tile's picture is not inclined like Kill Teams tiles and that two of the same can be put together without the slabs being off. I would be interested to buy two boxes to make a bigger terrain for Meeting Encounters battles. I actually like the terrain looking on that picture.
The website is good and Becca explains the game well. Love the battle axe!
Not sure how much the primary chaos warband packs will cost, but I might consider one of them - possibly the Cypher Lords as they are Tzeentch. Hmmm...
I wonder if there will be AOS warscrolls for these? Sure, you could just use them as Chaos Marauders, but given the uniqueness of the models it would be nice to have something a bit more specific.
Crimson wrote: I wonder if there will be AOS warscrolls for these? Sure, you could just use them as Chaos Marauders, but given the uniqueness of the models it would be nice to have something a bit more specific.
Crimson wrote: I wonder if there will be AOS warscrolls for these? Sure, you could just use them as Chaos Marauders, but given the uniqueness of the models it would be nice to have something a bit more specific.
Crimson wrote: I wonder if there will be AOS warscrolls for these? Sure, you could just use them as Chaos Marauders, but given the uniqueness of the models it would be nice to have something a bit more specific.
There will be yeah.
They confirmed that?
Furies already have a model in the Slaves to Darkness army (its old). I'd also be shocked if GW didn't give the warbands rules for use in AoS considering that the character warbands for Shadspire have rules. The real question is if they are regular unit level rules or shadspire level rules. Ergo main army or fluffy nice to have but not essential.
Considering that GW is pitching Warcry as the "Killteam of 40K" I'd wager they'll be pretty solid rules for the warbands. Considering most are around 10 models if they are of equivalent standing to Chaos Warriors then that's ample model count for a troop of warriors in a Slaves to Darkness army.
Honestly I'm expecting to see Slaves to Darkness pre-view of a Battletome this weekend to maximise the impact of following on from Warcry's launch. Though I'd equally expect Destruction Battletomes as well.
Sqorgar wrote: I think there is a real missed opportunity here to make the Warhammer Underworlds warbands into 1000 pt Warcry warbands.
As mentioned before.
They wouldn’t play very well probably as they are so small.
Individually. But you can combine two to make a full Warcry warband. There's THREE Stormcast warbands, two Khorne warbands, plus Mollog's Mob and Zarbag's Gitz. Not to mention that they could be allies that mix in with others. Being chaos-orientated, Eyes of the Nine, Godsworn Hunt, and the two Khorne groups could easily fit in with the core Warcry warbands.
Crimson wrote: I wonder if there will be AOS warscrolls for these? Sure, you could just use them as Chaos Marauders, but given the uniqueness of the models it would be nice to have something a bit more specific.
There will be yeah.
They confirmed that?
Yeah they said it in the Warhammerfest seminar and I think they’ve said it on Facebook.
Had a watch of the rules video, gameplay doesnt really seem interesting enough to pull me away from the games I'm already playing. I don't like how it seems as though the unique faction/unit abilities that can be used each turn is only possible based on weather you rolled doubles/triples etc in the initiative step and the abilities (what they have shown at least) don't seem all that interesting/creative mechanically, compared to other games, which wont make the game very tactical/strategic.... its your typical deal more wounds, add one to toughness, take an extra move action.... yawn. GW need better rules designers.
Crimson wrote: I wonder if there will be AOS warscrolls for these? Sure, you could just use them as Chaos Marauders, but given the uniqueness of the models it would be nice to have something a bit more specific.
It's going to be hard to tell what models are what, just going off of the fancy names. The Corvus Cabal and Cypher lords both have two classes of models that look almost identical, but are different for some reason.
So are all of your communities going all in on this? Or is it like mine where people are not going to touch it until all of the factions are released first?
auticus wrote: So are all of your communities going all in on this? Or is it like mine where people are not going to touch it until all of the factions are released first?
That’s kind of the rub, isn’t it? If all of the factions aren’t out, it’s an incomplete game, better to wait for it to all come out. If it’s all on shelves and the game is complete, well now it’s a dead game that isn’t receiving “support.”
auticus wrote: So are all of your communities going all in on this? Or is it like mine where people are not going to touch it until all of the factions are released first?
There are four copies on preorder at my FLGS as of now. I expect that to go up to at least 6 or 7.
auticus wrote: So are all of your communities going all in on this? Or is it like mine where people are not going to touch it until all of the factions are released first?
I won't know until Sunday. I think their are a few people that are going to start, but I don't know what the AoS players think about it. I do think I will pick up the starter though. If other players are waiting for the other factions, that just gives me time to paint everything up. I figure it is going to take me a minimum of a month to paint everything in the starter once I start. If it takes a while to catch on, I just won't bump my Primaris army project. If it doesn't work out, I have a different looking Kill Team board and some nice painting projects. Fortunately, I think the two starter factions looking pretty good with the Iron Golems probably being my favorite out of all of them.
auticus wrote: So are all of your communities going all in on this? Or is it like mine where people are not going to touch it until all of the factions are released first?
Seeing as how my "community" is basically myself and buddies since I don't generally game at the LGS, at least 2 of us are grabbing it. Just reminds me of why I stopped worrying about "what is the community playing?" and get the things that I like.
Elbows wrote: Nobody in my group is buying it. That's only about 12 people, but it's just not interesting anyone. That's not even related to price.
I'm assuming that your group primarily plays 40k (since you have a few thousand posts in 40k groups, but only 6 in Age of Sigmar groups). Just out of curiosity, did it ever have a chance of interesting your group and if it did, what would it have had to do differently to get your group on board?
They're mainly 40K. Mostly younger guys, so no other Mordheim veterans. My other gaming group (in another city, all older) have discussed finding the buildings/terrain on eBay for Mordheim use. I've been interested, but only in the miniatures.
I'm not the target audience for Warcry though. Never been a huge fan of short/quick/easy games. When I buy into a game, I go all-out. Thus the game has to warrant that for me to really get on board. GW hasn't intrigued me with rules writing the past few years. Necromunda all but disappeared in our group....Blackstone Fortress was played precisely one night....etc.
This basically just missed my groups completely. 40K youngsters, and old Mordheim grognards - no one really bit. I am going to try to source some split up boxes on eBay so I can try to find the two starter warbands for cheapish. Always need more gritty fantasy guys.
PS: I think three or four guys own AoS minis...I've never seen them play a game in two years, so I'm not sure they're really AoS "customers" at this point.
auticus wrote: So are all of your communities going all in on this? Or is it like mine where people are not going to touch it until all of the factions are released first?
"all factions" might take a very long time. Even if GW design it as an into to the main game they could keep adding warbands for niche-groups for years. It might even give them and outlet for sub-factions within armies. So rather than releasing 10 stormcast chapters, instead have a single chapter core of models and then various chapter warbands. It's certainly a more practical means to adding more diversity to the game without having to add huge whole armies.
That said viewpoints might change, we are likely to get a lot of news on the future of Warcry on Saturday which might change feelings. If the rest of the armies are coming very soon and GW is just staggering things one could envision it being quite complete within one or two months - at least for adding more core armies.
I'm referring to the factions that they have revealed. Right now, I have nothing to play warcry with and there are two factions I'd buy right now but I don't know when they are going to be released.
I'm in a similar boat- I REALLY want the splintered Fangs, though the Cypher lords look interesting enough to try out. Probably looking to split the starter with a friend, as while the iron golems and untamed beasts don't do it for me as it, a think a few head swaps on the golems, and weapon swaps for both might help them both a long way.
auticus wrote: I'm referring to the factions that they have revealed. Right now, I have nothing to play warcry with and there are two factions I'd buy right now but I don't know when they are going to be released.
And a lot of people are in my same boat.
I don't know. This doesn't feel like Necromunda, where it felt incomplete without all 6 factions and it took a year to get them all. I think we'll get the first six warbands pretty quickly - We've seen painted models and even box art for a bunch of them. GW never shows that stuff unless the models are imminent. Necromunda didn't even show concept art of factions until a month before their release. I think we'll see the remaining three warbands within a few weeks of release, along with the third ravaged land. I think the first wave of KT releases was about a month in and included two starter boxes (space wolves and orcs?) and a kill zone (sector mechanicus?)
GaroRobe wrote: It's going to be hard to tell what models are what, just going off of the fancy names. The Corvus Cabal and Cypher lords both have two classes of models that look almost identical, but are different for some reason.
Well for the Cypher Lords...
Apparently one pair are skilled elite duelists, and the other pair are brainwashed mindslaves that are forced to train all the time. (which would presumably make them pretty good duelists)
But weapons aside, I can't see any distinct visual cues. And one of the slaves has a 'double blade sword' that, as far as I can tell, is a single blade on a long hilt that is somewhat (but insufficiently) different from the glaive that consists of a shorter blade on a longer haft.
I don't know. This doesn't feel like Necromunda, where it felt incomplete without all 6 factions and it took a year to get them all. I think we'll get the first six warbands pretty quickly - We've seen painted models and even box art for a bunch of them. GW never shows that stuff unless the models are imminent. Necromunda didn't even show concept art of factions until a month before their release. I think we'll see the remaining three warbands within a few weeks of release, along with the third ravaged land. I think the first wave of KT releases was about a month in and included two starter boxes (space wolves and orcs?) and a kill zone (sector mechanicus?)
Agreed. Models are done, boxes are done, first separate warband is on day one.
There will be a bit of a wait for the Spire and Fire bands, but I'll be surprised if the first six aren't out by the end of September (or even August).
Do Vanguard Hunters have all that many different upgrades to make a varied warband interesting from just a box of them alone? I ask as I don't have them at all, but it seems something like a box of Savage Orruks nets you more variation.
I had a great time using a box of 5 Liberators for use as a core of my warband in another skirmish game (One Page Fantasy: Skirmish), with all the varied weapon options. (Also used them for the original AoS skirmish/Hinterlands, too).
