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.

Oh man....possibly an excuse to do some Daughters of Khaine....

IMO warbands should've been based around a champion trying to catch Archaons eye and his/her followers. I also want to be able to add weirder stuff like the old path to glory system as the warbands all look a little uniform and bland at the moment. Progression looks a little weak too. I want skills and mutations. Things I can model. Maybe these things will come in future "expansions".

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Oh man....possibly an excuse to do some Daughters of Khaine....

Indeed, I always wanted Daughters of Khaine, maybe to fight against Iron Golems.

Warcry: Choosing Your Warband on Warhammer Community confirms that Spire Tyrants and Scions of the Flame will indeed be future warbands.

Any word on the outside chance they make cards for the Shadespire/Nightvault teams?

Seems kind of like an easy path to more sales.

JSG wrote:
IMO warbands should've been based around a champion trying to catch Archaons eye and his/her followers. I also want to be able to add weirder stuff like the old path to glory system as the warbands all look a little uniform and bland at the moment. Progression looks a little weak too. I want skills and mutations. Things I can model. Maybe these things will come in future "expansions".

Aren't warbands that? At least some of them? The Spire Tyrants page posted recently spends a lot of time talking about hierarchy and the warband's chief. The Scions of the Flame page is more about the cult and the worthy. Seems to me like there's enough diversity in the methods and beliefs of the various warbands to cover any taste.

Since the game seems to be structured along the same lines as Necromunda, you'll have exactly one leader who is good enough to stand out from his followers. So while I haven't read the rules yet, at least at first glance it looks like the rules portray warbands in that way as well.

How exactly would you like the champion plus followers feel to be implemented?

As for the rest? Yeah, well, modern GW rules have little substance. Shame, but what can you do?

JSG wrote:
IMO warbands should've been based around a champion trying to catch Archaons eye and his/her followers. I also want to be able to add weirder stuff like the old path to glory system as the warbands all look a little uniform and bland at the moment. Progression looks a little weak too. I want skills and mutations. Things I can model. Maybe these things will come in future "expansions".

l
There is quite an amount of customisation possible in the base game. With a bit of imagination these could be made into modelling opportunities. A single fighter could end up with 3 destiny levels, a lesser artefact, an artefact of power and a command trait by the end of a campaign. Most of the lesser artefacts are described as pouches, vials or items of jewellery. These could easily me modelled or painted on. We have not seen artefacts of power yet but these may well be new weapons, or pieces of armour that can be added with conversions if that is your thing.
Personally I am pretty happy with the rules so far . There are still pieces of the puzzle to be discovered, like artefacts of power, command traits, territories, the way the NPCs work, and the overarching narratives of each campaign.
I also think we have seen previews of the most straight forward of the warbands. Some of the abilities of the other warbands that the video hints at sound like they could change the game a lot.

Going back a *long* way, the old hardback Realm Of Chaos books had options for generating random chaos warbands and adding to them as you won battles and gained renown. It was very granular, you could gain, say, a single Chaos Warrior, or a couple of beastmen or thugs / marauders, or a troll, or a minotaur, or whatever. That may be what JSG is talking about. If there was something similar between then and now, then I missed it...

It would be hard to achieve that in Warcry though, without pretty much abandoning the new theme of the warbands from the different realms. Unless they made a hell of a lot more new models.

I'm glad there is a terrain card - it was always hilarious and sad to see games of Kill Team with one or two pieces of terrain on the table.

 Geifer wrote:

JSG wrote:
IMO warbands should've been based around a champion trying to catch Archaons eye and his/her followers. I also want to be able to add weirder stuff like the old path to glory system as the warbands all look a little uniform and bland at the moment. Progression looks a little weak too. I want skills and mutations. Things I can model. Maybe these things will come in future "expansions".

Aren't warbands that? At least some of them? The Spire Tyrants page posted recently spends a lot of time talking about hierarchy and the warband's chief. The Scions of the Flame page is more about the cult and the worthy. Seems to me like there's enough diversity in the methods and beliefs of the various warbands to cover any taste.

Since the game seems to be structured along the same lines as Necromunda, you'll have exactly one leader who is good enough to stand out from his followers. So while I haven't read the rules yet, at least at first glance it looks like the rules portray warbands in that way as well.

How exactly would you like the champion plus followers feel to be implemented?

As for the rest? Yeah, well, modern GW rules have little substance. Shame, but what can you do?

