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.

Voss wrote:

Chopstick wrote:
So the Elf archer was designed to kill skelington while Jelsen was designed to kill bosses and big guys. Oof.

I'm missing context.
The witch hunter who is leading the expedition and specialized in killing vampires is... good at killing vampire bosses, and that's... bad?

It was more about the Elf, being designed to kill the weakest enemy in the game isn't that great, and she's isn't even good at it. The blade attack is unable to kill any skeletons even when crit.

The "Path of Glory" objective for her is also not really helping much considered that she have the worst defense dice possible. But I guess her inspired profile is really that good to worth dying for, maybe that blade finally deal enough damage to kill a skeleton. And that's 2-3 or even more turns of being suicidal to get inspired.

The default profile Oaken arrow is also kinda suck, but it might implied there're spooky monster with really low wound but ignore most attacks, making her situational pick at best.

Also I'm fairly certain there're some other heroes who's better at killing skeletons ( not just 1,2 of them) than her. Being the weakest enemy in the game, I don't think any party would have any problem with them to being with.

Are we sure skeletons are the weakest enemy? They seem decently armoured. I would say zombies and the various swarms should be lower on the totem pole.

Nightfall vs Daylight article

I must admit, I am still not a fan of using dice similar to those of Blackstone Fortress. They are by far the ugliest components in the box, the special dice have multiple blank sides and some have equal amount of normal hits and Critical hits. Also, why one symbol equals one wound and two symbols equal three wounds?

I like the idea of using different dice to represent different odds but I find some of the choices counter-intuitive.

Sarouan wrote:


GW boardgames are never targeted at board gamers in general. Only people who would be interested in the Hobby (TM) - building, painting, collecting and playing with GW miniatures. Their purpose is to broaden the variety of their games so that they can find and attract more of these people.

I think it may be moving in that direction but Silver Tower was definitely aimed at board gamers (just search Silver Tower review on YouTube and look at the amount of YouTubers who had reviews up around launch day who don't cover any other GW stuff).

I think Underworlds is also aimed in that direction - both serving as gateways for the wargame too.

jullevi wrote:
Also, why one symbol equals one wound and two symbols equal three wounds? I like the idea of using different dice to represent different odds but I find some of the choices counter-intuitive.

It sounds like the dice were designed and put into production before the rules were finalized. Rules always come last in GW's production cycle, after models, art, and lore. Rules are also given the least amount of time and can get saddled with heavy-handed requirements from higher-ups. Goonhammer's interview with ex-GW rules write James Hewitt is pretty revealing. For example: "Necromunda characters have got Intelligence, Willpower, Cool, and Leadership, which are terrible stats because they’re all kind of the same thing. [Laughs] There’s no clear delineation between them. That was an edict, and had to be that."

Another example would be how Warcry was clearly designed to be Necromunda for AoS and then retooled to be Kill Team for AoS. I wouldn't be surprised if the art for the Cursed City board tiles was originally made with the idea that rooms could be either night or day, but then that mechanic never made it into the final rules.

No warcry isn't clearly designed to be Necromunda ( or mordheim ). GW game design philosophy does not involve heavily customizable fighters, which make thing complicated and time consuming for their intended consumers. And this practice bring them huge success.

The only "clearly Necromunda" GW made in recent year is Shadow War Armageddon.

I think a day/night cycle is a really cool mechanic for a game like this. Hopefully there's a bit more flavour and depth to the changes than just what we're seeing on the bats. I'm fine with a lot of things merely becoming a bit more powerful but it's an interesting design space to explore so fingers crossed for some truly horrific stuff to happen after dark.

PiñaColada wrote:
I think a day/night cycle is a really cool mechanic for a game like this. Hopefully there's a bit more flavour and depth to the changes than just what we're seeing on the bats. I'm fine with a lot of things merely becoming a bit more powerful but it's an interesting design space to explore so fingers crossed for some truly horrific stuff to happen after dark.

Mechanic from Darkest Dungeon. When the place gets darker the loot becomes more valuable.

Chopstick wrote:
No warcry isn't clearly designed to be Necromunda ( or mordheim ).

Small bands of warriors fight amongst each other for power and glory in a specific named location of the larger game universe. The warbands are independent, themed groups of low-tier fighters—mostly different human subfactions. The models are new designs (not troops from existing armies) that let GW flesh out parts of the game universe previously only hinted at. The games are skirmish battles fought using a handle of models per side, potentially a part of a campaign, on boards that either have terrain that emphasizes verticality or are in a closed dungeon-like space.

Now, am I talking about Warcry or Necromunda?

Both, obvi!

 NephMakes wrote:

Chopstick wrote:
No warcry isn't clearly designed to be Necromunda ( or mordheim ).

Small bands of warriors fight amongst each other for power and glory in a specific named location of the larger game universe. The warbands are independent, themed groups of low-tier fighters—mostly different human subfactions. The models are new designs (not troops from existing armies) that let GW flesh out parts of the game universe previously only hinted at. The games are skirmish battles fought using a handle of models per side, potentially a part of a campaign, on boards that either have terrain that emphasizes verticality or are in a closed dungeon-like space.