There are always the Raptors and Hounds to add in, but if you are using components from three different boxed sets to make an interesting warband, it might as well be any three boxes from the entire range of Stormcast, like Judicators, Prosecutors, Liberators, etc.
Same wondering as to why Bonesplitterz can't add in some Boar Boyz?
"Attractive redhead enthusiastically explains new game. Nerds complain about it. More at 11"
Indeed - she is clear, concise and enthusiastic. All good.
Add on easy on the eye and its a surefire winner for me
The cringe for me is the tone of her voice, she has that very specific American accent where every word is spoken with a high inflection. It is just comes across as very false and childlike.
Game doesn't seem to offer anything new, or noteworthy. Lovely miniatures, but that is GW in a nut shell. Not sure anyone in my gaming area are picking it up, so makes me less keen to invest in it, the price already put me off.
It is nice to see GW add more games to their portfolio, especially games that are designed to be quicker to play, it suits the modern world a lot better. Quick and easy games are easier to justify.
I wonder if like Kill Team, this will have several game mode expansions, I think having Warbands fight a big monster would be very nice, say a Giant or similar.
I wasn't sure, if I wanted to get a copy of warcry, but the "how to" video pretty much convinced me: I need it
The mechanics seem to be easy to learn, if it's hard to master, we'll see...
Also: I think Becca Scott is great. I'd want her to explain the world to me.
So if GW marketing is reading this then the next how to play video needs to be done by an unaccented person hidden behind some kind of mosaic..... Or go the "community" route and have two bearded thirtysomethings do it using bad lighting, pictures of them talking all the time with no sight of the game itself and forgetting to actually explain much of what is going on. With horrific background noise.
The game looks great and there is a surprising amount of day one releases, I think the big hurdle is going to be availability - lot of my group wants it IF they can get the starter. No starter = no interest. Mainly because buying the book andcards separate feels expensive compared to the box price.
Or go the "community" route and have two bearded thirtysomethings do it using bad lighting, pictures of them talking all the time with no sight of the game itself and forgetting to actually explain much of what is going on. With horrific background noise.
auticus wrote: I'm referring to the factions that they have revealed. Right now, I have nothing to play warcry with and there are two factions I'd buy right now but I don't know when they are going to be released.
And a lot of people are in my same boat.
GW has the habit to say nothing unless announced on the Warhammer Community. Though the Warcry website implies the crow warband will be next to be out.
Honestly, I'll tell you to wait but it's also obvious the fear of missing out (FOMO) is part ot the marketing tricks nowadays. True unknown is how long will the starter set last...they don't sell the book alone for a good reason, IMHO, and fact that all warband rules/profiles are within the warband box is another trick to force you to buy the actual models rather than using proxies.
As for myself, it happens the Untamed Beasts and Iron Golems are both bands I would like to buy/play, so the starter set is appealing to me. As for being unable to play everything at the beginning, it's fairly common now. Conquest does the same.
What I'm currently wondering about is how many different fighter types some factions will have compared to others. If the warband list on the website is anything to go by, Ironjaws are only going to have 2 cards, FEC 3. But it also looks like some warbands have all the weapon options listed separately while others don't. For example, the Iron Golems page only lists 7 types when we know there are 9, but the Splintered Fang lists 10 including all minor wargear variants.
TwilightSparkles wrote: So if GW marketing is reading this then the next how to play video needs to be done by an unaccented person hidden behind some kind of mosaic..... Or go the "community" route and have two bearded thirtysomethings do it using bad lighting, pictures of them talking all the time with no sight of the game itself and forgetting to actually explain much of what is going on. With horrific background noise.
Yeah, because that is so much better...(/sarcasm). Just because I find Becca's voice to be false and the video scripted doesn't mean that the above you described is the thing that I find satisfying.
One of the best video of how to play was when GW did the first mission for Betrayal at Calth. That gave a good feel for the game and it came across as being natural, it didn't feel forced or scripted, while also showing how the game plays.
lord_blackfang wrote: What I'm currently wondering about is how many different fighter types some factions will have compared to others. If the warband list on the website is anything to go by, Ironjaws are only going to have 2 cards, FEC 3. But it also looks like some warbands have all the weapon options listed separately while others don't. For example, the Iron Golems page only lists 7 types when we know there are 9, but the Splintered Fang lists 10 including all minor wargear variants.
I bet it will be like Kill Teams - they will add more types in the future. I wouldn't be surprised if they put extra fighters/classes for every chaos warband as well (how about some cavalry / "real" chaos warriors-like ?). That means the profile cards will be out in the same time of the miniatures / with another wave of "blisters" for the existing AoS factions. For now, we only have those to play. It's on purpose, so that they keep selling this on long term.
To be honest, I still feel Warcry is really designed to be played with Chaos factions only - the others factions feel they were added afterwards, to me. Sure, they can have their "own quest" and such, but by reading the way the campaign is designed, it is really a Path to Glory game - the old school chaos version of it, I mean.
Actually, I think there is a way to treat ghouls, skeletons, grots and orruks like wandering monsters, a bit akind to the chaotic beasts. Idoneth and Daughters of Khaine really feel out of place in the Allpoint, IMHO.
Hey guys, real American here. I can attest the way Becca Scott uses inflection is not an American accent but a speech pattern (which I also find sounds very insincere). It doesn't help that it is often paired with overly pushed commercials and what not. To be fair I don't have a huge problem with how to play video, I think Becca does a very good job explaining the game and I like how she conducts the presentation, but I would like it a lot more if she dropped the inflection.
I still think Ash from GMG does the best review and how to play videos I have seen.
I'm pretty excited to see what we hear on open day tomorrow. Also that Stormvault Map looks fantastic. I've seen the terrain before, but never paid it much attention until I saw it painted up in those colors.
Danny76 wrote: We’ve seen the two warband outlines from the pages in the book, that brings us to 8.
But is there no word on what the 9th chaos warband might be?
Is there supposed to be nine? I hadn't heard of that. Eight would make a lot more sense you'd think.
To be honest, I still feel Warcry is really designed to be played with Chaos factions only - the others factions feel they were added afterwards, to me. Sure, they can have their "own quest" and such, but by reading the way the campaign is designed, it is really a Path to Glory game - the old school chaos version of it, I mean.
Agreed, given the theme of the game is Warbands trying to fight to gain Archeon's blessing, it does seem somewhat off having non chaos factions roaming around. Personally I think it would be much better if it was random big monsters roaming around. What better way to prove your Warbands skill and worthiness than killing a big monster?
That being said, from a marketing point of view having it as just chaos would limit their sales potential... which is something that a new game is not likely to do. Hence why the other factions feel added on as an afterthought.
To be honest, I still feel Warcry is really designed to be played with Chaos factions only - the others factions feel they were added afterwards, to me. Sure, they can have their "own quest" and such, but by reading the way the campaign is designed, it is really a Path to Glory game - the old school chaos version of it, I mean.
Agreed, given the theme of the game is Warbands trying to fight to gain Archeon's blessing, it does seem somewhat off having non chaos factions roaming around. Personally I think it would be much better if it was random big monsters roaming around. What better way to prove your Warbands skill and worthiness than killing a big monster?
That being said, from a marketing point of view having it as just chaos would limit their sales potential... which is something that a new game is not likely to do. Hence why the other factions feel added on as an afterthought.
It’s not surprising Morathi, Nagash And Sigmar would send their forces into the All Points they do want to keep an eye on Archaon and as said the area was a center of trade for the Mortal Realms before it fell to Chaos so there may be magical knowledge and artifacts buried there yet. Of course the Bonesplittaz just want the magical power of the beasts, Ironjawz fight and so forth.
Having those options in there for warbands to use, but not get a campaign run of their own would be good.
As it makes sense that Archaon may want certain groups or enemies taken out, and that’s what you’d be playing.
So having the rules there so player two can in effect control the enemies for you is cool.
The fact that they then have the ability to do their own string of campaign missions building up the warband, that’s the bit that doesn’t then fit though..
To be honest, I still feel Warcry is really designed to be played with Chaos factions only - the others factions feel they were added afterwards, to me. Sure, they can have their "own quest" and such, but by reading the way the campaign is designed, it is really a Path to Glory game - the old school chaos version of it, I mean.
Agreed, given the theme of the game is Warbands trying to fight to gain Archeon's blessing, it does seem somewhat off having non chaos factions roaming around. Personally I think it would be much better if it was random big monsters roaming around. What better way to prove your Warbands skill and worthiness than killing a big monster?
That being said, from a marketing point of view having it as just chaos would limit their sales potential... which is something that a new game is not likely to do. Hence why the other factions feel added on as an afterthought.
It’s not surprising Morathi, Nagash And Sigmar would send their forces into the All Points they do want to keep an eye on Archaon and as said the area was a center of trade for the Mortal Realms before it fell to Chaos so there may be magical knowledge and artifacts buried there yet. Of course the Bonesplittaz just want the magical power of the beasts, Ironjawz fight and so forth.
Never underestimate the lure of treasure and riches for convincing a group of people to enter into the depths of hell for a prize.
When you consider the power of some artifacts you can well see a Lord of King or Tribe leader sending advanced parties sneaking into the depths of Chaos infested lands. Heck in the Old World Gotrek and Felix join a dwarven airship crew as they venture far into the Chaos Wastes in search of a lost Dwarven City all to claim an ancient weapon of great power.
I'm not implying that that is the case at all (that printing cards caused a delay)
I'm saying GW's intentional model of trickling releases makes games stillborn since the full game is not released, and people don't want to play factions they don't enjoy and also don't want to wait up to a year to be able to play.
I don't have any of the factions already supported. Additionally the two factions I want to play, I have no idea when they will be released. This is the case with a lot of folks in my area and why very few people are going to buy in, which leads to it not getting played, which leads it being like every other game GW releases in my area: other than 40k and barely AOS... no one plays any of the other games.