I meant diversity within warbands not between them. The iron golems are closet to what I mean in that they have an ogor a duardin and a musician guy. Untamed beasts have the beastmaster and hound thing. Regarding the champions I'd like centrepieces for the warbands. I like the beasts guy but the rest seem too similar to the rank and file or like the cypher lords leader, just underwhelming. Ideally I'd have liked this to be more like path to glory with your leader able to pick up chaos armour or a daemon weapon, everyone gaining skills and mutations. A guy with a healing potion isn't really going to cut it for me. I get the feeling that they have a thing for balanced, tournament type play and don't want to have these sorts of messy mechanics.

*EDIT* I'm rambling. Crispy78 pretty much nailed it. What I liked about that is the visual diversity of the warband and the implicit narrative that gives.

 TalonZahn wrote:
Any word on the outside chance they make cards for the Shadespire/Nightvault teams?

Seems kind of like an easy path to more sales.

Quite a few look like they'll fit in anyway if the chart is at all accurate.

The gloomspite band is just gobbos and a squig, after all. No reason you couldn't use them rather than more generic models.

I really have no idea how much customisation there is, but one thing I like that apparently the gear is fixed. I really hate miniature campaign systems where you change the gear. I want my models to be WYSIWYS, but at the same time I'm not gonna alter already completed models mid-campaign or build seven thousand alternate models to represent a single fighter.

Wow, the campaign system looks phenomenal. The worst part of playing a giant multiplayer campaign is always the players themselves. Being able to track your warband's own campaign really lets players who want to play often, really enjoy the game and system, and bypass the people who "join" a campaign but never play, or only play a handful of times.

 judgedoug wrote:
Wow, the campaign system looks phenomenal. The worst part of playing a giant multiplayer campaign is always the players themselves. Being able to track your warband's own campaign really lets players who want to play often, really enjoy the game and system, and bypass the people who "join" a campaign but never play, or only play a handful of times.

Aye its a very practical idea, esp once clubs are outside of schools/uni where people don't have an enforced reason to hang around every week. So if someone goes on holiday and then the person organising the game leaves because of work and another gets a child etc... all those practical normal things that can randomly get in the way - now you can keep playing your own personal campaign and not have to worry about them. It's the kind of thing I hope takes off and if it does well might be added to games like Necromunda.

 Overread wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:
Wow, the campaign system looks phenomenal. The worst part of playing a giant multiplayer campaign is always the players themselves. Being able to track your warband's own campaign really lets players who want to play often, really enjoy the game and system, and bypass the people who "join" a campaign but never play, or only play a handful of times.

Aye its a very practical idea, esp once clubs are outside of schools/uni where people don't have an enforced reason to hang around every week. So if someone goes on holiday and then the person organising the game leaves because of work and another gets a child etc... all those practical normal things that can randomly get in the way - now you can keep playing your own personal campaign and not have to worry about them. It's the kind of thing I hope takes off and if it does well might be added to games like Necromunda.

It's basically the system that Mordheim had - you played your own games for your own team - but with Warcry there is a definite end to your warband, unlike in Mordheim where it was relatively easy to have an unstoppable warband after a dozen games.

 Ghaz wrote:
Warcry: Choosing Your Warband on Warhammer Community confirms that Spire Tyrants and Scions of the Flame will indeed be future warbands.

At work and can’t watch. What’s the word on the Splintered Fang?

Cataphract wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
Warcry: Choosing Your Warband on Warhammer Community confirms that Spire Tyrants and Scions of the Flame will indeed be future warbands.

At work and can’t watch. What’s the word on the Splintered Fang?

They want to poison and paralyse the enemy. So locking down the enemy so they can isolate warriors to gang up on; using poison to weaken and trickle out life etc...

Cataphract wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
Warcry: Choosing Your Warband on Warhammer Community confirms that Spire Tyrants and Scions of the Flame will indeed be future warbands.

At work and can’t watch. What’s the word on the Splintered Fang?

Warrior cult.

They worship daemonic entities called "the coiling ones" that they believe grant them cunning and strength.

All about poisoning your enemy, paralysing them.

Useful if you're playing a battle that revolves around objectives or treasure.

Cataphract wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
Warcry: Choosing Your Warband on Warhammer Community confirms that Spire Tyrants and Scions of the Flame will indeed be future warbands.

At work and can’t watch. What’s the word on the Splintered Fang?

Gladiator and make use of poison to paralyze enemies, good for objective game.

So basically their motto "one cut, one kill" is a lie!

That is one shallow attempt at campaign rules...that's unfortunate but not unexpected.

Welp, this campaign system is pretty damn solid. Might be the best system I've seen.

