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.

You mean the model of the month? You walk into a GW, ask for it, they give it to you and you leave.

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
You mean the model of the month? You walk into a GW, ask for it, they give it to you and you leave.

Really? I expected "with purchase" or some such.

No, they'll give you the normal GW hard sell, but you don't have to bite

 Rihgu wrote:
Exact same card. Runemarks, everything. Except 1 does 1 more damage on crits.

Just baffling.

SKR.HH wrote:
If this is the worst we can find... I'd say the game is in a very good spot.

The worst we could find on a casual skim of one grand alliance.

The game always had atrocious balance and with half the cards now out it's pretty clear GW doubled down on the AoS faction skew, if anything. Adding even more of the crazy models that the actual Warcry warbands have no hope against.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

SKR.HH wrote:
If this is the worst we can find... I'd say the game is in a very good spot.

The worst we could find on a casual skim of one grand alliance.

The game always had atrocious balance and with half the cards now out it's pretty clear GW doubled down on the AoS faction skew, if anything. Adding even more of the crazy models that the actual Warcry warbands have no hope against.

Can you point out some examples? I know it would help me to know what to be on the lookout for, I'm sure it would help others too. While particularly stupid the vulkite example isn't game breaking either.

 Scottywan82 wrote:

 Rihgu wrote:
Exact same card. Runemarks, everything. Except 1 does 1 more damage on crits.

Just baffling.

Not really. Good chances are there's a misprint.

And if not...it'll be patched at some point in the future.

Not like it really matters, actually. People saying "balance was always bad in Warcry" are the ones always missing the point in games : it -never- had to be balanced at that level. Or to be more precise : the importance of small details like this one are actually irrelevant in the final result of a game that randomly generate victory conditions, deployment and terrain - not even talking about the ressources needed to use the aptitudes or the distribution of fighters in different groups that may come at a different time.

The focus being clearly on narrative games that are inherently designed to be unbalanced because bands that progress do so on different ways by nature means that perfect balance is not the real focus of this game - and that is fine. Perfect balance doesn't exist anyway. If it did, it'll be boring really quick and would go against the very purpose of a game : being fun.

Grand Alliance: Death rules are up:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/JJGycdp3gtzxNaoE.pdf

Dangit... I only play Chaos factions haha.

almost there gunsmith
thats the interesting thing about warcry im really starting to like... i can use things that id never run as a full blown army.

Blastaar wrote:

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
You mean the model of the month? You walk into a GW, ask for it, they give it to you and you leave.

Really? I expected "with purchase" or some such.

You’re meant to build it in store and such.
But during covid it was a walk in and take a box with the bits at least.

What is this months model?

Sarouan wrote:

 Scottywan82 wrote:

 Rihgu wrote:
Exact same card. Runemarks, everything. Except 1 does 1 more damage on crits.

Just baffling.

Not really. Good chances are there's a misprint.

And if not...it'll be patched at some point in the future.

Not like it really matters, actually. People saying "balance was always bad in Warcry" are the ones always missing the point in games : it -never- had to be balanced at that level. Or to be more precise : the importance of small details like this one are actually irrelevant in the final result of a game that randomly generate victory conditions, deployment and terrain - not even talking about the ressources needed to use the aptitudes or the distribution of fighters in different groups that may come at a different time.

The focus being clearly on narrative games that are inherently designed to be unbalanced because bands that progress do so on different ways by nature means that perfect balance is not the real focus of this game - and that is fine. Perfect balance doesn't exist anyway. If it did, it'll be boring really quick and would go against the very purpose of a game : being fun.

An excellent and entirely valid point. However, extreme imbalance can still be disruptive on a narrative level and the edges of the bell curve need to be reigned in even within a narrative context.

That said the vulkite example is a different matter. While the imbalance is minor, more or less glazed over for the reasons you describe, it is a clear instance of one model being objectively better for the exact same cost. It feels bad for players taking the worse option as it feels like being punished for how the models were assembled.

Is there a limit on number of each model you can take? Could always be a balance thing that way.
More likely an oversight.