As others have stated, I feel like the other factions will be released fairly rapidly. You can see them displayed on the new website, with clear pics of all the models in the units. That's not something they'd do if the models won't be released for months. As for the unrevealed warbands, they probably are going to be released in a couple months.
In fairness GW is likely only staggering to overcome production issues - they still don't have their new factory and even a 2 week wait is going to hit them hard. Heck even on support materials like Contrast Paint they can't get several colours in stock anywhere before they vanish.
Plus it lets them drag out the release. Whilst battle reports and lore articles are nice; nothing gets people more interested than an actual product related release. I think GW's choice is to either have super long gaps with bigger releases or shorter gaps with smaller releases and their chioce is to go for the latter.
IT fits their production system better and it also prolongs the period of time GW can keep a high attention focus on the game; esp when its something like Warcry.
Also lets not forget we don't know the time-scale for their release plan; this is info we should learn of tomorrow. It might be that more faction packs for exsiting factions and more wabands are only weeks away or a month or two - or a year. We really don't know
That said GW is also keen for people to buy into Warcry, so from a marketing side they want to encourage people to get involved with a chaos warband - to buy models for it. Esp since those getting involved with their existing armies are likely to only buy a rulebook and card pack.
Hopefully tomorrow will ease some tensions and concerns people have.
GaroRobe wrote: As others have stated, I feel like the other factions will be released fairly rapidly. You can see them displayed on the new website, with clear pics of all the models in the units. That's not something they'd do if the models won't be released for months. As for the unrevealed warbands, they probably are going to be released in a couple months.
Time will tell but this would be the first time they did such a thing if that is true. I forsee a faction coming out a month. Which means the game as it stands right now is not fully released until winter 2020.
The marketing strategy they employ is "they will buy in NOW and then they will add to their collections on trickle releases, thus ensuring us maximum profit" which to a point is true because if they release the full game now, many if not most would buy the faction they like and thats it.
So the motivations are laid out there for why these factions are there. They all make sense. But don't let that stop the complaints about more non-Chaos stuff!
So the motivations are laid out there for why these factions are there. They all make sense. But don't let that stop the complaints about more non-Chaos stuff!
This is a great overview. I'm most curious at this point to see point values. It seems like Zarbag's Gitz make a great start to a Gobbo force, but I want to see how much more stuff I'd need.
So the motivations are laid out there for why these factions are there. They all make sense. But don't let that stop the complaints about more non-Chaos stuff!
This is a great overview. I'm most curious at this point to see point values. It seems like Zarbag's Gitz make a great start to a Gobbo force, but I want to see how much more stuff I'd need.
I'm in the exact same boat! Looking forward to seeing how many crazy squigs and/or riders fit into a single warband
The other factions' motivations are a joke, if you ask me. Reason for Morathi sending her warriors in Allpoint ? To fuel her intrigues...what a surprise, really, she's doing exactly the same than, well, everything she did since she was out of Slaanesh's stomach. And Idoneth send their troops though "hidden portals" to get the corrupt souls of chaos servants even though it's hot damn dangerous and in the freaking territory of Archaon himself. Go grab some peasant souls in undefended areas instead, that way you won't lose more souls than you'll get by going in complete Chaos dominion, you fishbrains !
I bet true reason was they are popular armies in AoS and it's an easy way to get more players in by telling them "just use your favorite units !".
But hey, it's nice to think about players not wanting to play Chaos. Though I believe introducing mounts and ranged weapons this early while other Chaos warbands clearly don't have those may be showing some...clear gap, let's say, between the factions.
Eh. The implication is the fish riders are 250-300 points each.
With the way attacks and damage work, I don't know that they'll stand up all that well. I suspect the gap may well be the reverse of what you're thinking, given what some of the ~100 point models are capable of.
The bigger concern is what bands with strong ranged attacks are capable of.
Sarouan wrote: The other factions' motivations are a joke, if you ask me. Reason for Morathi sending her warriors in Allpoint ? To fuel her intrigues...what a surprise, really, she's doing exactly the same than, well, everything she did since she was out of Slaanesh's stomach. And Idoneth send their troops though "hidden portals" to get the corrupt souls of chaos servants even though it's hot damn dangerous and in the freaking territory of Archaon himself. Go grab some peasant souls in undefended areas instead, that way you won't lose more souls than you'll get by going in complete Chaos dominion, you fishbrains !
I bet true reason was they are popular armies in AoS and it's an easy way to get more players in by telling them "just use your favorite units !".
But hey, it's nice to think about players not wanting to play Chaos. Though I believe introducing mounts and ranged weapons this early while other Chaos warbands clearly don't have those may be showing some...clear gap, let's say, between the factions.
You really should have mentioned ghosts as well. They totally follow Nagash's secret plan, but hush, we can't tell you what it is!
Also I wouldn't say Chaos warbands don't have ranged attacks. Mounts, sure*, but it takes one look at the Tamed Beasts whaler to see that that's not true.
*Discounting stilts which may end up working similar.
Shame the article wasn't more informative. i wonder how they handle leaders for the non-Chaos factions. Take Daughters of Khaine, for instance. Who gets a leader card? Snake elves? Bat elves? Murder elves? Other murder elves? All of them? They all have a squad leader who could fill that position.
Geifer wrote: Shame the article wasn't more informative. i wonder how they handle leaders for the non-Chaos factions. Take Daughters of Khaine, for instance. Who gets a leader card? Snake elves? Bat elves? Murder elves? Other murder elves? All of them? They all have a squad leader who could fill that position.
Hmm. They did mention “Crypt Infernal” on the FEC preview there, which is a Crypt Flayer Unit Leader. I bet it’s the Unit Leaders. Krones, Hags, Primes, Deathwarden, Etcetc. Though most likely focusing on the “Elite” units.
Geifer wrote: Shame the article wasn't more informative. i wonder how they handle leaders for the non-Chaos factions. Take Daughters of Khaine, for instance. Who gets a leader card? Snake elves? Bat elves? Murder elves? Other murder elves? All of them? They all have a squad leader who could fill that position.
Hmm. They did mention “Crypt Infernal” on the FEC preview there, which is a Crypt Flayer Unit Leader. I bet it’s the Unit Leaders. Krones, Hags, Primes, Deathwarden, Etcetc. Though most likely focusing on the “Elite” units.
They also mentioned Skeleton Champion and Senschal for LoN.
So the motivations are laid out there for why these factions are there. They all make sense. But don't let that stop the complaints about more non-Chaos stuff!
Well considering that the options are pretty lazy - nope.
Death - Legions of Nagash
Ok So we are ignoring most of the faction, especially given that vampires are awesome warrior/spies/adventueres/treasure seekers.
Just necromancers and the dead they can raise but nope - lets hammer them choices flat.
- No zombies for Necromancers to raise?
- No undead Beasts - Dire Wolves etc
- No undead cavalry or skeletal heroes.....
Geifer wrote: Shame the article wasn't more informative. i wonder how they handle leaders for the non-Chaos factions. Take Daughters of Khaine, for instance. Who gets a leader card? Snake elves? Bat elves? Murder elves? Other murder elves? All of them? They all have a squad leader who could fill that position.
Hmm. They did mention “Crypt Infernal” on the FEC preview there, which is a Crypt Flayer Unit Leader. I bet it’s the Unit Leaders. Krones, Hags, Primes, Deathwarden, Etcetc. Though most likely focusing on the “Elite” units.
They also mentioned Skeleton Champion and Senschal for LoN.
Yeah, they do for some, but not for others. Which is really inconvenient for me because I'm sitting on some unused Daughters sprues and have been looking for an excuse to buy a box of snake elves. If they told me my girl of choice gets to be leader I could get building right now.
The idea that they might focus on elite units for leaders is actually what bothers me about the lack of information the most. Because of no model no rules, essentially, in AoS a normal Daughter on foot of either disposition is a hero choice while only the Bloodwrack Medusa specifically, but none of the other snake girls, is a hero. If GW decided to turn that on its head for Warcry and have snake and bat leaders but none on foot, that would be kind of stupid. Unfortunately we're talking about GW and I have unshakeable faith in their ability and drive to make those stupid decisions...
Sarouan wrote: The other factions' motivations are a joke, if you ask me. Reason for Morathi sending her warriors in Allpoint ? To fuel her intrigues...what a surprise, really, she's doing exactly the same than, well, everything she did since she was out of Slaanesh's stomach. And Idoneth send their troops though "hidden portals" to get the corrupt souls of chaos servants even though it's hot damn dangerous and in the freaking territory of Archaon himself. Go grab some peasant souls in undefended areas instead, that way you won't lose more souls than you'll get by going in complete Chaos dominion, you fishbrains !
Surely the best one is the Bonesplitterz line: "Their motivations in this Chaos-tainted realm are unclear". Because sometimes even the fluff writer who needs to fill about 4 lines of text can't be bothered to come up with something. Amazing.
If they want to focus on Chaos warbands, don't include a host of others from the start. If they want this to be the Kill Team equivalent, don't largely make it about new Chaos warbands in a Chaos setting. It starts to look as if they were planning two different projects, and figured it would fit in the release schedule better if they just merged them into one game.
Besides, couldn't they just have switched the storylines? Instead of these non-Chaos factions visiting and somehow surviving in a Chaos stronghold, have the various marauders launch a series of raids and incursions along the borders of the enemy territories to win the favour of both Archaon and their gods, and the wild creatures of Chaos follow in their wake (because I don't mind an excuse for plastic Furies, those critters are pretty nice). Or whatever reason somebody wants to come up with for anything. The official backstory certainly reads like they decided upon the inclusion of factions and then came up with an excuse to have them there, rather than having a story and then including the relevant factions.
The Allpoints is an inter-realm island, connected to each of the Mortal Realms by Realmgates known as the All-Gates. It has since been renamed by the forces of Chaos into the Eightpoints
The Allpoints was as an important nexus of travel that was used in the Age of Myth.
