Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
So I finally actually got 3 games in. I really enjoyed the mechanics. However, the random mission generator produced a combination that was a literal automatic win for one side in all 3 games - in fact 5 times in a row as we re-drew twice. In all games it was obvious who was going to win before the first model activation and there was no realistic way for the other player to do anything about it.

Few thoughts here:

- It may not have been as one sided as you thought. There's been a game or two where I was sure there was no way to win, only to... well, I still lost, but by such a small margin that I think I could've won if I did one or two things differently. Being at a disadvantage is not an automatic loss. Life is unfair, why should war be?

- In a campaign, you only have to win your convergence missions. You can still advance while losing every other mission, and you get partial credit in the form of glory points and more lesser artifacts. Convergences, you have to win, but you'll know enough about the missions ahead of time to plan your roster and deployment well.

- In a campaign, it'll even out over time. Sometimes, you are the windshield, sometimes, you are the bug. The warbands are not traditionally balanced in that they all do the same things equally. They are very situational, to the point where game balance is achieved over many different games rather than in an individual game. Before throwing up your hands about how unfair the game is, play more than three games.

Positioning-based objectives really don't work when armies arrive from reserve from all over the place.

One thing you might be missing is that when you take an objective, it remains your until someone else takes it. You don't have to sit on objectives in this game, allowing you to move all your models off while still keeping it.

Another thing to keep in mind is that you are usually involved in the set up of these objectives. Many of the objective victory cards have players taking turns placing the objectives on the battlefield, or have roll offs where the winner gets to decide which deployment color they choose. Making poor decisions here can really gimp you in the upcoming game.

Example from memory: Player's formation X arrives from short edge A on round 3. That player wins if a model from formation X is on short edge A at the end of round 3. There is no realistic way for the opponent to get enough models to that location in 2 rounds (past the first player's other two formations acting as disposable speed bumps) and kill entire formation X in one round.

Do you know which victory card that was? I thought you might be reading the card wrong, so I looked through my victory cards and didn't see anything like this. It sounds closest to either The Gauntlet or Raze, but in both cases, the opponent chooses which edge of the battlefield matters. Deployment is decided before the victory card is drawn, so why would the opponent pick a battlefield edge that he knows the opponent is coming in on?

Will try with only Matched Play cards next time.

That should be better for individual match balance, but the warbands themselves are still so situational that it won't create completely fair situations every time. You just need to accept that you'll lose missions, often through no fault of your own, and focus not on winning every battle, but on winning the war.

Slight correction, you flip all four cards before players make any decisions. Objective is known before choosing zones.

I opened my card packs to see what exactly we played (used opponent's set during games).

I think the first one we re-drew instantly was The Messenger + Ambush.

If the defender has priority, he choses to be Red and nominates a guy in the Hammer to be the Macguffin. No matter which 2 edges the opponent nominates to be the escape edges, the Messenger can, at worst, exit via any adjacent corner, while literally the entire blue team is too far away to be relevant unless they have fliers or SCE level shooting. Iron Golems on Blue definitely auto-lose this one. We re-drew and I don't remember what the mission we actually played was.

We then played Burn and Pillage, which is usually an auto-draw as each player sets up 3 objectives under their own models and burns them on round 1. However, anyone with fliers may contest an objective to maybe get the win (and did).

Finally, we played Crush, with a 30-wound flier as the target and the enemy again too far away to ever be relevant. We switched to The Comet mid-game.

And to be clear, I was the player who won all these games with a FEC Flying Circus against Iron Golems. The little dwarf is so cute jumping up and down trying to catch a Crypt Flayer.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Slight correction, you flip all four cards before players make any decisions. Objective is known before choosing zones.

I've read that section a dozen times and somehow, I still missed that you deal all four cards out at the same time, but follow the instructions on them in a set order.

I think the first one we re-drew instantly was The Messenger + Ambush.

The Messenger is probably the worst victory card in the game. It might be better if you only had to pick one battlefield edge to escape, but picking two, there's no way the messenger can't escape - most of the time by the end of the first round. I don't think it matters what deployment card you pick. It might be workable if you break the long edges into two half edges (like the deployment cards do). Maybe.

