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.

Post rubric below

I was disappointed with the rules. I was hoping for more.

Its not BAD by any stretch, but its also like most GW offerings... and for me I would like to see a lot more substance on the campaign offerings and rules in general.

I think its too early for this kind of poll though, because my opinion is based off of watching it get played once in the store for a demo and flipping through the book.

 auticus wrote:
I think its too early for this kind of poll though, because my opinion is based off of watching it get played once in the store for a demo and flipping through the book.

I agree - I've played a few times in-store, but playing with only the starter box is a bit limiting. My initial feeling is that it needs a skills & magic expansion.

Yeah I've got to agree this is way too early for the poll. The game isn't even out for another 2 weeks and even then you want a period of time for people to buy, build and play with it before they've got any real idea of the game.

There's only a few playing videos out there and only a few made it to the Warhammer event to see it in action. Far too small a sample size and, again, relies a lot on very limited experience.

Even the playing videos are variable in quality and in the detail that they go into the rules.

I'd say you want a month or two after the release date before you can post a poll like this and get any meaningful answers.

8/10 for content. 3 out of 10, at first glance, as far as skirmish games go I guess? It is more like a boardgame than a skirmish game given its tidy, spartan rules and basicaly holding your hand at every step of the game. Falls in line with these days' trend I guess.
If I approach it as a fast boardgame with miniatures I guess I could give it 7 or 8 out of ten looking it as a whole game.

 Overread wrote:
Yeah I've got to agree this is way too early for the poll. The game isn't even out for another 2 weeks and even then you want a period of time for people to buy, build and play with it before they've got any real idea of the game.

There's only a few playing videos out there and only a few made it to the Warhammer event to see it in action. Far too small a sample size and, again, relies a lot on very limited experience.

Even the playing videos are variable in quality and in the detail that they go into the rules.

I'd say you want a month or two after the release date before you can post a poll like this and get any meaningful answers.

GW shops and some independents should have had their preview copies last week for Saturday's preorders.

People voting 10 / 10 huh? I'd love to know how it received max score from multiple people and why they voted that way and how it is superior to other fantasy skirmish games on the market right now to be rated at the top.

 CoreCommander wrote:
8/10 for content. 3 out of 10, at first glance, as far as skirmish games go I guess? It is more like a boardgame than a skirmish game given its tidy, spartan rules and basicaly holding your hand at every step of the game. Falls in line with these days' trend I guess.
If I approach it as a fast boardgame with miniatures I guess I could give it 7 or 8 out of ten looking it as a whole game.

This might not necessarily be a bad thing, especially if the intention is to have the ability to use Warcry to introduce new players to Age of Sigmar as a whole.

Shadespire's rules are technically simpler, but there's a complexity in the deck-build and strategic aspect that can be daunting, plus the whole pay-to-win aspect of having to buy all the warbands to get all the best cards that's a huge deterrent.

Age of Sigmar proper doesn't have 40k's bloat, core rules are okay (although the new ASF/ASL stuff requires a complex flow chart to figure out now) but there's a LOT of interaction depth between armies, so much so that it's just as difficult/daunting to get into for a new player (although not necessarily being Alpha'd turn 1 every game makes it an easier pill to swallow than it's sci-fi brethren).

Depending on one's expectations it certainly may not be a bad thing. If one expected an older style skirmish game It will be a disapointment. If one expects "fast and furious cinematic experience" as the design studio described it several days ago then all is fine. As far as skirmish games go even kill team offers a richer experience.

Since I haven't played yet I'm not yet going to vote. I don't know if the game is going to be any good, but it's going to be played at my local store and a friend who had the chance to play spoke positive of his two games. Considering he's usually very critical of GW's rules writing, that's a good sign.

The best thing Warcry has done for me so far is that I've assembled and converted more of my Witch Elves in days than I have in the past six years.

 auticus wrote:
People voting 10 / 10 huh? I'd love to know how it received max score from multiple people and why they voted that way and how it is superior to other fantasy skirmish games on the market right now to be rated at the top.

Thing is many might not have played other skirmish games on the market; or perhaps something like Infinity, which many might argue is superior in terms of depth and complexity, isn't what they like and something simpler ilke Warcry actually proves more enjoyable to them.

It's why polls like this are only ever casual points of data reference, even with the text not everyone will comment.

Seems a way early for this, asking people who have only a few demo games or no games of experience to rate a system which is based on campaign play. I can't rate it personally until I have seen the campaign element in action.

Having skimmed the rules and watched several battle reports, it's a hard pass for me - though I had considered picking it up for the models. I didn't vote because I'm not going to buy it, and it's exactly what I expected from GW.

GW hasn't impressed me their rules writing for decades, so it's always a balance of a few things:

1) Are they tolerable enough that I can enjoy using my miniatures.
2) Can I fix them and make them more interesting?