Now, am I talking about Warcry or Necromunda?

Congrats, you're so non-specific you've basically just described any and all skirmish games ever made.

Sorry, got this confused with a necromunda thread.

Ignore.

 NephMakes wrote:
For example: "Necromunda characters have got Intelligence, Willpower, Cool, and Leadership, which are terrible stats because they’re all kind of the same thing. [Laughs] There’s no clear delineation between them. That was an edict, and had to be that."

I disagree with him. Those stats were consolidated into "Leadership" from 2nd Ed onwards, meaning that you had everything from psychic might, being calm under fire, and how smart you were coming under a single generic figure. There's a very distinct difference between all four of those abilities, and the fact that they increased granularity to make them part of the game is a good thing.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 NephMakes wrote:
For example: "Necromunda characters have got Intelligence, Willpower, Cool, and Leadership, which are terrible stats because they’re all kind of the same thing. [Laughs] There’s no clear delineation between them. That was an edict, and had to be that."

I disagree with him. Those stats were consolidated into "Leadership" from 2nd Ed onwards, meaning that you had everything from psychic might, being calm under fire, and how smart you were coming under a single generic figure. There's a very distinct difference between all four of those abilities, and the fact that they increased granularity to make them part of the game is a good thing.

I agree. I understand why they merged them in 40k, but they absolutely make sense in Necromunda.

 NephMakes wrote:

Chopstick wrote:
No warcry isn't clearly designed to be Necromunda ( or mordheim ).

Small bands of warriors fight amongst each other for power and glory in a specific named location of the larger game universe. The warbands are independent, themed groups of low-tier fighters—mostly different human subfactions. The models are new designs (not troops from existing armies) that let GW flesh out parts of the game universe previously only hinted at. The games are skirmish battles fought using a handle of models per side, potentially a part of a campaign, on boards that either have terrain that emphasizes verticality or are in a closed dungeon-like space.

Now, am I talking about Warcry or Necromunda?

Underworlds, right?

So, I've managed to score a pre-order through a FLGS (and only just, more people wanted this than I thought, price be damned I suppose) but the amount of plastic in the box is both a blessing and a curse. It's certainly daunting but if I wanted to have a get together with friends and play like 2/3 rounds of this game in a month or two, how many models do y'all assume I'll have to get done in that time (guesstimating from BSF best as possible)?

Is it like:
4 Heroes (maybe a backup if someone dies?)
5 skellies (or would you need all 10?)
5 zombies (or would you need all 10?)
Those swarm bases (bats, rats etc)
Maybe a couple of objective markers
And one of the underbosses

Does the above seem like a realistic outlook of the amount of work to be done?

From my experience with playing BSF before lockdown one hero each should suffice for the start, but henchmen were important. Most of the time I used nearly all guardsmen. I would expect zombies and skellies to appear quite frequent in the beginning, but that's just guesswork. Maybe do the henchmen in a quick scheme and add details later on, if you don't want to paint with grey models. Or use the "they are all ghosts method" and spray white, shade green, drybrush grey-white

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 NephMakes wrote:
For example: "Necromunda characters have got Intelligence, Willpower, Cool, and Leadership, which are terrible stats because they’re all kind of the same thing. [Laughs] There’s no clear delineation between them. That was an edict, and had to be that."

I disagree with him. Those stats were consolidated into "Leadership" from 2nd Ed onwards, meaning that you had everything from psychic might, being calm under fire, and how smart you were coming under a single generic figure. There's a very distinct difference between all four of those abilities, and the fact that they increased granularity to make them part of the game is a good thing.

This. They existed in Rogue Trader of course, and at the small scale those games were played at, they really mattered.

Squats for example were good across those stats. They were difficult to break, resistant to certain psychic powers, difficult to suppress etc.

They seem to have been rolled into the single Ld stat because as the game progressed, the level of stat granularity wasn’t matched by the rules. 2nd Ed was of course a grand streamlining (well....at first.) and 3rd Ed onwards even more so.

But Necromunda is closer to RT’s scale of battle. And when you’re playing with a relative handful, granularity doesn’t clog the engine of the game.

PiñaColada wrote:

Is it like:
4 Heroes (maybe a backup if someone dies?)
5 skellies (or would you need all 10?)
5 zombies (or would you need all 10?)
Those swarm bases (bats, rats etc)
Maybe a couple of objective markers
And one of the underbosses

Does the above seem like a realistic outlook of the amount of work to be done?

Scenario usually doesn't start with all of the models, but between turn more arrived as reinforcement. In BSF If you have extra models you can have more than what provided in the box.

Heroes also can die between game, so you'll need more than 4 to replace fallen one, until they're revived. In silver tower there're also "wandering heroes" who is a random extra hero arrived to help for 1 encounter.

Well, it certainly sounds like I've got my work cut out for me. I just don't want to realise midgame that I need to put a grey plastic model on the board among all the other, painted ones.