Knowning that the Allpoints was key to conquering the Mortal Realms, Archaon attacked all the All-Gates simultaneously. Sigmar armies managed to hold out the ferocity of chaos, failing only when Nagash side fell. After Archaon's conquest he created a gateway to the Realm of Chaos within and renamed it the Eightpoints.
Realizing Sigmar's plan to reconquer the Realmgates, Archaon decided to reinforce the Eightpoints.
While the Realmgate Wars were happening, Sigmar's gaze was constantly drawn to the Allpoints where one of his greatest foes resided, the Everchosen.
Kanluwen wrote: They're not raiding the Varanspire...people get that right?
The setting is the Allpoints. That's not "a Chaos stronghold".
The All Points/Eight Points is very much a domain of Chaos - the non Chaos factions are sending people there to salvage treausres, spy on the enemy and generally mess with Chaos.
Sarouan wrote: The other factions' motivations are a joke, if you ask me. Reason for Morathi sending her warriors in Allpoint ? To fuel her intrigues...what a surprise, really, she's doing exactly the same than, well, everything she did since she was out of Slaanesh's stomach. And Idoneth send their troops though "hidden portals" to get the corrupt souls of chaos servants even though it's hot damn dangerous and in the freaking territory of Archaon himself. Go grab some peasant souls in undefended areas instead, that way you won't lose more souls than you'll get by going in complete Chaos dominion, you fishbrains !
Surely the best one is the Bonesplitterz line: "Their motivations in this Chaos-tainted realm are unclear". Because sometimes even the fluff writer who needs to fill about 4 lines of text can't be bothered to come up with something. Amazing.
If they want to focus on Chaos warbands, don't include a host of others from the start. If they want this to be the Kill Team equivalent, don't largely make it about new Chaos warbands in a Chaos setting. It starts to look as if they were planning two different projects, and figured it would fit in the release schedule better if they just merged them into one game.
Besides, couldn't they just have switched the storylines? Instead of these non-Chaos factions visiting and somehow surviving in a Chaos stronghold, have the various marauders launch a series of raids and incursions along the borders of the enemy territories to win the favour of both Archaon and their gods, and the wild creatures of Chaos follow in their wake (because I don't mind an excuse for plastic Furies, those critters are pretty nice). Or whatever reason somebody wants to come up with for anything. The official backstory certainly reads like they decided upon the inclusion of factions and then came up with an excuse to have them there, rather than having a story and then including the relevant factions.
. Reversing it works less well. Small bands of chaos thralls sniffing around the borders of Hammerhal/<faction stronghold>? Send out a couple hundred cavalry and hunt them down like dogs.
Order/destruction armies sneaking in scouts to Allpoints? All part of the challenge and the proving.
I bet true reason was they are popular armies in AoS and it's an easy way to get more players in by telling them "just use your favorite units !".
Two flaws with that line of reasoning:
1) No Sylvaneth or Kharadron.
2) Nobody considers the Stormcast Vanguard their favorite units.
I bet it's just too soon for the Sylvaneth and Kharadron. GW will have to sell those nice and juicy expansions, won't they.
As for the Stormcast, they just had to be there. Sigmar has certainly the bigger incentive to get this place back - and the treasures that were there. Sending Vanguard is logical, since it's Chaos territory here and playing the scout in enemy lands is quite their job. But mechanically ? I don't think it's a good thing to put them here. The Chaos warbands are, I feel, pretty much balanced with each other because in the end, they're all chaos marauders (mostly humans, though there are a few other races here and there). They may have ranged weapons, but they're mostly throwed weapons, so the range is limited. The core of these bands is still focused on close combat - and all being on foot. That's not the case with the other factions.
But hey, the game can work with just the Chaos factions once they will be all here. I can see running a campaign with Chaos only warbands, should be fun.
Yeah, those "thrown weapons" will be at such a disadvantage compared to the likely 12" range of the hand crossbows on the Hunters, 9"/18" on the Reavers(assuming they duplicate the Storm/Aimed Fire profiles), etc.
And really? Complaining about "selling those nice and juicy expansions"? It's $8 for the profile cards for the faction. Everything else needed is in the Core book.
Man I can't sort this all out, what I'm getting is:
-Non-Chaos warbands are lazy and they should have just focused on Chaos ones
-There's not enough support for non-Chaos warbands and there should be more of them.
-The fluff doesn't make sense because people haven't read it
-The fluff isn't worth reading because it doesn't make sense
-The campaign system is no better than pick up games
-You can't play pick up games because of the campaign system
Is this just internet being internet or have I just lost the page?
Yeah, those "thrown weapons" will be at such a disadvantage compared to the likely 12" range of the hand crossbows on the Hunters, 9"/18" on the Reavers(assuming they duplicate the Storm/Aimed Fire profiles), etc.
And really? Complaining about "selling those nice and juicy expansions"? It's $8 for the profile cards for the faction. Everything else needed is in the Core book.
I'm not talking about the card packs. It follows GW's pattern with warcry, putting all the rules of the warbands on cards only and not the books. What's in the books, however, is the background, missions and quests (as well as the core rules, obviously).
I expect GW to make another book at some point adding more of them, and explaining why the second wave of other factions are there as well (and making new card packs for the additionnal non chaos factions). That's the expansion I'm talking about.
About the ranged weapons, I expect their long crossbows to cover most of the board. Terrains that break line of sight will be required against Stormcast. If you can't see the difference between one miniature able to throw a javelot at 8' and a crossbow that will be most likely a lot higher than that, and the fact that nearly all of the warriors in the Stormcast warband will be equiped with, then I can't help you.
Does anyone know what the weapon symbols actually do? I mean for example some melee attacks have mace symbol whilst others have an axe symbol. Presumably this has some meaning in the rules?
NinthMusketeer wrote: Man I can't sort this all out, what I'm getting is:
-Non-Chaos warbands are lazy and they should have just focused on Chaos ones
-There's not enough support for non-Chaos warbands and there should be more of them.
-The fluff doesn't make sense because people haven't read it
-The fluff isn't worth reading because it doesn't make sense
-The campaign system is no better than pick up games
-You can't play pick up games because of the campaign system
Is this just internet being internet or have I just lost the page?
Non Chaos Warbands are lazy - because they are - they don't need to focuss on them - just give a few more options as I outlined in my post.
The fluff is very sparse - mostly interesting but very little of it - having read completly the leaked rulebook, more on the website which is nice
The fluff is worth reading for the most part
The Campaign system is Kill Team - if you like it - its good - if you don't its very very thin, little consequences, customisation etc etc. Maybe they will do some campaign elements for the Order, Death and Destruction - use the vague plot hooks to do this - maybe in white Dwarf - i doubt it.
On the plus side - Models are pretty much all very nice.
Crimson wrote: Does anyone know what the weapon symbols actually do? I mean for example some melee attacks have mace symbol whilst others have an axe symbol. Presumably this has some meaning in the rules?
It's identifying the weapon(or weapons) in question on the model.
So to use this First Fang as an example:
His first weapon is the Harpoon. It shows you the weapon's range(the arrow swooshing into a circle), the number of attacks from activating and using that weapon(the sword), the strength of the weapon(the fist), and the damage value(skull split in half--the first number is a 'normal' attack while the second is the damage from a Crit, which you get from rolling a 6).
Right underneath is his axe which is set up the same(range, attacks, strength, damage).
Compare to the Ogor from the Iron Golems:
He has just his fists and as such only has one weapon.
^ Yes, I get that, but does the weapon symbol in itself have some rule significance? Does it matter that First Fang's melee attack is an axe and Ogor's is a fist?
The First Fang gets a special ability (on a triple) with his harpoon The weapon symbols just seem to be a graphical indication of which weapon uses which stats in the case of multi-weapon fighters.
Interestingly, the harpoon isn't technically a ranged weapon because 'ranged weapon' has it's own symbol.
The last faction focus makes it clear that the model index on the website does not represent all the choices available to the faction. For example, for FEC the site only says Crypt Ghouls, Horrors and Flayers, but the article also mentions Crypt Infernals (which is the Flayer unit champion). A big relief especially for Ironjawz who were afraid they would only have 2 stat cards in the pack
lord_blackfang wrote: The last faction focus makes it clear that the model index on the website does not represent all the choices available to the faction. For example, for FEC the site only says Crypt Ghouls, Horrors and Flayers, but the article also mentions Crypt Infernals (which is the Flayer unit champion). A big relief especially for Ironjawz who were afraid they would only have 2 stat cards in the pack
Well I am sure some will be happy with option getting poking sticks instead of whacking sticks.
Crimson wrote: So does anyone know whether the starter box will be an one off, or whether it will stay in production for foreseeable future?
If Kill Team's starter is an indication, look for this starter to go away in a few months.
Then if you thought $170 USD was high, try buying all the stuff separately.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Man I can't sort this all out, what I'm getting is:
-Non-Chaos warbands are lazy and they should have just focused on Chaos ones
-There's not enough support for non-Chaos warbands and there should be more of them.
-The fluff doesn't make sense because people haven't read it
-The fluff isn't worth reading because it doesn't make sense
-The campaign system is no better than pick up games
-You can't play pick up games because of the campaign system
Is this just internet being internet or have I just lost the page?
I believe this is one of those frequent cases where different people want different things, and don't really know if this thing really fits what they think they're getting.
The stuff is up on the Newzealand site!
This includes Warscroll downloads for AoS regular for all the three currently releasing warbands, and the two chaos creatures from the core set
Noctem wrote: Anyone know if the Battleplan Cards product is just the same cards that come in the starter set? =O
Yes. It says so in the product description for the cards.
The only thing you wouldn't have from the Core Set is the "Terrain Decks" which are included with a Ravaged Lands set(the Mausoleum and what's in the Core Set).