GW's appeal is solely in the fluff and models for me. They've never written particularly strong or tight rules, and they've only been worse lately. They're generally coherent, but narrow/shallow and immensely tied to selling you products vs. selling you a good game (which is fine, that's their business decision). Considering how many fantastic wargaming rules sets exist outside of GW I don't really need their games. I tend to prefer more flexible, deeper, sandbox-ier games than what GW offers.

If I had to put a nail in the coffin of me ever buying a GW game again it'd be the "no model, no rules" which has become an absolute staple in all of their games. The "if we don't sell it, you can't use it" is just terrible.

I think Warcry and similar games are fine for people who want the lighter, faster play, and "Wrap up a campaign in a weekend" style games. I'm just not in that market. As someone who plays a lot of skirmish games outside of GW, Warcry looks way too dumbed down and simple for my tastes.

That pretty much sums it up for me as well.

 Elbows wrote:
If I had to put a nail in the coffin of me ever buying a GW game again it'd be the "no model, no rules" which has become an absolute staple in all of their games. The "if we don't sell it, you can't use it" is just terrible.

Blame Chapterhouse.

 DV8 wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
If I had to put a nail in the coffin of me ever buying a GW game again it'd be the "no model, no rules" which has become an absolute staple in all of their games. The "if we don't sell it, you can't use it" is just terrible.

Blame Chapterhouse.

And Raging Heroes and any other company that makes alternative armies for 40K/AoS/Warhammer games. GW was losing money because they were putting things in batteltome and codex that weren't on their shelves so people were naturally using 3rd parties to fill those gaps. Once someone has broken the barrier of using 3rd party they are more likely to use them again and advertise and spread that to other gamers. As a result GW loses out because now you're not just buying that alternate weapon, you're buying the whole alternate model.

Also it was never friendly to new gamers, not all of which would know/want to use 3rd party and not all could or wanted to convert. Also many gamers hated that GW would put weapon choices and even whole models into codex/battletomes and the actual models for them would take forever and ever and never appear. It wasn't having converting as an option to the hobby it was making it a mandatory element if you wanted to have armies appear as they should.

Plus even when GW knows that in 4 months they are releasing the model anyway they dont' want it in the codex/battletome; heck look at Sisters of Battle, Raging Heroes are already pushing their own Sisters force and GW hasn't got theirs out of the door yet. Pretty much no other wargame company has to suffer this; even big names like Privateer Press don't have whole other companies founded and built off the back of supplying alternate warjacks and warbeasts.


Besides in a functional sense it doesn't reduce the number of model we see from GW (if anything the number has increased significantly); it just means we have to wait until the model actually appears.

Those are really poor attempts to justify it. The same nonsense is trotted out every time someone mentions it - and no offense to you guys, but those aren't good enough reasons to justify the design decision. It's a poor one and killed my enthusiasm for GW. You can enjoy the new games all you want, but there was a better more interesting time. We're past that now.

 Elbows wrote:
Those are really poor attempts to justify it. The same nonsense is trotted out every time someone mentions it - and no offense to you guys, but those aren't good enough reasons to justify the design decision. It's a poor one and killed my enthusiasm for GW. You can enjoy the new games all you want, but there was a better more interesting time. We're past that now.

In a way I don't see how it was more interesting than it is now because what was removed was just more weapon options for units; and in fairness a lot of major armies have kind of replaced the idea of 1 unit doing it all with multiple specialist unit types. Look at Tyranids, at one stage the Carnifex was everything - your heavy sniper, artillery, anti infantry, close combat, etc... Whatever you wanted from it you got it by loading it up right. Now it still does that but there are dedicated big models that do similar jobs better.

The only games where I can see the "no weapons no rules" issue being apparent is in something like Necromunda where there's far far more variety in equipment choice per model.

Agreed with Elbows on all fronts.

Also, GW is the biggest fish, it's pathetic how they overreacted and changed their own designs and policies because some dudes casting in their garage made after market parts.

What it killed was the conversion potential for items that had no official model.

8/10. its fun.

its clunky to set up with the multiple cards but honestly not that bad.

I still don't know how to rate this game, but I've played a game now and watched another two and I approve.

I don't know about the cards in general being clunky, but setting up terrain based on a plan certainly took a lot longer than free style placement. It's a very board-/videogamey part. But in the context of randomly generating the mission, it's not something I feel the need to criticize beyond saying it's another step away from classic wargame values.

I thought the game was fun and had I felt my victory was owed to a large degree to the decisions I made during the game. Since that's what I'm looking for in a game the most (actually the most important part is the miniatures for me, but that's not much of a concern with GW) I'm quite pleased so far. The way command points are rolled for, can have different values and are not a reliable resource to be expended to buy yourself and advantage as early as possible is a plus in my book.

I can obviously not say about the campaign yet, but I'm confident in saying that Warcry won't be a waste of time for me.