Likely a typo IMO, such things happen and it is so minor it would be easily missed. My guess is there was a cut+paste of the graphic and someone forgot to change the point cost to 60.

Much more interested/concerned about the glaring imbalances mentioned, I really would like to hear what people think are the worst offenders.

I think it’s just a case of every model being a multiple of 5 in points cost (from what I’ve seen?) there’s gonna be a few cases where a model is strictly worse than one at a higher cost and strictly better than one at a lower cost. There’s a few examples I’ve seen of it now. It’s not a huge deal really but it doesn’t look great.

All one could think as the Death file loads up...

"Here come the sandwiches!!!"

Danny76 wrote:
Is there a limit on number of each model you can take? Could always be a balance thing that way.
More likely an oversight.

one per customer

Sarouan wrote:

 Scottywan82 wrote:

 Rihgu wrote:
Exact same card. Runemarks, everything. Except 1 does 1 more damage on crits.

Just baffling.

Not really. Good chances are there's a misprint.

And if not...it'll be patched at some point in the future.

Not like it really matters, actually. People saying "balance was always bad in Warcry" are the ones always missing the point in games : it -never- had to be balanced at that level. Or to be more precise : the importance of small details like this one are actually irrelevant in the final result of a game that randomly generate victory conditions, deployment and terrain - not even talking about the ressources needed to use the aptitudes or the distribution of fighters in different groups that may come at a different time.

The focus being clearly on narrative games that are inherently designed to be unbalanced because bands that progress do so on different ways by nature means that perfect balance is not the real focus of this game - and that is fine. Perfect balance doesn't exist anyway. If it did, it'll be boring really quick and would go against the very purpose of a game : being fun.

That's cool water carrying for a corporation and all, as usual, but Warcry actually always had loads of mission card combos that were auto win/lose for certain factions, and that's not something even narrative players tend to enjoy. Our local DoK player sure didn't enjoy his essentially unwinnable mandatory convergence mission and dropped out of the campaign after failing it 5 or 6 times in a row. We'll see if the minute changes to missions and core rules (like the movement restrictions while carrying treasure) mitigate this somewhat. Not that Warcry is even really a narrative game. It's significantly closer to Underworlds than to Necromunda in its design ethos.

gg everybody strawmanning that the only problem is a 5 pts variance between model profiles tho.

Danny76 wrote:

Blastaar wrote:

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
You mean the model of the month? You walk into a GW, ask for it, they give it to you and you leave.

Really? I expected "with purchase" or some such.

You’re meant to build it in store and such.
But during covid it was a walk in and take a box with the bits at least.

What is this months model?

It's a Rotmire Creed dude.

I'll pick one up for sure. With GW's prices this may be the only one of the war band I get.

I am dissaponted with LRL, I keep looking at the profiles and abilities and wonder what am I missing. The damage doesn't feel it is there and damage migitation feels subpar. I hope Splintered Fangs got better end of the deal.

Why be part of the conversation blackfang?
Just to complain and call people that like the game and don’t mind the typos fanbois?
While you didn’t literally say it that pretty much sums up your posts

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:

Danny76 wrote:
Is there a limit on number of each model you can take? Could always be a balance thing that way.
More likely an oversight.

one per customer

The fyreslayer variants in the rules..
As to why they are same points for different skills.
The post above mine

 lord_blackfang wrote:

Sarouan wrote:

 Scottywan82 wrote:

 Rihgu wrote:
Exact same card. Runemarks, everything. Except 1 does 1 more damage on crits.

Just baffling.

Not really. Good chances are there's a misprint.

And if not...it'll be patched at some point in the future.

Not like it really matters, actually. People saying "balance was always bad in Warcry" are the ones always missing the point in games : it -never- had to be balanced at that level. Or to be more precise : the importance of small details like this one are actually irrelevant in the final result of a game that randomly generate victory conditions, deployment and terrain - not even talking about the ressources needed to use the aptitudes or the distribution of fighters in different groups that may come at a different time.

