Tabletop_Magpie wrote: I can get hold of Sundered Fate and Crypt of Blood still here in the UK - are either of those worth it? I like at least one faction in each, but haven't played WarCry since hammering it for 6 months after it was first launched.
If you liked original Warcry gameplay, I'm sure you'll like version 1.1 that just has some quality of life changes and reactions added, IIRC. Sundered Fate is the better of the two for content, the other one is very bare bones for terrain.
Bummed if they do move away from the big boxes. The lower pricepoint isn't all that much lower. I know a lot of people didn't care for the terrain being included in the box - those people were foolish and it often wasn't hard to find people willing to buy up the extra terrain if al you wanted was the minis.
chaos0xomega wrote: Bummed if they do move away from the big boxes. The lower pricepoint isn't all that much lower. I know a lot of people didn't care for the terrain being included in the box - those people were foolish and it often wasn't hard to find people willing to buy up the extra terrain if al you wanted was the minis.
I am all about terrain but I found this season problematic as all 3 (was it 4?) big boxes had the same two meat trees and only one unique thing each.
Shadow Walker wrote: Remind me please, is there a slot in the current release plan for another Destruction warband? I would love to see some crazy Gloomspite force.
Unknown for now, the next 2 are Order and Death, the final 2 announced for next Spring 2024 haven’t been disclosed.
Presumably the order warband is Sylvaneth since they got name dropped in the Loremasters video a month or so previously.
Inquisitor Gideon wrote: It would be a hell of a mistep to have this season set in a murder forest and not have the tree themed faction show up.
If they do have tree people I expect them to look like the meat-trees.
I really like the terrain from the previous season and it's actually the only terrain I have all painted. But I only bought Bloodhunt.
I would still buy Hunter and Hunted if it had terrain because I like both warbands, but I am happy to spent that money buying something else.
Bit disappointed by the split of the terrain/warbands. I love the terrain & warbands, but have very little interest in the rules (outside perhaps one day finding time to read the lore) and no interest in the cards/tokens/gubbinz.
Buying the big 'discounted' set was better for me, as it felt like I was paying for all the plastic, but the paper stuff I have no need for was just 'extras' in the box. But the increased cost is too much for a bunch of stuff I'll never use. It looks to be about €45 more than the big sets were.
I'll probably have to choose between one set or the other. Shame, as I'd only just picked up several of the older big sets and this scatter terrain would finish my new table off nicely. But I don't think I can pass up the new gorgers or the unit of doggos.
This new pricing makes it even easier to just point people to Ebay and recommend last season's boxes.
I just snagged a brand new Sundered Fate for $135US, and any of the boxes can be found for roughly the same. GW asking $120+ for just Hunter/Hunted feels pretty bad by comparison.
If you liked original Warcry gameplay, I'm sure you'll like version 1.1 that just has some quality of life changes and reactions added, IIRC. Sundered Fate is the better of the two for content, the other one is very bare bones for terrain.
Yeah, really looks like the Saturday pre-orders would have been two of last seasons big boxes.
The whole season feels like it because we are still stuck in Ghur.
I wonder if they don't want to leave Ghur after just one year because they still have more stuff that fit the realm, or they are afraid they are gonna run out of realms if they move through them too fast.
Personally I want to see more realms and I would be ok coming back to Ghur after 3-4 years or something even if that means more meat-trees.
I think its more that after focusing on Death for a lot of 2nd edition; GW wanted to focus on Destruction as the main element of 3rd edition. Hence sticking Warcry in Ghur (which is basically the Destruction Realm). I think it got muted a bit because of covid messing around with things here and there.
Kanluwen wrote: I genuinely think that these were intended to be related to a new Season of War styled thing, rather than WarCry.
Not really. They fit the current setting of Warcry's background, which is about finding the Seraphon's ship remains. Bands are getting closer obviously, given the new set of terrain.
Kanluwen wrote: I genuinely think that these were intended to be related to a new Season of War styled thing, rather than WarCry.
Not really. They fit the current setting of Warcry's background, which is about finding the Seraphon's ship remains. Bands are getting closer obviously, given the new set of terrain.
You're certainly welcome to feel that way, but nothing about what I was reading from the books for the season made me think of Fyreslayers, Kruleboyz, or Gorgers--and Wildercorps weren't even close to being revealed yet.
The Fyreslayers and Kruleboyz feel like they were intended for an Aqshy expansion that was to happen alongside of the Dawnbringers series. The Gorgers and Wildercorps feel like they were intended for Ghyran.
The only thing that ties these warbands into the Gnarlwood setting is them releasing along with terrain for Gnarlwood.
Kanluwen wrote: I genuinely think that these were intended to be related to a new Season of War styled thing, rather than WarCry.
Not really. They fit the current setting of Warcry's background, which is about finding the Seraphon's ship remains. Bands are getting closer obviously, given the new set of terrain.
You're certainly welcome to feel that way, but nothing about what I was reading from the books for the season made me think of Fyreslayers, Kruleboyz, or Gorgers--and Wildercorps weren't even close to being revealed yet.