Noctem wrote: Anyone know if the Battleplan Cards product is just the same cards that come in the starter set? =O
I believe its been confirmed that they are the same cards. Basically those cards and the rulebook are being sold on their own for those at launch who want to get involved but who don't want the core boxed set. So you'd get all you'd need with them. The only thing you don't get are the terrain cards which are being sold in the terrain sets - which makes sense as those cards are tied to specific terrain kits.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Anyone else think Iron Golems seem pretty strong for AoS? Might be looking to them as an ally choice.
Haven’t checked out Warscrolls yet, but I heard the same on one of FBAoS pages. Edit: Checked them out, not seeing it. What am I missing that makes them pretty strong?
Furies = Flying Skinks?
Untamed Beasts get a rend missile attack and are highly mobile, having the run/charge ability. Hmmm...
Crimson wrote: So does anyone know whether the starter box will be an one off, or whether it will stay in production for foreseeable future?
If Kill Team's starter is an indication, look for this starter to go away in a few months.
Then if you thought $170 USD was high, try buying all the stuff separately.
I really hope this doesn't happen, kill team kinda slowed down in my area because there was no starter, thus less an influx of new players. It's still pretty popular for those already invested though. Having a starter box available is kind of essential for any new game, and warcry does not have an established playerbase.
I really want to get into this game, but I just can't blow that kind of money right now. Plus the untamed beasts warband does not interest me in the slightest, neither does the imo excessive amount of creatures in the box which inflate the price. My favorite warband so far is probably the iron golems, but it seems they aren't available outside the starter box until later on. It does look like a good fun little game though and i'd much rather play this than aos or 40k.
It's just that I don't like buying redundant things, and whilst I understand why the pack comes with the rules in 40 different languages, I don't like buying things I'm never going to use.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Anyone else think Iron Golems seem pretty strong for AoS? Might be looking to them as an ally choice.
All 3 warbands seem very middling. From a design viewpoint I like them more than most GW board-game-to-main-game conversions, they are straightforward, no-nonsense, and not overburdened with random abilities (consider what a godawful mishmash of crap Zarbag's Gitz or the Godsworn Hunt are in AoS). But they also don't offer much new. The Furies, on the other hand... that's some good stuff.
Slow start to the open day coverage just the Shattered Stormvault box so far
I do like that mat the reverse of all the mats is a variation on the same design so multiple mats can make a bigger battlefield.
Presumably £55 the 2 temples alone cost that although you get less columns but you get 2 other sprues instead.
So the contents is
Gryphhound statue sprue
Smallplinth/walkway sprue
2 shattered temples bases
1 or 2 Column sprues (4 or 8 columns) (hard to tell as the temple on the left isn't really visible to confirm)
Board and cards
NinthMusketeer wrote: Anyone else think Iron Golems seem pretty strong for AoS? Might be looking to them as an ally choice.
All 3 warbands seem very middling. From a design viewpoint I like them more than most GW board-game-to-main-game conversions, they are straightforward, no-nonsense, and not overburdened with random abilities (consider what a godawful mishmash of crap Zarbag's Gitz or the Godsworn Hunt are in AoS). But they also don't offer much new. The Furies, on the other hand... that's some good stuff.
Agreed, its a little underwhelming at first, but then you realise that instead of being full of gimmicks they are basically really basic troops to fit into the army naturally alongside others. Also its interesting to note that the forces don't have optional additional unit types, instead the alternate specialist models within each teams are MUST takes within their respective numerical limits which are all based on the number of models in a Warcry boxed set (1 in every 8 or 9 etc..). This means that you can pretty much build them from the box however you want and they will work effortlessly within AoS. That's a very powerful take because Warcry is clearly going to favour some weapon choices over others (where customising is possible) whilst bringing it into AoS you just drop them down on the board and your'e good to go.
I hope that, balance wise, they end up decent within a Slaves to Darkness army or general demons army. Not outstanding, but at the very least capable and decent to put on the table.
So do we think that this rush is a reaction to how quickly the Kill Team starter sold out, only to have another reprint or so and then just vanish out of existence?
GW are seemingly finding ways to keep their great financial results on a roll.
ListenToMeWarriors wrote: So do we think that this rush is a reaction to how quickly the Kill Team starter sold out, only to have another reprint or so and then just vanish out of existence?
GW are seemingly finding ways to keep their great financial results on a roll.
Just like other sidegame starter, they'll be sold out, or in the case of Shadespire, they discontinued old starter and replaced it with Nightvault, this seem to go in similar spirit. We'll see if KT got a "season 2" starter.
GW released the Elites expansion only a short time ago and daemon and Eisenhorn rules in this or last month's White Dwarf. The starter and many Kill Zones are sold out and don't look like they're coming back.
I guess you could consider Kill Team half supported at this time. Though the absence of a good starter set is pretty bogus.
GW released the Elites expansion only a short time ago and daemon and Eisenhorn rules in this or last month's White Dwarf. The starter and many Kill Zones are sold out and don't look like they're coming back.
I guess you could consider Kill Team half supported at this time. Though the absence of a good starter set is pretty bogus.
Also with the release of new Blackstone fortress and SoB.
KT is not a hard game to maintain, they didn't need new kit.
To those that do not read spanish, I present you Warcry's basic OOK
I am absolutely livid. This is the fliipin' cover, and you couldn't even run a basic spellcheck.
The preorder's done already. I am so hitting customer support and demanding an english copy. This shoddy gak ain't deserving of my money, even if its bundled with cool stuff.
Lets not forget the core of Killteam is an introduction game for new gamers that can be started very cheaply (they really only need a box of models - any established club will have rules and tables and opponents to play against). It also acts as a fast paced shorter game for those gamers who have not got the time for a full battle but who still want to game with their models.
It's a fantastic product that, whilst we've had killteams for years, is great being marketed on its own as a product rather than buried in the games big rulebook.
Warcry is the same, the only difference is that GW is using it to shift some mortal chaos unique models as well; which will likely form the backbone core of mortal followers for troops in a future Slaves to Darkness release.
At its core I expect to see Warcry steadily shift to replace skirmish for AoS - making it the intro game for AoS and the quickfire game for gamers who want shorter matches.
This will really come into its own when GW releases the second wave of regular army rule packs - getting the game up to fully supporting AoS.
So I wanted to preorder from a German store, but it says my PW is wrong. Last time I ordered the site bugged out during Paypal referal. Dude, you're a nice chap and I want to give you money, don't make it so hard
The LGS in another town supposedly has a box for display already, so I'm off to the nearest GW in case they have it as well . And check out how big the Acastus knights are. Stupid expensive month.
This will really come into its own when GW releases the second wave of regular army rule packs - getting the game up to fully supporting AoS.
Honestly? Then that's when I will buy it. I'm still pretty unsure if this game is going to take off in my local community right now. A lot of my players don't run armies that are getting rules right off the bat. Right now I'm just gonna try and secure some of that sweet terrain from the starter box, and I will worry about rules and stuff later.
RiTides wrote: Does anyone know what is the recommended point level / levels for a game? Sorry if it was posted already and I missed it!
1000 points but points are totally different to AoS your regular grunt here is 70 to 80 points leaders are high 100s and heavy hitters like the Ogor are 200+
Thanks . That's a little surprising, though, since they showed the card of things like a squig rider as 200 points. So 5 of those is your whole warband!
So a typical warband might be around 8 -12 models, but elite ones could be 4 - 5? And a swarm might top out around 20 models?
I’m basically resigned to never buying into Warcry. I’m quite interested in it, the minis look great. However, I have too many things to finish right now and, if Kill Team is anything to go by, it won’t be available by the time I might want it.
RiTides wrote: Thanks . That's a little surprising, though, since they showed the card of things like a squig rider as 200 points. So 5 of those is your whole warband!
The idea probably is to mimic Necromunda's army building, but without the restrictions. You can think of these expensive units as your heavies that you're no supposed to have more than a couple of. With Warcry's system you can, alloiwing you to build the squig hopper army of your dreams if that's what you're into, but if it's balanced as I expect, you'll be incentivized to moderate yourself and bring more bodies because otherwise you give up your ability to contest objectives.
That's my take anyway. How it works out in reality is yet to be seen, but given GW's general stance on army building restrictions (more open means more models sold), I'm not surprised that you'll only be restricted by points.
DaveC wrote: Warbands are minimum 3 models and max 20. I doubt you would even get 5 squighoppers as a squighopper boss would be more than 200 points.
Actually it's min 3 and max 15. The limit of 20 is for your warband list, from which you pick the 1000 points when you're playing a game. It's similar to Kill Team - you band may be bigger but you only play with a part of it, for "balance issues", certainly.
MonkeyBallistic wrote: I’m basically resigned to never buying into Warcry. I’m quite interested in it, the minis look great. However, I have too many things to finish right now and, if Kill Team is anything to go by, it won’t be available by the time I might want it.
My feelings on it as well. I like it, looks fun. But nothing screams "drop all your other projects and buy this." Since I know it will never get restocked again. I'll probably just skip it altogether.
DaveC wrote: Warbands are minimum 3 models and max 20. I doubt you would even get 5 squighoppers as a squighopper boss would be more than 200 points.
Actually it's min 3 and max 15. The limit of 20 is for your warband list, from which you pick the 1000 points when you're playing a game. It's similar to Kill Team - you band may be bigger but you only play with a part of it, for "balance issues", certainly.
I don't understand this - can the 20 models be anything, up to any point limit? And you just have to pick 1000 points from it before starting?
Before your first campaign battle, you can add up to 20 fighter to your warband roster. These fighters can total any number of points, but it should contain at least 1000 points' worth of fighters to allow you to field a full warband during your first campaign battle. You do not have to add the full 20 fighters to begin with - you can instead choose to add additional fighters as the campaign progresses. You'll be able to add and remove fighter from your warband roster after each campaign battle. When adding fighters to your warband roster you must adhere to the following restrictions:
1. at least 3 fighters
2. max 20 fighters
3. All fighters hare the same faction runemark as the campaign quest chosen.
4. Only 1 fighter with the leader runemark.
DaveC wrote: Warbands are minimum 3 models and max 20. I doubt you would even get 5 squighoppers as a squighopper boss would be more than 200 points.
