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.

 Sqorgar wrote:

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:
I think Ash did his best to say it isn't Mordheim, and that is ok too.

It kind of irritates me that something like that even needs to be said. In the past thirty years, there's been maybe two dozen noteworthy miniature games (most of which are remakes of each other), and I'm sure that most people could name them off the top of their head - that's how limited the variety in miniature wargaming is. Even Warcry isn't really venturing too far off the well trodden path, but at least it isn't a remake.

Infinity, from my early games definitely seems like almost a design opposite of Warcry, but again, I am loving them for very, very different reasons.

Infinity is like a cross between X-Com and Valkyria Chronicles, while Warcry is more Final Fantasy Tactics. Where they are similar is that I think both Infinity and Warcry make terrain into a first class citizen that fundamentally changes your tactics and movement, while most skirmish miniatures games treat terrain as an afterthought (if that). If GW was smart, they'd backport the terrain cards to Kill Team

Agreed 100% including the choices of game analogy (though FFT is anything but Warcry-esque lightness once Calculators show up :-p ). Warcry actually made me want Open War cards as I love their mission design, though sadly the AoS ones have been out of print forever.

 Knight wrote:
The design of Warcry is very lite. From profiles, faction style and diversity of units. I wish they'd increase the complexity of the system for just a bit, although as I say that I feel they can easily do that in the future. It wouldn't surprise me to see a second wave of models for the factions with different faction abilities.

I don't really consider Warcry very light. I mean, the rules are pretty simple, but the way they all interact together makes the game anything but light gaming. The last game I played, I don't think I've ever had to wrack my brains that much in a miniatures game before (nor have I been as justly rewarded for it). It wasn't just picking target priority. Everything mattered - even things which didn't initially seem to.

Like, I'm reading the Middle Earth SBG rulebook right now, and climbing a wall involves making a climb roll. If you roll a 1, you fail. If you roll a 2-5, you make it to the top of the wall and stop. If you roll a 6, you make it to the top and can keep moving. While this is only slightly more complicated than climbing in Warcry, in Warcry, I can climb halfway up a wall and attack an enemy at the top (falling at the end), or jump between pillars and launch myself at an enemy down below. In ME:SBG, because each movement type (jump, climb, leap) will most likely end my move, or even outright fail, the options I have for movement are considerably less complicated. At least in this regard, though Warcry has less rules, it has considerably more complexity.

For the diversity of units, it may not seem like there are a lot of differences, but in practice, they end up being very specialized. The differences between units matter, even though those differences look small on paper.

It's kind of like Monsterpocalypse, another game which I very much enjoy. MonPoc is basically a spatial puzzle generator. Each turn, you are trying to decide which of your moves will create the maxim amount of damage against your opponent. I can throw him into a building, doing 3 damage, or I can push this building on top of him, doing only 1 damage, but taking out two of his units as well (giving me more power die). The monsters aren't really that different on paper, but the differences tend to change the equation just enough that the puzzle changes. Oh, he's immune to hazards so throwing him into buildings is not as effective. Oh, he's immune to super damage, so I my hyper form won't have an advantage. And so on. MonPoc is also a simple game that can really cook the old noodle.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:
Warcry actually made me want Open War cards as I love their mission design, though sadly the AoS ones have been out of print forever.

I missed them too, but the General's Handbook (2018, I think) has updated and reprinted them in the book. They aren't cards, but you can use dice.

 Sqorgar wrote:
I don't really consider Warcry very light. I mean, the rules are pretty simple, but the way they all interact together makes the game anything but light gaming. The last game I played, I don't think I've ever had to wrack my brains that much in a miniatures game before (nor have I been as justly rewarded for it). It wasn't just picking target priority. Everything mattered - even things which didn't initially seem to.

I can't say I share your thought at the moment. The decision that has the most impact is likely what units go in what group, otherwise I haven't felt that my decisions had any drastic impact on the flow of the game. Particularly when faction abilities are considered, my opponent for instance murdered my leader simply because he had a quad in the reserve. Likewise I murdered his leader in the second game when my quad showed up and I seized the initiative. There was no grand plan in play, no possibility of prior baiting to exhaust his resources, just dumb luck and leaders were simply in a bad place. With how much they cost I don't feel that it's valid to keep them away from the fight and fear the assassination runs.

I can do some nice tricks with reach and managing threat/engagement is something I look forward in learning but still I feel that's a moot point when the opponent has high mobility units in his roster.

I was going somewhere with this... I could go on and say that I mostly miss behavior and reactions. Something like parry and special attack options (knocking a model prone with a whip for instance) but that's explained from my desire to have a skirmish system closer to an RPG than a wargame.

 Sqorgar wrote:
For the diversity of units, it may not seem like there are a lot of differences, but in practice, they end up being very specialized. The differences between units matter, even though those differences look small on paper.

To clarify, when I made upper statement I was comparing it mostly against Infinity a system that has a large variety of the them and even further specialization, depending on the gear you want them with. Some of them are traps, while others are what you always want to take.