The focus being clearly on narrative games that are inherently designed to be unbalanced because bands that progress do so on different ways by nature means that perfect balance is not the real focus of this game - and that is fine. Perfect balance doesn't exist anyway. If it did, it'll be boring really quick and would go against the very purpose of a game : being fun.

That's cool water carrying for a corporation and all, as usual, but Warcry actually always had loads of mission card combos that were auto win/lose for certain factions, and that's not something even narrative players tend to enjoy. Our local DoK player sure didn't enjoy his essentially unwinnable mandatory convergence mission and dropped out of the campaign after failing it 5 or 6 times in a row. We'll see if the minute changes to missions and core rules (like the movement restrictions while carrying treasure) mitigate this somewhat. Not that Warcry is even really a narrative game. It's significantly closer to Underworlds than to Necromunda in its design ethos.

gg everybody strawmanning that the only problem is a 5 pts variance between model profiles tho.

I mean, folks were asking for specific examples. Maybe they just didn't encounter the severe imbalances with the factions/missions they played. I know I haven't played enough to get a true idea of the balance, and I personally never played with the "warcry" factions, as none of them appeal to me, and I already have other AoS faction models.

You could a) provide your example politely, or b) be a gakwhole. You chose b). Time to add yet another to the ignore list.

 usernamesareannoying wrote:
Why be part of the conversation blackfang?
Just to complain and call people that like the game and don’t mind the typos fanbois?
While you didn’t literally say it that pretty much sums up your posts

Removed - rule #1

Ok

Quasistellar wrote:

You could a) provide your example politely, or b) be a gakwhole. You chose b). Time to add yet another to the ignore list.

Examples aren't hard to find, it just depends who you are listening to. The crowd of Warcry players complaining about "severe imbalance" in the game are the competitive part...mostly youtubers with a reputation to show (thus using antagonising titles and emotionnal statements because those are the ones that get more views).

However, these people play the game (or theorize it) in a very specific view, where balance is more an ideology than a real necessity. It's the same people saying point cost is the only way to balance a game and were spitting on AoS when it first came out or 40k V8 when power levels were introduced (a game without point cost ? HERESY !).

Here in the case of these poor Fyreslayer profiles, yes one is indeed more interesting than the other on the paper. Doesn't mean the axe wielding one can't be used in a game in an effective way (if you want to inflict damage, it's quite obvious these types of fighters aren't exactly here for that, they're more here to grab objectives and stand their ground). So the difference of 1 point in critical damage isn't really an important detail in itself : it only matters to people who focus on things they believe are crucial in a game while they're not.

As for why anyone would use a lesser profile instead of the other, the answer is very simple : because he wants to use the miniature. This, of course, is something the people only looking at rules will never truly understand ("why not using the better profile but the miniature you like as a proxy ?") because it simply goes against their ideology.

Yet that's still a valid answer in a game. Because the point is not to optimize at all costs...it's simply to have fun.

Sarouan wrote:

Quasistellar wrote:

You could a) provide your example politely, or b) be a gakwhole. You chose b). Time to add yet another to the ignore list.

Examples aren't hard to find, it just depends who you are listening to. The crowd of Warcry players complaining about "severe imbalance" in the game are the competitive part...mostly youtubers with a reputation to show (thus using antagonising titles and emotionnal statements because those are the ones that get more views).

However, these people play the game (or theorize it) in a very specific view, where balance is more an ideology than a real necessity. It's the same people saying point cost is the only way to balance a game and were spitting on AoS when it first came out or 40k V8 when power levels were introduced (a game without point cost ? HERESY !).

Here in the case of these poor Fyreslayer profiles, yes one is indeed more interesting than the other on the paper. Doesn't mean the axe wielding one can't be used in a game in an effective way (if you want to inflict damage, it's quite obvious these types of fighters aren't exactly here for that, they're more here to grab objectives and stand their ground). So the difference of 1 point in critical damage isn't really an important detail in itself : it only matters to people who focus on things they believe are crucial in a game while they're not.

As for why anyone would use a lesser profile instead of the other, the answer is very simple : because he wants to use the miniature. This, of course, is something the people only looking at rules will never truly understand ("why not using the better profile but the miniature you like as a proxy ?") because it simply goes against their ideology.