The Fyreslayers and Kruleboyz feel like they were intended for an Aqshy expansion that was to happen alongside of the Dawnbringers series. The Gorgers and Wildercorps feel like they were intended for Ghyran.
The only thing that ties these warbands into the Gnarlwood setting is them releasing along with terrain for Gnarlwood.
Fyreslayers and Kruleboyz are all about monster (egg) hunting, for different reasons (one for taming, the other for trophies). Where to find monster (and big monster eggs) better than in Ghur. Gorgers are litterally screaming "Ghur" from their very own existence (starving ogors who regressed to little more than beasts, anyone ?), and Wildercorps...if the name isn't a hint enough, the "hunter" and "dog" parts should be.
All of them are pretty much "Ghur" - the Beast / Monster Realm - themed from the very beginning.
Can they fit in other realms depending on your personnal vision ? Of course. But these are Warcry warbands perfectly fit to its current setting. It's all about being wild in Ghur.
In the books, they were hinted in the map with different faction symbols. Not litterally as such, of course, but they have their place there.
Kanluwen wrote: I genuinely think that these were intended to be related to a new Season of War styled thing, rather than WarCry.
Not really. They fit the current setting of Warcry's background, which is about finding the Seraphon's ship remains. Bands are getting closer obviously, given the new set of terrain.
You're certainly welcome to feel that way, but nothing about what I was reading from the books for the season made me think of Fyreslayers, Kruleboyz, or Gorgers--and Wildercorps weren't even close to being revealed yet.
The Fyreslayers and Kruleboyz feel like they were intended for an Aqshy expansion that was to happen alongside of the Dawnbringers series. The Gorgers and Wildercorps feel like they were intended for Ghyran.
The only thing that ties these warbands into the Gnarlwood setting is them releasing along with terrain for Gnarlwood.
Fyreslayers and Kruleboyz are all about monster (egg) hunting, for different reasons (one for taming, the other for trophies). Where to find monster (and big monster eggs) better than in Ghur. Gorgers are litterally screaming "Ghur" from their very own existence (starving ogors who regressed to little more than beasts, anyone ?), and Wildercorps...if the name isn't a hint enough, the "hunter" and "dog" parts should be.
All of them are pretty much "Ghur" - the Beast / Monster Realm - themed from the very beginning.
Can they fit in other realms depending on your personnal vision ? Of course. But these are Warcry warbands perfectly fit to its current setting. It's all about being wild in Ghur.
In the books, they were hinted in the map with different faction symbols. Not litterally as such, of course, but they have their place there.
Nothing really ties the warbands specifically to warcry or this season for that matter.
Sure they fit in Ghur but that's mostly because Kruleboyz and Ogors are Destruction warbands and the humans are hunters (I doubt they only hunt in Ghur). They don't have anything on the models or their bases that looks like the terrain we have in warcry. If anything the Kruleboyz have some debris on their bases that does not look like the Seraphon spaceship at all.
Also the bases are another hint that they were not meant as a group. Only the Fyreslayers and Kruleboyz have the same bases but they don't match the other 2 (that are in the same box with different bases...) and they don't much the warcry terrain. Even the Mawpit does not really match the other warcry terrain.
Well yes, they're "Ghur-themed", which is the point. The Warcry's current setting happens in Ghur on purpose, so that's it's synched with AoS's own current setting. It's not a hazard as well that all seasons of this edition happen in Ghur (that's why I believe there won't be a season in 3rd edition out of Ghur, and the change of realm will happen with the next edition).
Also the bases are another hint that they were not meant as a group. Only the Fyreslayers and Kruleboyz have the same bases but they don't match the other 2 (that are in the same box with different bases...) and they don't much the warcry terrain. Even the Mawpit does not really match the other warcry terrain.
Kruleboyz and Fyreslayers bands don't have the same bases. Look more closely at the pictures, and you'll see it (difference between 32mm and 28,5 mm is sometimes thin, but it's there).
And otherwise, the different bases are specifically a Warcry thing. If the bands were only made for AoS, they wouldn't have that many different bases in the same unit. Because in Warcry, that helps to differentiate the various profiles while models are quite similar to each other and it doesn't matter as much as in AoS because they don't move as a single unit but as individuals, so it doesn't mess with the weapon ranges - while in AoS, it's more a hindrance than anything else because they don't have as many profile variants in their rules (and it's definitely in the way of weapon ranges, most of the time...I know that since I play royal beastflayers in my Flesheater Courts army).
Kruleboyz and Fyreslayers bands don't have the same bases. Look more closely at the pictures, and you'll see it (difference between 32mm and 28,5 mm is sometimes thin, but it's there).