 Knight wrote:


Snip....
I can't say I share your thought at the moment. The decision that has the most impact is likely what units go in what group, otherwise I haven't felt that my decisions had any drastic impact on the flow of the game. Particularly when faction abilities are considered, my opponent for instance murdered my leader simply because he had a quad in the reserve. Likewise I murdered his leader in the second game when my quad showed up and I seized the initiative. There was no grand plan in play, no possibility of prior baiting to exhaust his resources, just dumb luck and leaders were simply in a bad place. With how much they cost I don't feel that it's valid to keep them away from the fight and fear the assassination runs.

Snip....

Nothing could be further from the impression I got. Lot's of important decisions. Do I activate a "Fighter" first to hopefully remove the last live points of a model and prevent its activation or do I activate that cheap model over there and move it into 1" of that fast opponent, Not to attack, but to make him loose one or two actions (he either tries to kill the poor cheap model or he falls back loosing some or even a lot of movement). Do I grab a treasure with my fast hard hitting model and have him keep that treasure save, but loosing it's fighting prowess, or do I grab the treasure and drop it off near some other model, so the fast hard hitting model is free to cause havoc. Do I move a model to block a passage ? And which will I do first ? And so on.

When playing with battle cards, the dividing in groups is one of those decisions you only take once. I assume you will mostly use the same division for a certain band composition. Because you do not know what the deployment will be, you will after some games settle for a standard division, which seems to work in most cases.

brumbaer wrote:
When playing with battle cards, the dividing in groups is one of those decisions you only take once.

Yes, however that decision will come into play in the opening and later stages of the game and will interact with opponents decision. How will those resources be able to interact and what sort of options will you actually have during the game. I feel this is strategic versus tactical planning. It's nice to have tactical options and multiple decisions available during the game, however for that to become true you need to have the right models in place and to go further, you'll likely do moves that support your goal in the game. Of course the goals change when moves don't succeed but that's the random nature of the games we play.

Comparing Warcry to Frostgrave and Vanguard, out of the box Warcry simplifies what it wants to do, this comes at the expense of certain options that aren't tied to the direct positioning of the model on the table. Of course a series of outcomes will have an impact on the game but I don't feel that's something to write home about it. I might change my mind once we start playing a campaign and include the latest expansion of the game.

I think, maybe, try playing the game some more. As you get used to it, I think you'll find the game does offer what you are looking for, but maybe not in the most obvious manner. I'd also start with the core warbands for the first games, as they are more balanced, internally and against each other.

Side note: I have seen people trying to play Warcry as matched play using the battleplan cards, then complaining about the randomness - not realizing that matched play doesn't use the battleplan cards at all. If that is the kind of experience you are looking for, then make sure you follow the guidelines in the book. The battleplan cards are cool, the coolest even, but they tend to annoy competitive players with the games that they generate.

Yeah my gaming groups has loved the randomness of the games. I don't think we've come close to a similar game since we started and each of us has played at least five blocks through the campaign. Even if a game initially seems impossible for one side based on mission, terrain, or twist the other side still makes it close or pulls off an upset.

My group is three guys(Untamed, Stormcast, and Gloomspite Gitz) and to make it more random on who we play we play winner gets to play an additional game and then the winner has to switch out (No one plays more than two games in a row.) Each player is changing lists, trying different tactics with the Hammer, Dagger, Shield selection and trying everything we can to get the best advantage possible. It would be much more fun to have a larger group of people but this has still been very enjoyable.

Played this last night with my stepkid (9). I used Corvus Cabalists, they used Nighthaunts. We just played a very basic game without any Battleplan cards, but it was fun, fast-moving, and reasonably tactical. Great wee game. I think we'll be playing a lot more, very soon.

And the Corvus Cabal, actually my partner's minis (I picked them up for their birthday as they're a big fan of ravens) are probably the nicest GW minis I've ever seen.

Have you guys played with Allies yet ? I did one game with a Spirit Torment for my Nighthaunt but he didn't get to do much because he was deployed far away and had to move three turns. However is ability is extra useful on Nighthaunts: it gives +1S on all visible friendly models within 6", helping mitigate the low S of the army. S4 Reapers are already more exciting. The Spirit Torment itself hits really good too, which helps tremendously.

I've noted there's a few really useful guys for other factions too, like the Idoneth Soulscryer: his ability is to chose a visible enemy model within 10", throw 8 dices, and on 3-5 it suffers 1D, on a 6 it suffers the value of the ability. Considering on average you can roll 2-3 6s with a Triple 6 it's a really powerful ability.

The Slaughter Queen with a Quad gives the value of the ability to the number of all friendly attacks made within 6" of her as long as it's range 3" or less. 10 attacks Stormcasts ? Loonboss has the same for the Gloomspite Gitz.

Good news, even more new stuff to play around with.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2019/09/30/warcry-the-future-of-the-eightpoints/

I hope that book offers a decent chunk of new content, as a bit of fluff and just a printed collection of the stat and ability cards, sounds like a bit of a non-release. More than most GW current games, I feel like Warcry really benefits from a steady drip of quest-lines, artifacts, etc...