Yet that's still a valid answer in a game. Because the point is not to optimize at all costs...it's simply to have fun.

So how much fun is it to auto lose because the random scenario is unwinnable for your faction? Do narrative players enjoy that? Or are you gonna keep claiming that the only issue in Warcry is a 5 pts variance between identical profiles? Who are you to even claim Warcry is a narrative game? Its design ethos is clearly much closer to Underworlds than it is to Necromunda. I suggest all of you who deny criticisms without even playing the game it go join an actual Warcry community on reddit or discord and see what's what rather then just defend GW for the sake of defending GW.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

Sarouan wrote:

Quasistellar wrote:

You could a) provide your example politely, or b) be a gakwhole. You chose b). Time to add yet another to the ignore list.

Examples aren't hard to find, it just depends who you are listening to. The crowd of Warcry players complaining about "severe imbalance" in the game are the competitive part...mostly youtubers with a reputation to show (thus using antagonising titles and emotionnal statements because those are the ones that get more views).

However, these people play the game (or theorize it) in a very specific view, where balance is more an ideology than a real necessity. It's the same people saying point cost is the only way to balance a game and were spitting on AoS when it first came out or 40k V8 when power levels were introduced (a game without point cost ? HERESY !).

Here in the case of these poor Fyreslayer profiles, yes one is indeed more interesting than the other on the paper. Doesn't mean the axe wielding one can't be used in a game in an effective way (if you want to inflict damage, it's quite obvious these types of fighters aren't exactly here for that, they're more here to grab objectives and stand their ground). So the difference of 1 point in critical damage isn't really an important detail in itself : it only matters to people who focus on things they believe are crucial in a game while they're not.

As for why anyone would use a lesser profile instead of the other, the answer is very simple : because he wants to use the miniature. This, of course, is something the people only looking at rules will never truly understand ("why not using the better profile but the miniature you like as a proxy ?") because it simply goes against their ideology.

Yet that's still a valid answer in a game. Because the point is not to optimize at all costs...it's simply to have fun.

So how much fun is it to auto lose because the random scenario is unwinnable for your faction? Do narrative players enjoy that? Or are you gonna keep claiming that the only issue in Warcry is a 5 pts variance between identical profiles? Who are you to even claim Warcry is a narrative game? Its design ethos is clearly much closer to Underworlds than it is to Necromunda. I suggest all of you who deny criticisms without even playing the game it go join an actual Warcry community on reddit or discord and see what's what rather then just defend GW for the sake of defending GW.

What you say is largely true for first edition, but the biggest change for the new edition is the narrative side of the game. The convergence missions that you mentioned have gone from the game. I have read through all the cards so far and the fyreslayer points is the only definite mistake that I have noticed. It remains to be seen how the balance changes introduced by the compendium will turn out, but I haven't noticed anything that looks broken on first read. This was not true with first edition. The reviews I've read and watched from people who have a history with the game seem positive.
This game is very much a my first Mordheim with a lot of the complexity and so also the choice of that game stripped away, but it makes it extremely approachable and I was able to teach it to my sister and my kids with ease.

As for the random missions, I personally love the variety. I played about 50 games of first edition before it started getting remotely stale. If you find a mission, twist combo that's unfeasible you can make a note to avoid it in the future and just play another game. 1 out of 10 or so games can be problematic but that's a much better ratio than most other gw games.
I actually found the convergence missions a weak point as you might find yourself having to play the exact same mission several times which goes directly against the game's strengths, so I'm pretty happy to see that they are being replaced.

If it wasn't for the price of the box I would be jumping into second edition right now but I as it is, I'll wait for the rulebook and play with the warbands I already have.

 NH Gunsmith wrote:
Dangit... I only play Chaos factions haha.

Well then you should be used to being last then.

The Chaos Compendiums are up...

https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/aieIvNka3AA1f0la.pdf

https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/PN5smrdnpdAfNhH8.pdf

https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/SX9aDoeCHRgdpCYo.pdf

https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/GGFXgwO43k5M2soa.pdf