I'm kind of underwhelmed after watching the GMG videos (which usually get me psyched about a game- I have bought into a couple of games now because of Ash). If I am playing skirmish games I want more warband advancement/ setback. Character improvement and possible injuries, rather than just soulless replacement of dead models in the next game while their partners never change. I also want greater warband model variety. In Skirmish I could have a Liberator Prime and his loyal Gryph Hound backed by some Freeguild Troops, against some Orruk ardboyz and even a couple of bow-weilding boyz and a Rockgut Troll, or the Chosen Axes with a counts-as War Golem using the Kurnoth Hunter stats.

Frankly, in my local games a better "Warcry" experience could probably be had by buying the terrain when its separate (it is some really cool despoiled terrain) and a combo of AoS: Skirmish and Hinterlands. If someone really likes the models from Warcry, then using their warscroll download for AoS (even though they are really boring as I look at them) makes them possible in Hinterlands/ Skirmish.

Warcry is still on pre-order, so its a bit early for a poll. Maybe at a later time...

Was very close to pre-ordering the core manual, but pulled out at the last moment. In a nutshell, I'll be opting for the core AoS and Skirmish rules(from a previous WD article). I might consider Warcry a bit later on after its "out there" and when(if?) they expand the factions and their units.

It's the boxed version of the game, you need to restrain your expectations a bit. It's mean to be playable as a box, not necessarily as a sprawling campaign.

Beyond that, the game itself was quick and reasonably fun. Models feel reasonably distinct for the most part, there are some interesting combos and tactical choices, but those choices are largely tied up in the initiative powers and positioning to use them best.

And frankly, I don't see this type of game play scaling well to the rest of AOS, it's too small and focused for anything that comes in full units to scale into it well, not enough personality per miniature without going into characters who'd be horrifically over powered here.

Solid game, if it takes off I'll hop in, but I'm not face tanking the entry price on this one.

We have a few battle reports on the net already, some even trying the campaign system like here :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwqimnNqSjg&list=PLzrPO7KIAtwXHhhUlLraJlb_gcg9-oLxv

I think the game is more cleverly made than it seems. Maybe it won't last 20 years like Mordheim, indeed, but the game looks really fun and made so that it's easy for people playing/joining the campaign. So I understand the high scores for now.

By the way, Auticus, the other warbands revealed will be available for pre-order next week. So we will have all of them in the same month, no delay like Necromunda here - and no excuse left to try the game.

To early, i dont care if there are Batreps, i need to play it myself a few times.

Now that i have absorbed the game, i give it a solid C.

The models are an A. Great stuff. The terrain is great as well.

The rules are a massive disappointment but again what id expect from over simplification.

Its hinterlands based and then watered down liberally.

It can be a lot of fun but will require some game mastering and enhancing the campaign elements moderately.

 auticus wrote:
Now that i have absorbed the game, i give it a solid C.

The models are an A. Great stuff. The terrain is great as well.

The rules are a massive disappointment but again what id expect from over simplification.

Its hinterlands based and then watered down liberally.

It can be a lot of fun but will require some game mastering and enhancing the campaign elements moderately.

I think it comes mainly from the campaign system.The quest system is a nice idea, but the trouble is that every player is doing their own quest regardless of what the others are doing - convergence games can be disconnected from the narrative they're telling by throwing litterally any random warband as opponents. Fact that some convergence heavily implies the defeated warband in the former convergence is destroyed/has some warriors killed or captured reinforces that feeling. I guess you can assume you don't actually play your warband during that convergence game or say that narrative doesn't matter, but it still feels weird to me.

Destiny levels are random on the same result, there is no reward for warriors doing outstanding actions during the game. I guess it's fitting to the Chaos Gods being fickle, so I agree with the randomness, but maybe modificators for some actions could make it feel something else still matters other than surviving ?

There is no sense of danger in the campaign system : deaths don't matter that much and since minor artifacts are meant to be useless after some time or one time use, their loss isn't such a big deal. Command traits won't be a problem since your leader cannot die...so you also know to whom you will give the artifact after your quest.

Basic gameplay is actually solid to me. The cards to generate your scenarios make some interesting combinations and is actually well thought. It's not over simplification to me - but clever focus on the tactical possibilites by using your warriors well with their aptitudes. Where it hurts is really the campaign, IMHO.

So I would think that campaign system would gain much more by going further and deeper - making trauma rolls matter but not crippling, having something better for making your warriors progress (and make their loss actually matter as well), rethinking the quest system, maybe add more narrative with the search rolls so that's it''s not just finding lesser artifacts, and so on.

I can see GW releasing an expansion for a deeper campaign system. Letting the core game focus on the casual easy to approach system and then letting the games popularity build so that more want an in-depth system that works with organised play groups and then GW coming along to service that need. Esp as AoS hasn't got a "deeptactical" game like Necromunda