Actually it's min 3 and max 15. The limit of 20 is for your warband list, from which you pick the 1000 points when you're playing a game. It's similar to Kill Team - you band may be bigger but you only play with a part of it, for "balance issues", certainly.
I don't understand this - can the 20 models be anything, up to any point limit? And you just have to pick 1000 points from it before starting?
That would actually be pretty cool if so
That's how kill team works. So it isn't out of the question for it to work this way.
I didn't see much that would stop you from running a campaign with tthree people on the same side. The deployment decks don't support it but that's stupidly simple to skip/adjust.
Having now watched GMG's Let's Play video, I think I would really, really like this game if it had more abilities and more chances to use them.
The core rules are really slick but once you've spent your 1 or 2 ability pools, there's not much else to do other than walk in and roll attacks. And I find that allowing models to give up movement to make extra attacks is always a design mistake. I realize early battle reports are often a march to the middle of the table and rolling attacks as players don't yet grasp the tactical minutae of the system, but the heavy restrictions on special ability dice really might now allow players to do anything else here. Reinforcements moving on from random sides doesn't really mitigate that there's really not much else to do other than moving into range and then just rolling attacks until one side is dead.
Cypher lord leader has an interesting detail on the 360 view:
There's a third hand under that robe, holding another grenade.
---
Also, AoS warscrolls are on the store for the starter set models and cypher lords. Most seem amazingly uninteresting. 70 points for 8 or 9 models, 1 attack each at 4+/4+/-, armor varies, you must take the 'special' characters for every 8 or 9 models, which have a couple bonuses.
The two units of gribblies are a bit more expensive, but strike me as more interesting/useful in AoS.
Keywords: chaos, mortal, slaves to darkness, cultists, <warband>
------
Probably going to get the box, probably not going to get the Cyphers. After looking at the 360, they just bug me. The fighter types are defined by base size, not look, and those helmets are the least practical thing I've seen in a long, long time. Protection isn't the point, because nothing else they wear offers protection, and they'd limit vision, hearing and breathing, would Be ridiculously heavy, offer handholds to the enemy, and throw off the balance of fighters who are clearly trying for a dexterous, acrobatic style. Nothing about that works.
Voss wrote: Cypher lord leader has an interesting detail on the 360 view:
There's a third hand under that robe, holding another grenade.
---
Also, AoS warscrolls are on the store for the starter set models and cypher lords. Most seem amazingly uninteresting. 70 points for 8 or 9 models, 1 attack each at 4+/4+/-, armor varies, you must take the 'special' characters for every 8 or 9 models, which have a couple bonuses.
The two units of gribblies are a bit more expensive, but strik me as more interesting/useful in AoS.
Keywords: chaos, mortal, slaves to darkness, cultists, <warband>
The must takes are a good thing because most of the must-takes have no option to be varied to another weapon or creature - eg a giant warcat can't be anything but a giant warcat. By having them as must takes and using the number of models in the box as the limit it means that each box takes you up one "stage" of models. This is a very good thing because it means you use complete boxes rather than having to get an extra box to give you spare regular warriors etc... Right now they don't wow-me but then I think they'll be solid within the Slaves Battletome. Also being cultists might mean that they get some synergies with things that beef them up and also regular "cultist" warriors within the army.
Probably going to get the box, probably not going to get the Cyphers. After looking at the 360, they just bug me. The fighter types are defined by base size, not look, and those helmets are the least practical thing I've seen in a long, long time. Protection isn't the point, because nothing else they wear offers protection, and they'd limit vision, hearing and breathing, would Be ridiculously heavy, offer handholds to the enemy, and throw off the balance of fighters who are clearly trying for a dexterous, acrobatic style. Nothing about that works.
As an owner of multiple crested helmets, I think your vastly over estimating how heavy a helmet feels, particularly if you've got traps and other neck and back muscles like those guys...
Looking at the preview page for them, most of the model is in one the pictures- only difference is the head and a dagger in the left hand (basically a different forearm)
RiTides wrote: Thanks . That's a little surprising, though, since they showed the card of things like a squig rider as 200 points. So 5 of those is your whole warband!
So a typical warband might be around 8 -12 models, but elite ones could be 4 - 5? And a swarm might top out around 20 models?
Squig riders are the worst unit in the Gloomspite army for their points cost. Hopefully Warcry can fix that aspect.
I don't understand this - can the 20 models be anything, up to any point limit? And you just have to pick 1000 points from it before starting?
That would actually be pretty cool if so
That's how kill team works. So it isn't out of the question for it to work this way.
It works the exact same way, with the exception of the leader - there can be only one. You pick from your warband list the 1000 points value of miniatures for your game with min 3 and max 15 models. So you can never use the 20 at the same time, it's basically just your reserve. And you can fill it whenever and however you want, no matter the losses. So you can have it at the max 20 on your list all the time if you want. Points are only used for the games.
Well the day is over and I've made my orders - Core set and Daughters of Khaine card pack. I'll also be getting the book, but I'll get that on release as an ebook rather than printed copy (even though it will likely result in me moving the themes of all the warbands and then wanting to get them all).
I've now just under 2 weeks to complete the models on my desk otherwise I've got to cancel my Warcry order - self imposed limit there otherwise I'll just bury myself under more plastic. Still 2 seeker chariots to finish off; 1 exalted, 1 contortion and 2 entrapturess all in 2 weeks - easy!
@Overread: It is good to compose such limits on yourself, but those can't be your only unpainted minis surely? If they are bravo to you.
At £80 online I cannot quibble at this core set, the terrain looks interesting and has use for most miniature games. Of the two Warbands I am really looking forward to painting the Iron Golems, and most are pretty cool sculpts. The only ones I am not fussed by are the Chaos turkeys but overall a great set.
ListenToMeWarriors wrote: @Overread: It is good to compose such limits on yourself, but those can't be your only unpainted minis surely? If they are bravo to you.
.
My limits are purely on construction - unpainted - that's another story!
*stares at the sea of grey*
I've honestly not even settled on a paint scheme for Slaanesh yet, but if I can keep up with construction I'm content at present. My hope is I can build up a very solid core of slaanesh in time that I can grab some Slaves to Darkness - I was selfishly a bit glad the Battletome or Slaves didn't appear now as it means that christmas bundle set is likely to hang around for a bit longer! Though I know as soon as any tome gets announced it will vanish fast from any retailer still holding stock.
My only real question remaining is how many boxes of a warband do you need to really feel like you have any sort of customization options in your warband? The models themselves are not customizable (for the most part), but you can decide the make-up of your warband. Problem is, the warband boxes come with 8 models, which are only slightly different stat-wise, and one of which is a leader model you can't have two of. Without a second warband box, there's zero customization, and even with two, it feels extremely limited. Unless they quickly release a second warband box with new unit types, there's really no reason to even have a campaign in the box.
I think they'll go full Frostgrave on it. It's already more like Frostgrave than Mordheim anyway. I think the next big expansion will be customizable leaders (just the leaders, the mooks will stay mooks). Maybe the models won't be super customizable, but you'll get to decide spells or special abilities that you upgrade over time. This will coincide with the second warband box for each faction that includes the new leader and five or six new unit types (the Starn's Disciples style box).
Maybe that won't happen, but it feels like we are only seeing a piece of the big picture right now. Will Warcry have the equivalent of Rogue Trader, Arena, Commanders, and Elites? I mean, being all new models, Warcry can't poop out Commanders and Elites unless they release new faction models. Arena isn't necessary since they already label the competitive battleplan cards. I know Warcry will be supported, but I'm having difficulties seeing what direction they will go beyond the initial warbands...
Before your first campaign battle, you can add up to 20 fighter to your warband roster. These fighters can total any number of points, but it should contain at least 1000 points' worth of fighters to allow you to field a full warband during your first campaign battle. You do not have to add the full 20 fighters to begin with - you can instead choose to add additional fighters as the campaign progresses. You'll be able to add and remove fighter from your warband roster after each campaign battle. When adding fighters to your warband roster you must adhere to the following restrictions:
1. at least 3 fighters
2. max 20 fighters
3. All fighters hare the same faction runemark as the campaign quest chosen.
4. Only 1 fighter with the leader runemark.
yeah that's just your roster like Kill Team. Your warband for the game your about to play must be 3-15 models chosen from your roster of upto 20.
I’m sorry but this review is poor. They praise the cards for generating scenery, win conditions, twist, and deployment but don’t go into detail about how they impact the gameplay. They spend a lot of time talking about how the minis aren’t customisable which is a valid point but nothing that can’t be learnt from looking at the gw website. No mention of the npc monsters. No mention of artefacts and whether they helped add variety. I’m not saying their overall negative view of the game is wrong but I don’t think they really explained why the combat felt bad.
It reminds me of the early reviews of AOS which complained about the game being a big mosh pit in the middle while ignoring the objective play around which the game is built. I would have like them to talk in detail about a couple of their games and why the scenarios did or didn’t do enough to bring variety to the game. I’m undecided about whether I should buy the game to play with my young children and this review didn’t help at all.
Before your first campaign battle, you can add up to 20 fighter to your warband roster. These fighters can total any number of points, but it should contain at least 1000 points' worth of fighters to allow you to field a full warband during your first campaign battle. You do not have to add the full 20 fighters to begin with - you can instead choose to add additional fighters as the campaign progresses. You'll be able to add and remove fighter from your warband roster after each campaign battle. When adding fighters to your warband roster you must adhere to the following restrictions:
1. at least 3 fighters
2. max 20 fighters
3. All fighters hare the same faction runemark as the campaign quest chosen.
4. Only 1 fighter with the leader runemark.
yeah that's just your roster like Kill Team. Your warband for the game your about to play must be 3-15 models chosen from your roster of upto 20.