I also wouldn't be surprised if just into the new year we get a new starter set with Tyrants, and Spire warbands, the Fomoroid replacing the chaos beasts as a neutral monster, and a new terrain set. It including 100% new content could make is a new point of entry that also sells really well to current players.

I'd be down for that. The new monster looks good and another starter set to immediatly grab all the new stuff sounds good too. I hope they do it that way. I'm curious what new monsters and miniatures they will be releasing for this game. It's been a while since I've been excited for anything released by GW in a long time.

I want to buy the starter box terrain again, so I can assemble it properly to play every card scenario.

Unfortunately it looks like the starter scenery box does not contain the large skull piece?

 Shrapnelsmile wrote:
I want to buy the starter box terrain again, so I can assemble it properly to play every card scenario.

Unfortunately it looks like the starter scenery box does not contain the large skull piece?

That's not a ravaged land, nor is it Warcry branded, which makes me believe it will be part of a separate collection of AoS scenery boxes, like the domain of sigmar stuff.

Guys it probably sound as a dumb question, but is there a rule saying what size base should I use for my warband? I am starting to assemble one and before I 'base it' I wanna make sure that there are no specific limits to which size to use for what type of model/character.

 Blooddragon1981 wrote:
Guys it probably sound as a dumb question, but is there a rule saying what size base should I use for my warband? I am starting to assemble one and before I 'base it' I wanna make sure that there are no specific limits to which size to use for what type of model/character.

There are specific base sizes for the models, they are detailed on the assembly instructions and the bases are included in the box itself.

 Overread wrote:

 Blooddragon1981 wrote:
Guys it probably sound as a dumb question, but is there a rule saying what size base should I use for my warband? I am starting to assemble one and before I 'base it' I wanna make sure that there are no specific limits to which size to use for what type of model/character.

There are specific base sizes for the models, they are detailed on the assembly instructions and the bases are included in the box itself.

I get your point but what if I do have some older models and minis (with square bases) and want to put them on round ones so I can play Warcry. So I do not have brand new type minis but older ones from WHFB and want to adapt them to Warcry.
As long as they fit on and are round is it ok? Got some 25mm and 32mm ones.

 Blooddragon1981 wrote:

 Overread wrote:

 Blooddragon1981 wrote:
Guys it probably sound as a dumb question, but is there a rule saying what size base should I use for my warband? I am starting to assemble one and before I 'base it' I wanna make sure that there are no specific limits to which size to use for what type of model/character.

There are specific base sizes for the models, they are detailed on the assembly instructions and the bases are included in the box itself.

I get your point but what if I do have some older models and minis (with square bases) and want to put them on round ones so I can play Warcry. So I do not have brand new type minis but older ones from WHFB and want to adapt them to Warcry.
As long as they fit on and are round is it ok? Got some 25mm and 32mm ones.

Best option would be to check the GW website for the specific unit you are trying to make. the new kits description usually has the base size.

Ahh I get you - use the Warhammer Base Size document - found under their FAQ/Errata downloads here

https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/ba618db2.pdf

Warcry base sizes are all identical to AoS base sizes.

 Overread wrote:
Ahh I get you - use the Warhammer Base Size document - found under their FAQ/Errata downloads here

https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/ba618db2.pdf

Warcry base sizes are all identical to AoS base sizes.

I wish i knew this was a thing. my stormvermin are all on 32s :/

New book has information about Slaves to Darkness in Warcry.

...but no entry for them. Where are their rules?

Guys thanks for your clues. Simple but effective answers.

 Overread wrote:
Ahh I get you - use the Warhammer Base Size document - found under their FAQ/Errata downloads here

https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/ba618db2.pdf

Warcry base sizes are all identical to AoS base sizes.

Furies aren't. The new warcry furies are 32mm, not 25, and with the three poses they really need to be. Some take up a lot of space, and the last would be absurdly unbalanced perched on that rock.


I've no intention of rebasing them (got really tired of rebasing Beastmen years ago when they were waffling on ungor sizes and reverting them), but it also annoys me greatly that Gors were randomly assigned to 32. They were absolutely fine on 25, they could even rank up on square 25s.

Furies as sold in Warcry sets ARE the standard and new standard base - its clearly an oversight likely caused by the fact that GW has some odd "monsters" category for chaos that doesn't really serve any real purpose since all the models appear in one army or another now.


Best to email GW in a polite fashion and point out this oversight though it might take a while to change (it took AGES for them to update Slaanesh when they released the new models).

"New book has information about Slaves to Darkness in Warcry.
...but no entry for them. Where are their rules?"

Hopefully in the early next year!

There is a great opportunity for GW here...
I hope they have fairly quick releases

Slaves to Darkness have 8 sets of rules of which 6 are already released - the warbands. The original Warcry Warbands are all Slaves to Darkness. They've even had mercenary options added with things like the Darkoath leaders.