Takes the best parts of Mordheim, adds a specific endpoint, and incorporates the freedom to play a campaign at your own pace. Frequent players can cycle through multiple warbands while those who cannot commit can still see progress from their games. There's a nice chance of model death, a definite chance of getting cool upgrades, and definite "story" moments for your warbands that makes you want to play the next game. I particularly like the reward that an opposing warband gets when a warband must play a convergence battle, along with a good amount of 'blank' battle marks on the campaign tracker, always providing a good reason for someone to play their next game. It seems like there is little to no downtime or wasted games.

A lot of actual players will be enjoying this. I can see how forumhammer players would not be too keen as there's not a lot of fat on the campaign bones - it is mostly lean meat. However, with dozens of campaigns from various systems under my belt, this looks like a diplomatic compromise between the various styles without reducing the overall enjoyment each player would get. Of course, those groups that prefer map-based campaigns may be disappointed, but I've found that those that actually play, and _actually_ complete, map-based campaigns are very, very rare - perhaps the largest intention-to-completion ratio out of all campaigns that fail. Interestingly, with this campaign system, the campaign can never fail as long as there's literally one other player somewhere in the world for you to play against so that you can complete your own warband's personal campaign.

So, in your opinion, people who don't agree with you don't actually play games? That's more or less all I got from your post.

Follows the GW design ethos of keeping it as streamlined and simple as possible.

Which is disappointing, but as pointed out above, not totally unexpected.

If you want advanced campaign rules you have to write your own.

It's a remarkable success for GW to sell this idea of a personal campaign like it's some radical change when in effect it's exactly the same as any other campaign without a game master. You track your own advancement? Revolutionary!

I hope that they add advanced campaign rules later, but I think that as a default starting option this way of doing it is better.

JSG wrote:

 Geifer wrote:

JSG wrote:
IMO warbands should've been based around a champion trying to catch Archaons eye and his/her followers. I also want to be able to add weirder stuff like the old path to glory system as the warbands all look a little uniform and bland at the moment. Progression looks a little weak too. I want skills and mutations. Things I can model. Maybe these things will come in future "expansions".

Aren't warbands that? At least some of them? The Spire Tyrants page posted recently spends a lot of time talking about hierarchy and the warband's chief. The Scions of the Flame page is more about the cult and the worthy. Seems to me like there's enough diversity in the methods and beliefs of the various warbands to cover any taste.

Since the game seems to be structured along the same lines as Necromunda, you'll have exactly one leader who is good enough to stand out from his followers. So while I haven't read the rules yet, at least at first glance it looks like the rules portray warbands in that way as well.

How exactly would you like the champion plus followers feel to be implemented?

As for the rest? Yeah, well, modern GW rules have little substance. Shame, but what can you do?

I meant diversity within warbands not between them. The iron golems are closet to what I mean in that they have an ogor a duardin and a musician guy. Untamed beasts have the beastmaster and hound thing. Regarding the champions I'd like centrepieces for the warbands. I like the beasts guy but the rest seem too similar to the rank and file or like the cypher lords leader, just underwhelming. Ideally I'd have liked this to be more like path to glory with your leader able to pick up chaos armour or a daemon weapon, everyone gaining skills and mutations. A guy with a healing potion isn't really going to cut it for me. I get the feeling that they have a thing for balanced, tournament type play and don't want to have these sorts of messy mechanics.

*EDIT* I'm rambling. Crispy78 pretty much nailed it. What I liked about that is the visual diversity of the warband and the implicit narrative that gives.

Ah, makes sense. I mean, maybe that will be possible with the greater artifacts that we haven't seen yet and you actually have to earn your leader's exceptional appearance. That wouldn't be the worst thing ever. But who knows. I can certainly not disagree since I have a Chaos Lord with Chaos armor and all the trimmings that I wouldn't think twice about using as the leader of the Untamed Beasts.

New article

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2019/07/17/warcry-3-ways-to-playgw-homepage-post-1/

Contents of the Corpsewrack Mausoleum



It's more than 1/2 the Sigmarite Mausoleum it has the 6 buildings but lacks a second gate sprue and a building base sprue but gets cards and the playmat so probably about equal for the same price.

My problem with Mausoleum set is the lack platforms. Few tombs and spiky fences don't make good playground in skirmish game where being able to jump from 2 stories high to slash opponents is possible.

I'm really impressed that GW is even putting terrain setup designs in the card packs! Terrain setup is a skill in itself so haivng some fully pre-designed setups from the boxed set is fantastic for getting some solid fun boards established with the core gear. From there people can certainly add more and build off what they learn and see works with the pre-designed terrain

Heck who knows it might even encourage people to talk and share more about howthey setup terrain

I hope the rules card can be gotten separate some how, I got this terrain set back when it was repacked for Sigmar so honestly dont need another 2 sets of a graveyard. That mat looks cool though