Was there an easy way to figure out what you'd need model-wise for every scenario or did you need to flip through the book and every possible encounter card and tally it up?

PiñaColada wrote:
Well, it certainly sounds like I've got my work cut out for me. I just don't want to realise midgame that I need to put a grey plastic model on the board among all the other, painted ones.

Was there an easy way to figure out what you'd need model-wise for every scenario or did you need to flip through the book and every possible encounter card and ta
lly it up?

BSF has a set range of "starting" hostiles, so in your first expedition, you will encounter a mixture of guardsmen, spindle drones and ur-ghuls, but you won't see any of the scarier stuff like Chaos Marines or Beastmen.

At the end of an expedition, the heroes to back to base to heal up and buy better kit for the next expedition. At the same time, a countdown card is drawn for the fortress. This either is blank, or contains a new type of hostile which can now appear in the random encounters in the next expedition.

As such, at the start of the campaign, you know exactly which hostiles need painting up. You then add a maximum of one set of hostiles per expedition.

By the time you have acquired enough clues and upgrades to take on the strongholds, you should probably have all the hostiles painted up. Fortresses are selected randomly, but you'll still know all the middle you will need before you play the game.

Cursed City may do it differently of course, but it appears to be following the BSF model very closely otherwise. Substitute "rats" for "guardsmen" and it should be clear which models are the priority to paint first.

PiñaColada wrote:
Well, it certainly sounds like I've got my work cut out for me. I just don't want to realise midgame that I need to put a grey plastic model on the board among all the other, painted ones.

Was there an easy way to figure out what you'd need model-wise for every scenario or did you need to flip through the book and every possible encounter card and tally it up?

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2021/03/29/outrun-a-horrifying-tide-of-pure-death-magic-in-cursed-citys-journeys/


You meed all models for every scenario,...like hmmm too obvious?

Or just focus on 1 or 2 type of "journey"

These crises sound cool.
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2021/04/01/will-you-eat-the-muddy-egg-discover-the-impossible-dilemmas-of-cursed-city/?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Twitter&utm_campaign=CursedCityCrises1Apr21&utm_content=CursedCityCrises1Apr21

I don't know, they sounds pretty dumb to me, and I'm sure the results are completely arbitrary. I'm not sure why the adventurers would intervene in any of those situations. It doesn't really make any sense.

 Albino Squirrel wrote:
I don't know, they sounds pretty dumb to me, and I'm sure the results are completely arbitrary. I'm not sure why the adventurers would intervene in any of those situations. It doesn't really make any sense.

The first two are 'do you let someone be murdered?' the third is 'do you eat food?' and the last is 'do you destroy or loot the graven image of the supreme lord of the undead?'
I have NO idea why you think adventurers would be indifferent to any of those situations. Or for the first two, any kind of decent person.

The crises feel a bit like the random story elements that show up, and demand a decision, in apps like Six Ages: Ride Like The Wind, or boardgames like Dead of Winter. I think the two big issues with them are always going to be trying to second-guess what the 'right' option is, and, that once you've played them through once, you probably know what that right option is. At least with Six Ages, there's typically 3-4 options, and all of them affectable by your other stats and likely to have repercussions down the line. Harder to do that with a non-digital game.

Nicer to have it, for flavour/immersion reasons, than not have it because it doesn't offer that much gameplay wise, I think. Fun little bit of roleplaying I think in what's otherwise going to be a fairly dour dice rolling affair. Without knowing what the outcomes are it's hard to criticise anyway.

It looks like a d66 table so there will probably be a good number of these events. I would like to think they will have outcomes that make the decision difficult even if you know what will happen. To take the simplest example of the food. I could see an outcome being roll a d6. On a 2 or more, you can heal a wound but on a 1, the food is spoiled and you suffer a critical wound. Even when you know the outcome it is a difficult choice. They are little narrative Easter eggs that add an extra dimension to the game.

Imagine a scenario where night is closing in. You just barely made it through your last fight with a single wound left. Then the food cart crisis pops up. Your character gets taken out not due to an epic fight with a vampire but because you are a rotten egg. People are falling themselves to gak on this game before they have played because it's not Gloomhaven.

It all sounds fun to me. I'm going to have a good time playing this with my family just as I did with Silver Tower.

 Ian Sturrock wrote:
I think the two big issues with them are always going to be trying to second-guess what the 'right' option is, and, that once you've played them through once, you probably know what that right option is.

Replayability does seem like an issue with these. Another way to do it could be like the events in the Total Warhammer video game. They give you several potential outcomes, each with pros and cons, then let you choose. You're still making meaningful hard choices, and they're not spoiled after you've seen them once.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Chikout wrote:
I would like to think they will have outcomes that make the decision difficult even if you know what will happen.

That would be ideal, but the WarCom article makes it sound like it doesn't work that way:

Obviously, we can’t show you the outcome of your choices, as that would spoil the surprise when you come to play Warhammer Quest: Cursed City. However, we can say that you’ll be handsomely rewarded for making the right decisions but horribly penalised for getting it wrong