Except that in Kill Team the roster is used in matched play and campaign. I. warcry, the roster is just for campaigns. That’s a big difference that may speak to the lack of importance in tooling for a specific opponent (as perhaps the lack of unit flexibility removes the need).
Sqorgar wrote: Maybe that won't happen, but it feels like we are only seeing a piece of the big picture right now. Will Warcry have the equivalent of Rogue Trader, Arena, Commanders, and Elites? I mean, being all new models, Warcry can't poop out Commanders and Elites unless they release new faction models. Arena isn't necessary since they already label the competitive battleplan cards. I know Warcry will be supported, but I'm having difficulties seeing what direction they will go beyond the initial warbands...
More warbands are always possible(I imagine there is plenty of room in each realm for more than one type). But I'm hoping that GW will expand on the ones they have already shown/teased. Extra champions, cultists with different weapons, sorcerers, elite warriors and beasts could all be added to the known bands. As well as more generic beasts and monsters.
After watching the GMG video on how to play Warcry, I'm pretty excited.
I'm so used to doing the "Hit > Wound > Save" mechanic. Going straight to "Wound" really takes away some of the randomness and epic saves that you'd get in 40k and kill team, but this straightforward method has its own unique moments. You can use abilities to do some serious damage to an enemy or outflank them. The rounds only being 3 turns (only going on if you're tied in score) creates a VERY fast paced game where each turn really matters. I could see a whole campaign being complete in about a weekend.
The concerning part is that you really need to stretch a bit to make full 1000 point teams with the warbands out of the box. I'm guessing there's going to be a lot of incentive to get the chaos beasts or additional warbands to fill out the rest of your teams and give you the options you need. That means that if I wanted to get into Cypher Lords, I'd likely need two boxes of them, and if I wanted the chaos beasts for more options, I'd need the starter box as well. That's 270 USD for a skirmish game. :/
GMG review pretty much confirms my concerns about this game, not enough going on under the hood to hold my interest mechanically, an easy pass for me. Frustrating when you see a game with models you like but gameplay mechanics you don't care for.... such is the case for how I feel about most GW games these days unfortunately.
Replayability does appear extremely limited, both as far as core gameplay and campaigns go. There may have been talk about how the flexible campaign system gets and keeps people involved, but that has little value if people get bored after three games.
More warbands are always possible(I imagine there is plenty of room in each realm for more than one type). But I'm hoping that GW will expand on the ones they have already shown/teased. Extra champions, cultists with different weapons, sorcerers, elite warriors and beasts could all be added to the known bands. As well as more generic beasts and monsters.
I mean, yeah, but we have no clue how the game will expand while pinning all of our hopes on the premise that it will. Right now, you can't even expand your Iron Golems without a second starter set (you can use chaos beasts, I guess). So, at launch, you can't even expand your starter armies beyond the 8 characters that exactly make up 1000 pts. I mean, you can expand your Cypher Lords, but you won't have access to any chaos beasts unless you get the starter set anyway!
Personally, I think there's two ways it could go. Actual model customization, which doesn't really exist right now. Or warband customization. If you have access to 30 different models you can put in your army, building your warband becomes something interesting because you can't take all of them, and you don't have to take multiples of ones you don't like. But as it is, you need three $50 warband boxes to fill out a 20 model campaign roster (assuming you can't reuse leader models, you'll only have 2 extra models even with that), and you'll have three of everything (or even 9 of one or two kinds). That's kind of, extremely boring and too expensive for what you get.
So, I'm sort of here wondering at what point that is going to change. The game only has legs if there are legitimate options, and right now there's no options for building models and extremely limited (and expensive) options for building warbands. So what is the direction that this game is going to go? How long will Iron Golems be limited to only 8 different models? The Daughters of Khaine card pack has 14 different model profiles, at least.
The battleplan cards are great though. The mausoleum has 36 terrain cards, which means 36 different layouts, while the starter set has 36 terrain cards - that's 72 different terrain layouts that you can play your 8 different models on!
NinthMusketeer wrote: Anyone else think Iron Golems seem pretty strong for AoS? Might be looking to them as an ally choice.
Haven’t checked out Warscrolls yet, but I heard the same on one of FBAoS pages. Edit: Checked them out, not seeing it. What am I missing that makes them pretty strong?
Furies = Flying Skinks?
Untamed Beasts get a rend missile attack and are highly mobile, having the run/charge ability. Hmmm...
70 points for a 10-wound 4+ save unit that re-rolls saves if they didn't move that turn (so they will always be re-rolling in the opponent's turn). Sure they aren't dealing much damage but that is a really tanky option to hold objectives, and having that little shooting attack is nice. But there's another thing, you can take them in units of 32... So for 280 points you have 40 wounds of rerollable 4+ save that runs to the middle of the board and shouts "hope you have rend!"
Untamed beasts and cypher lords are really useful as well, but I wouldn't consider running more than min-sized units as skirmish/support.
anab0lic wrote: GMG review pretty much confirms my concerns about this game, not enough going on under the hood to hold my interest mechanically, an easy pass for me. Frustrating when you see a game with models you like but gameplay mechanics you don't care for.... such is the case for how I feel about most GW games these days unfortunately.
There was a live "talk about" with Owen and Ash from GMG and while praising the pre-game mission generator they confirmed my initial impression that it is a very, very light and straightforward game.
Yes, it is cleaned up, and yes over the course of the game the +-1 modifiers to the wound roll stack up, but …. it just feels to me very underwhelming.
The game is pretty short and brutal - you get on the board and you get straight into the fight - with 3 turns only there just isn't enough game time. This may be mission specific though...
The combination of short game time, being light on abilities and possible model actions is somewhat of a let down. To be honest I build up my expectations a litle too much even though I read the leaked rules. It seemed to me that was a real polished gem somewhere in these slick, clean rules.
Kill team as simple as a game as it is is still a richer experience...
Still the box is IMO well worth it for all the terrain and miniatures alone.
anab0lic wrote: GMG review pretty much confirms my concerns about this game, not enough going on under the hood to hold my interest mechanically, an easy pass for me. Frustrating when you see a game with models you like but gameplay mechanics you don't care for.... such is the case for how I feel about most GW games these days unfortunately.
Mechanically, most skirmish games (heck, most miniature games) boil down to move + attack. I don't think the design space for the game mechanics is particularly limited, but that the problem is, these are the basic foundation troops that both armies need to have. You've got a leader, a big guy, a fast guy, and your basic infantry. There's nothing innately interesting in basic troops and they are generally going to play the same. With some unique characters or unit types for these factions, it'll open up in a grand way.
I think they are somewhat limited by how the special abilities are global rather than unique to the model (this reeks of a localization shortcut). They can play with it a bit by releasing new ability cards and having models with multiple runemarks, but I think skipping out on things like keywords, unique abilities, and character text (maybe on the backs of the cards), it's going to make it difficult to make the individual models too unique.
I prefer starting simple, it leaves room for them to add more mechanics later based on feedback. Stuffing it full of mechanics early on doesn't leave that space.
Also remember that if this is trying to be the AoS Killteam game then simple is what it wants to be. Because one of its core target market is newbies totally new to wargames and on limited budget.
For the cost of 1 box of models and the tools to get them together they can get started at any local club. A bit more and they can buy their own rule book etc...
It's not really tying to be the next Necromunda nor Infinity; those are different products for a different target market segment. That said there's room to expand Warcry from its basic starting point; to build in new mechanics and ideas and concepts to the game and I'm sure GW will do that. They want to build it into the game that naturally takes a person to say, around 500 points of models total- then lead them into AoS etc...
Start with basic troops - add in more rules for wild beasts - add in leaders - add in cavalry etc.....
Overread wrote: They want to build it into the game that naturally takes a person to say, around 500 points of models total- then lead them into AoS etc...
But does that work when these warbands are not even in AoS proper? They are a single unit that doesn't even have points yet, and the way you would expand into Warcry is different than how you would expand into AoS. A second Iron Golems box makes sense to Warcry, where it doubles your options, but it only doubles your unit size in AoS.
I don't think this is a gateway into AoS. I think Skirmish is that. There's a straight line from Skirmish -> Meeting Engagements -> AoS. I think they only included a few factions from AoS in Warcry because they knew people would ask for it, not because the game is about that.
Agreed, hopefully it might be something we see in an updated Battletome for Slaves. If not Battleline for the "core" army then perhaps there will be an army with some restrictions that makes them battleline. I can well see GW splitting Slaves into 2 or even 3 divisions.
All Slaves
Chaos Warrior Slaves only - so no marauders or cultists or warbands
Entry level - ergo no chaos warriors or chaos knights, but more cultists and marauders.
It seems to me, having not played yet, that a significant part of faction uniqueness is the triggered abilities. Yet, one is only getting to use those abilities (which mainly affect individuals) no more than 3 times per turn. And this quantity seems unlikely due to odds, though the wild dice helps. Perhaps allowing each player a once per turn, free access to the basic double of their faction (first line) would help. Too early for house rules, but perhaps this is a simple enough change.
Yeah I don’t see the models as a gateway into AoS.
The game yes, and you could then bring them over, as yes they have rules. But are they really going to be any good in AoS, and it’s hardly going to be the core forming of an army, even if they were battleline..
Anyway, I just want to see models for the last three warbands!
Yeah, I don't know. To me, warband creation and the personalization therein is a huge part of Skirmish gaming. Even if a warband has a certain troop profile that is going to be in the warband more than once, I like being able to really determine what they are going to be armed with from a selection of at least 2-3 worthwhile weapon choices, even if those are just something like: Single weapon/shield, two weapons, great weapon.
