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.

Hello all! how good is the Warcry starter set? is it worth a buy? i can get it for 200 bucks and was thinking of starting something Age of sigmar related.

A big yes from me. I just picked up Catacombs too. In the starter box, you'll get the two nice warbands, but the terrain is worth it alone.

Just amazing AoS terrain, and alot, enough for a normal AoS game as well.

I like the box as I just keep it all together, so its like a board game. My son and I love it, quick games, great lore, fun campagin.

I think the Scions of the Flame, which came in Catacombs are my favorite models ever.

The original starter set is incredibly worth it. Great terrain, lots of it, the warbands are serviceable for warcry.
Catacombs are more expensive, lot less terrain, but much easier to find than the out of print original box, so if you can't find that, go for the catacombs.

Original starter is fantastic. Amazing terrain. The Chaotic Beasts are really cool. Furies moreso imo but the Chaos chickens look like ideal conversion pieces.

Added benefit that the two gangs are some of the best cultists in a Slaves to Darkness army.

Game is quite fun and easy for non wargamers to understand as well.

Warcry is a fasntastic game, I highly recomend it!

You get plenty of stuff for your $ in the starter set, so its a deal for as far as GW stuff goes.

That said, have you tried Warcry? Its by far and away the worst game GW makes in my opinion. I'd try the game before dropping starter money on it. Its a huge hobby regret of mine.

MegaDombro wrote:
That said, have you tried Warcry? Its by far and away the worst game GW makes in my opinion. I'd try the game before dropping starter money on it. Its a huge hobby regret of mine.

I'm looking to get in to it for the low army cost and for starting in to AoS as well, but I'm not as interested in the Starter's Warbands. There's a few locals who play somewhat regularly at one of the closer LGS and has offered to show me the game.

What turned you off of Warcry, if I may ask?

Sure. Warcry, to me, embodies the worst elements of GW games while failing to capitalize on any potential in its design space.

I think it aims to be a small scale tactical game, with a campaign type feel.

Warcry leans in a randomness, imbalances, and lack of rules depth that hurt it as a tactical game. Kill Team and Underworlds do a better job from GW.

The campaign mode too seemed muted compared to other GW games like BB. Your warband does not seem to evolve too much over the course of a campaign.

Even if your looking for frugal options that can blossom into armies, Kill Team and Underworlds are better at that too.

I am just not sure what Warcry does better then other small game systems from GW.

I'd say take up on the game demo offer for sure. Warcry was well received enough, so my opinion is certainly not universally held.

For me, Warcry is the best game GW has ever made. Bcause it doesn't particularly try to be some deep 'tactical' wargame. It's a reasonably quick beer-and-pretzels skirmish game, without the janky stuff that infests GW's other games like stratagems, command points, endless wargear choices (most of which are illusory choices or outright traps), multiple rules subsystems, unnecessarily long dice resolution mechanics (roll-for-number-of-attacks-roll-to-hit-roll-to-wound-roll-for-damage-roll-armour-saves-roll-invulnerable-saves-roll-feel-no-pain...), etc.

I think it has a very good ratio of tactical depth vs complexity of rules, for a GW game. It could use some more variety in abilities, especially positioning effects like pull/push. Where it falls down completely tho is faction balance and scenario balance.

Well the one problem I've always had with 40k is rules bloat so I don't mind warcry being simple to learn my kids can even play.

Is internal balance really that bad?

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Where it falls down completely tho is faction balance and scenario balance.

So, normal for GW?

I'm not expecting such balance from GW (though, I won't say it wouldn't be nice) after all these years. So long as the rules aren't a consistent slog of double-speak, it is an improvement in that area.

I halved the original starter set with a mate last year. We've been painting up our Warbands and need to have a go at the terrain.

Randomly I met the guy who designed the game (Sam something I think) about ten years ago. We were both working as English teachers in South Korea so had been out for noodles and beers a few times. He was a nice chap, incredibly we didn't ever chat enough to know that we shared a hobby (and certainly for him as he has subsequently made a career out of it!) So on those grounds I am going to get the set painted up and give the game a try! I actually find the scope of AoS generally pretty mental and OTT, but quite like the scope of this game; warbands fighting is a little closer to earth and quite a cool concept that I think I can understand!