We then played Burn and Pillage, which is usually an auto-draw as each player sets up 3 objectives under their own models and burns them on round 1. However, anyone with fliers may contest an objective to maybe get the win (and did).

There's some ambiguity to the wording on that one, as it says, each player "can choose to burn an objective they control at the end of a battle round" - we played it that each player could only burn a single objective per round, and it ended up becoming a rather tense and exciting game. It was also the first game we played and didn't realize that you kept objectives even if you weren't sitting on them.

Finally, we played Crush, with a 30-wound flier as the target and the enemy again too far away to ever be relevant. We switched to The Comet mid-game.

Crush with a fast, flying unit would be harsh. I'm guessing it was a FEC Crypt Flayer. That'd be a tough cookie to crack, but maybe possible. Like, a disengage is not a normal move action, so you can't fly. If you can surround the guy, you might have a chance. Also, in Crush, the defending models that end the battle round within 4" of a battlefield edge are instantly lost. I imagine actions which can move models around could be useful here - particularly the harpoon ability of the Untamed Beasts.

The little dwarf is so cute jumping up and down trying to catch a Crypt Flayer.

Little Petey Three Inch hits hard, but moves so slow that he's really only useful for holding objectives that he already starts next to. There really should be an ability to toss him.

Hmmm, I'm 50/50 on the RAI for Burn and Pillage but your way sounds like a much better mission for sure!

I'm finding most games that I think are core gone conclusions aren't. They just look that way but are actually usually something you can pull off. I keep winning games I think I shouldn't and losing ones I think I should dominate.

I really would have preferred a liiiiiiittle more to the rules. A hit and THEN wound would have made for a bit more variety to units. Having one roll makes things fast and all, but also makes it feel like you can't do anything. There's no counterplay when your opponent activates.

It's also stripped down to either
A. Action economy (if you have more actions/bonus actions than your opponent, you'll win)
or
B. Speed/Range (if your units are faster or have better ranged attacks, you'll win)

And that's not great. Also, there are many missions that some factions just win by default. You may as well not play them. Legions of Nagash wins any mission where you have to kill a certain grouping of models because they can keep resurrecting them. Daughters of Khaine win any assassination mission because they can fly their units straight across the battlefield and merc one of your dudes. Stormcast Vanguard win any game where they can use their brutal range to effect. If you draw those types of missions against those opponents, you may as well just draw again until you get something more balanced, which spits in the face of all the randomness they put in.

It had a lot of promise, but I could see myself maybe playing for another week or so and then moving on to something else.

Monsters and Mercs likely wont add enough to keep anyone interested either. The best mercs will be whichever get more actions or stronger ranged attacks or whatever. Everything else will be ignored.

It's a hit at my store, to the point where I have concerns about it pulling away AoS players from leagues.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
It's a hit at my store, to the point where I have concerns about it pulling away AoS players from leagues.

The low buy-in cost really helps with popularity doesn't it? Really sounds a lot like Kill Team based on the experiences in this thread.

 slave.entity wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
It's a hit at my store, to the point where I have concerns about it pulling away AoS players from leagues.

The low buy-in cost really helps with popularity doesn't it? Really sounds a lot like Kill Team based on the experiences in this thread.

I am sure that is a factor in a general sense but it is actually the regular AoS players who are really liking it. Something mentioned more than once is that people like being able to use their existing factions in the game, not so they don't have to buy anything (people are usually picking up warbands too) but because those are factions they like the look of and models they like playing with. Being able to use those models in another game as well is very appealing.

drbored wrote:
It's also stripped down to either
A. Action economy (if you have more actions/bonus actions than your opponent, you'll win)
or
B. Speed/Range (if your units are faster or have better ranged attacks, you'll win)

And that's not great.

There's also offensive and defensive ability, and positioning makes a difference. And if you want to boil things down to the absolute most abstract basics, couldn't you make this complaint about any miniature game? What miniature games doesn't come down to action economy, speed, range, offense, defense, or positioning?

Seriously, in a race, speed SHOULD win. That's what a race is. Your argument is basically that the game shouldn't have any races because the models that are good at races will win. Except that not every mission is a race. Sometimes, you are the windshield and sometimes, you are the bug.

Also, there are many missions that some factions just win by default. You may as well not play them.