I know of several indie fantasy skirmish games (a couple that are totally free!) out there where nearly every model that is going to show up in a warband might have several different equipment options they can take, from ranged weapons vs. melee weapons, different types of ranged or melee weapons, armor quality, or even mounts to ride. Unfortunately those types of games are going away, especially in the case of GW stuff, because of the severe monopose nature of modern plastic models. Mordheim was great because it came out in an era with extremely modular models being the norm, even for basic troop kits.
Now, even those games will usually fall prey to the lack of options present in a skirmish game (usually it's the big 4 of: move normally, or move and shoot, run double speed but do nothing else, or charge into close combat). It's usually a truly special game where a model can do one of 5-6 different things during their activation, like do things to modify their defense at the cost of speed, hit harder in melee at the cost of lowering their defense, etc.
Leader look cool but had boring rule, basically a walking critical beatstick....just like the leader of Iron Golem, Untamed Beast, and Splintered Fang. At least Cypher Lords can teleport dudes, and Necromancer can spit fireball.
I'm surprised how hard it is to find picture like this. Guess no one want to share when they paid for tickets...
Mordheim was great because it came out in an era with extremely modular models being the norm, even for basic troop kits.
Mordheim was also an absolute mess as far as balancing goes, all you had to do was to field a swarm of naked dudes with slingshots and let the statistics work for you.
The game yes, and you could then bring them over, as yes they have rules. But are they really going to be any good in AoS, and it’s hardly going to be the core forming of an army, even if they were battleline.
I think it's less of "this unit is core of the army, I should start playing AoS" and more "well, I already have these models, why not try AoS". It might sound silly, but it works even with single models. "yes, starting 40k will cost me literal arm and a leg, but i got this single marine free, it'd be a pity to let it go to waste".
Humans are very easily manipulated when it comes to collecting.
AegisGrimm wrote: Yeah, I don't know. To me, warband creation and the personalization therein is a huge part of Skirmish gaming. Even if a warband has a certain troop profile that is going to be in the warband more than once, I like being able to really determine what they are going to be armed with from a selection of at least 2-3 worthwhile weapon choices, even if those are just something like: Single weapon/shield, two weapons, great weapon.
I know of several indie fantasy skirmish games (a couple that are totally free!) out there where nearly every model that is going to show up in a warband might have several different equipment options they can take, from ranged weapons vs. melee weapons, different types of ranged or melee weapons, armor quality, or even mounts to ride. Unfortunately those types of games are going away, especially in the case of GW stuff, because of the severe monopose nature of modern plastic models. Mordheim was great because it came out in an era with extremely modular models being the norm, even for basic troop kits.
Now, even those games will usually fall prey to the lack of options present in a skirmish game (usually it's the big 4 of: move normally, or move and shoot, run double speed but do nothing else, or charge into close combat). It's usually a truly special game where a model can do one of 5-6 different things during their activation, like do things to modify their defense at the cost of speed, hit harder in melee at the cost of lowering their defense, etc.
I’d disagree that those types of games are going away. The new Necromunda has everything you mentioned (well, no mounts) and much, much more. It also happens to be my favourite game ever! Doesn’t seem like Warcry is even trying to appeal to that audience though.
Specialist Game team and the fight against GW's monopose, mono option epidemic . They're at their production limit right now so you'd probably won't see something like Mordheim for a very very long time.
I'm surprised how hard it is to find picture like this. Guess no one want to share when they paid for tickets...
It's most likely that many who do take photos never bother to get around to uploading them; whilst those who do likely don't tag and keyword them or run big blogs about wargaming. So Google doesn't rank or list them high enough to find easily. Plus if you're there in the moment you sort of tend to just focus on enjoying your time rather than snapping photos of everything and anything you can see.
anab0lic wrote: GMG review pretty much confirms my concerns about this game, not enough going on under the hood to hold my interest mechanically, an easy pass for me. Frustrating when you see a game with models you like but gameplay mechanics you don't care for.... such is the case for how I feel about most GW games these days unfortunately.
This.
The models, terrain, and game board look lovely, however the mechanics seem absolutely half finished and rushed, a 'yeah that'll do feeling'. I wonder if the mechanics feel this way due to GW's insane release schedule? Every week we are getting new things, that level of production is going to bite into play testing in a big way.
I was put off Warcry by the price,€40 for 8 man sized plastic models, is quite frankly taking the urine. Seeing how weak the game play is makes it all the easier to forget about this one. I suspect it will sell well, as GW has cultivated a very loyal fan base.
I hope we see some of the model designs for this come over to Warhammer Underworlds, as that is a game where I think GW show off their creative ideas when it comes to game mechanics. Also the models may not be customizable, but the game play of a warband can be radically altered by the cards being changed. So offers a lot of replayabilty.
Mordheim was great because it came out in an era with extremely modular models being the norm, even for basic troop kits.
Mordheim was also an absolute mess as far as balancing goes, all you had to do was to field a swarm of naked dudes with slingshots and let the statistics work for you.
And yet it's still popular 20 years after the original release. I suspect Warcry will be dead a few months after the last expansion.
Players have created their own solutions to the specific gameplay issues that Mordheim has. The fact that this to an extent is genuinely necessary may not be a good sign, the fact that people are passionate enough about it do so is. The idea that a game with some clear flaws is still the gold standard two decades later seems ridiculous, but it just so happens they got so many other things right. Cinematic moments like diving charges, meaningful dice rolls that can save or kill a character in one go, rare events in post-game exploration, meaningful level-ups and injuries. And all of that happens to a small group of figures you selected and armed is a specific way, a unique warband with a history that started when you looked through the catalogue or your bits box, and ended when you rolled a few too many 1s on the injury tables after one game.
I know this largely boils down to what people are looking for in a game. Simple versus complex (though I would hardly put Mordheim in the latter, but there certainly is more going on), perfectly balanced versus more versatile or random. The second argument often resolves around people championing player skill. But in order for a game to be interesting in that sense, there has to be enough strategy and choice involved. And for those who are more attracted to unlikely, narrative-driving events, Warcry is even more severely lacking.
Thing is, I would love to like it. I would be incredibly excited for a successor to Mordheim, something equally enticing and evocative. One of my favourite aspects of skirmish games is the ability to collect just a small range of figures that truly are your warband, by how you build them, painted them, and what happened to them along the way. Not only does Warcry clearly not offer that, it's a shame to see a company trying to trademark "the hobby" so utterly fail in grasping what the hobby involves. Terrain that has to be build and set-up in a very specific way, miniatures with a near-complete lack of customization both as physical models and in gameplay, and a campaign system equally limited in options.
It's not difficult to come up with restrictions to create a more level playing field if that's what you're mostly looking for in a game. But fewer people are going to come up with extra options to make the game interesting in the first place. Instead, people are already waiting for the next official expansion by GW to hopefully add new things. I doubt those will solve the issues inherent in the system, and I am unsure if GW currently has the capacity or willingness to create something with a lasting appeal. Better to have customers come back every few months for a new expansion, and every few years for a new edition or a new game?
I am very confident that specialist games will get round to doing Mordheim eventually. I think an autumn 2021 release is likely. Bloodbowl will have about 20 teams by then and Necromunda will have about a dozen gangs. The Warcry release provides the multilayer plastic terrain that is needed. The remit of specialist games is to provide the kind of crunchy, mechanics , and customisation heavy games that the older gamer prefers.
Warcry has probably been kept deliberately simple in order to contrast with this.
Personally I’m in two minds. I would have liked a little more complexity but it looks like an ideal entry point into the hobby for my children, while giving me some cool stuff to paint.
I completely agree with Coenus Scaldingus.
One thing that many of us like about Mordheim is that it's not just a game with fancy tokens, like so many GW games seem to be this day. Underworlds, as good as it is, is exactly that.
It's about creating a small band of guys, with some personality, and then fighting battles with them. Coming up with a theme, converting your minis, and then watch them grow/die/get injured over the course of the campaign is the driving force. The actual games are, to me, secondary to the postgame and warband advancement. They're the thing that makes your warband evolve, they're a mean to an end. It's the opposite of most GW games, where listbuilding is the mean to the end (the actual game).
I think that's the main reason why many people don't mind Mordheim's flawed game mechanics, because the crux of the game resides in the setting and campaign system, which are absolutely amazing. And many rules are also great for narrative aspects, like the diving charges mentioned earlier, or the hiding mechanism (who doesn't like to hide their poison-weilding skavens?).
Warcry is very much in the "game with nice-looking tokens" category. There's nothing wrong with it, but that's why no matter how good the in-game rules might be, some people will not be interested, as that's not the prime factor for choosing a skirmish game.
Chikout wrote: I am very confident that specialist games will get round to doing Mordheim eventually. I think an autumn 2021 release is likely. Bloodbowl will have about 20 teams by then and Necromunda will have about a dozen gangs. The Warcry release provides the multilayer plastic terrain that is needed. The remit of specialist games is to provide the kind of crunchy, mechanics , and customisation heavy games that the older gamer prefers. Warcry has probably been kept deliberately simple in order to contrast with this. Personally I’m in two minds. I would have liked a little more complexity but it looks like an ideal entry point into the hobby for my children, while giving me some cool stuff to paint.
Even if SG manage to squeeze in another game while maintaining Blood Bowl, Necromunda, AT, AI, BFG production we'd still had to wait for 2,3 year to get the bands back like old days. They don't have big budget or many machine to product the mold like GW.
Or worse, some games will had to go to make way for newer game. I guess by then they could retire Blood Bowl.
The real test is how GW will continue to support games like Bloodbowl and keep them current and popular without big model releases. That's going to be a lot easier though now that they've got lots of social media outputs; but its still going to be interesting to see how they do it.
Then again they've still a lot of AoS armies that can slip into Bloodbowl so there's a while yet.
Also lets not forget that hopefully GW's new factory comes online this year or next and that will expand GW's production considerably, esp for specialist games .
And he surely welcomes people expand/change it to their liking.
Anyone not wanting theirs...I might be interested.