Play them anyway. You'd be surprised. This weekend I played a game as Corvus Cabal against the Iron Golems, where we each had to run off the other player's edge of the battlefield. With superior numbers and superior maneuverability, I should've had an easy win. Except I didn't win. Due to the squishiness of the Cabal, I lost a number of units - some of which I sacrificed so that the Iron Golems wouldn't be able to make it across the board by turn 4. I let a few through, but made a mistake, and one extra one got through than I wanted, tying at the end of round 4. However, because we were tied, the Iron Golems got another turn to move, but instead of running for the exit, they killed my remaining model, leaving only Iron Golem models on the board, which is a victory if the extra round doesn't produce a win.

If you draw those types of missions against those opponents, you may as well just draw again until you get something more balanced, which spits in the face of all the randomness they put in.

Warcry is not a game that is balanced for a single scenario. There's scenarios which yield advantages and ones that yield disadvantages, it'll even out over many games. It plays so quickly that you should play more than one scenario per session. You'll win some, you'll lose some. You gain some campaign progress, and level up your warband, so you'll still get something out of the games you lose.

It's also worth nothing that you are trying to use the battleplan cards to play pitched battles, but pitched battles don't use the battleplan cards (well, not the victory/deployment ones). Pitched battles have their own sets of battleplans in the matched play section of the book that are more balanced individually. If you want to play the game competitively like that, it's probably better if you play the version of the game that is appropriate for it. The battleplan cards are definitely intended for open play or narrative play.

Played a game last night where I had to defend an objective for 4 rounds. Tabled my opponent with only a single model ever getting close with a whole round left to play; lost because I didn't roll a 12 on 4d6. Kind of a weird sense of victory and failure on both players and rather disappointed that the scenario was essentially random instead of creating a sense of urgency and tension.

That said the game was fun. Nothing super unique mechanically, but it had a lot of the advantages of Shadespire's quick playtime with more focus on the models than a deck of cards. I had a good time and would be happy to play again.

I do find it a bit odd that it feels like a disadvantage to be the aggressor. Moving up and getting one attack to suffer two in response feels remarkably passive. Also feels like the activation system is waiting to be gamed. I did like the setup options though and the missions have potential. It does really help that the game is so quick while still being engaging. We'll see how it holds up.

 LunarSol wrote:
I do find it a bit odd that it feels like a disadvantage to be the aggressor. Moving up and getting one attack to suffer two in response feels remarkably passive. Also feels like the activation system is waiting to be gamed.

If you pop a quad to use the rampage ability, you get a bonus move and attack, which you can use to get into combat and get three attacks against a unit. Some models have abilities that allow other models to act (like the Beastmaster allowing the death kitty to make an extra attack, or a leader which can use an ability to activate a nearby model to join in the attack). And if they don't want to fight you, they have to waste an activation doing a disengage before they can run away - even if they can fly otherwise.

The models differ so wildly in their offensive and defensive capabilities that it really seems like whether or not aggression is rewarded or punished is largely dependent on which model is attacking which, under which circumstances. The Ogor Breacher is a punishment whether you are attacking him or he is attacking you, while I'm convinced the plains-runners are basically just to add bodies for capturing objectives or being glorified speed bumps.

I did like the setup options though and the missions have potential. It does really help that the game is so quick while still being engaging. We'll see how it holds up.

I really feel like I could play a 100 games of this and still have new experiences every time. Variety is not what everybody looks for in a game, but it's really my thing. Miniature games usually require going out and playing against new people to get any sort of variety, or else you end up playing the same people with the same armies on the same terrain. Warcry really goes out of its way to make a game that two people can play over and over again and still get a breadth of game experiences without needing to venture out to a game club and play pick up games. Armies are easy to switch out, terrain has a lot of variety to it, and the battleplan cards encourage playing scenarios that aren't just the same old thing every time.

Kill Team was similar, but I don't think it did enough to encourage playing different scenarios or on different killzones. I mean, you could, and the options were there, but most people just didn't. It kind of became overly competitive real quick, while Warcry makes minmaxing incredibly difficult because it encourages such a big variety of scenarios that you can't build an army that will be successful at all of them. The game is actively anti-minmax, which leaves an enormous amount of room for experiences that games like 40k or Kill Team can no longer provide.