And otherwise, the different bases are specifically a Warcry thing. If the bands were only made for AoS, they wouldn't have that many different bases in the same unit. Because in Warcry, that helps to differentiate the various profiles while models are quite similar to each other and it doesn't matter as much as in AoS because they don't move as a single unit but as individuals, so it doesn't mess with the weapon ranges - while in AoS, it's more a hindrance than anything else because they don't have as many profile variants in their rules (and it's definitely in the way of weapon ranges, most of the time...I know that since I play royal beastflayers in my Flesheater Courts army).
My bad for not phrasing it better. I meant they are different in style, and the 4 warbands were not originally meant as a group release for warcry.
All the warbands for the first season have the same style and all the warbands for the second season have the same style even though they were released months apart.
And here we have 4 warbands released in the same day (with 2 of them even in the same box) with 3 different styles.
I might be wrong but I don't think we have a lot of VS boxes with different base styles on the images.
My bad for not phrasing it better. I meant they are different in style, and the 4 warbands were not originally meant as a group release for warcry.
They were definitely designed to be separated in 2 VS boxes, but apparently decided not to do it with Fyreslayers and Kruleboyz (it's clear the "egg hunting" theme was meant so that they were opposed like the other VS boxes before them). The fact their campaign rules will be available directly in a white dwarf rather than a separate book like the others is further proof to me (I guess sales of 1st season weren't meeting their expectations).
But I find it weird you believe they're "different in style" in comparison to 1st season. I mean, the boxes from 1st season weren't exactly the "same style" from one band to another. They just had a "VS theme" in both bands in it. Destruction vs creation (Hashut band that wants to burn it all vs Nurgle that want to build and expand its garden of corruption), rage vs control (Khorne band speaks for itself vs vampires who are all about keeping their outbursts in check), despoilers vs protectors (jade cultists who want to break all remains of civilization and seraphon remains in particular vs skinks who are all about defending their spaceship), delusionnal knights vs actual knights (ghouls vs stormcast). All these bands are Ghur themed (a bit harder for Hashut, but well they worship a bull after all ) but they defintely don't have the same style.
It is the "VS theme" and "Ghur themed" that bands them together. Not a question of "style", because they all have their own specifically that hasn't much in common with the others.
My bad for not phrasing it better. I meant they are different in style, and the 4 warbands were not originally meant as a group release for warcry.
They were definitely designed to be separated in 2 VS boxes, but apparently decided not to do it with Fyreslayers and Kruleboyz (it's clear the "egg hunting" theme was meant so that they were opposed like the other VS boxes before them).
Or they're just trying to release product in advance of a new edition and WarCry happens to be a good spot for it...
The fact their campaign rules will be available directly in a white dwarf rather than a separate book like the others is further proof to me (I guess sales of 1st season weren't meeting their expectations).
Uhhh...
They haven't been releasing the WarCry books individually for most of this season. They haven't released a lot of the stuff outside of the warbands individually this season. It's why we got White Dwarfs with the Vampires & Khorne stuff.
But I find it weird you believe they're "different in style" in comparison to 1st season. I mean, the boxes from 1st season weren't exactly the "same style" from one band to another. They just had a "VS theme" in both bands in it. Destruction vs creation (Hashut band that wants to burn it all vs Nurgle that want to build and expand its garden of corruption), rage vs control (Khorne band speaks for itself vs vampires who are all about keeping their outbursts in check), despoilers vs protectors (jade cultists who want to break all remains of civilization and seraphon remains in particular vs skinks who are all about defending their spaceship), delusionnal knights vs actual knights (ghouls vs stormcast). All these bands are Ghur themed (a bit harder for Hashut, but well they worship a bull after all ) but they defintely don't have the same style.
It is the "VS theme" and "Ghur themed" that bands them together. Not a question of "style", because they all have their own specifically that hasn't much in common with the others.
He was saying to actually look at the style on the bases. The Kruleboyz and Fyreslayers have the same style of basing as stuff that was set in Aqshy/All-Points.
Gnarlwood stuff has had a more natural look to it rather than a blasted wasteland look.
Disqualifying the Mindstealer? Damn, thats some Jabba The Hutt level mindfulness there....
Beasts and Monsters are my favourite part of the hobby and wish GW would offer a more focused bestiary range for both 40K and AoS; not tied to army colour schemes and ideal as random-behaviour hostiles.
They started well with the sphiranx, furies and turkeys. But it's a shame they stalled after that. It's kind of a crime we haven't had some general monsters considering this entire season has been in the realm of beasts.
I love that. Would be a fun centerpiece to an ogor army with a butcher posed up there. Has there been any review of the gorgers? I remember some people complained about the "blind" heads and some of the poses, but the sprue has 8 heads, so I'm curious if there are any options that would satisfy those complaints
I can't zoom in on the sprue pics to really see the other 4 heads in detail; I can just count 8 between the two sprues.
This article has a closeup of all of them. It seems like the Clawback and Cave Howler have single head options with six different options for the other three
Here is a closeup of the 6 heads, the other two are on the Clawback and Cave Howler in the promotional material:
That article has many pictures at every step of building with all different options layed out so I recommend checking it out. Only drawback is its in German but thats what translators are for
I can't zoom in on the sprue pics to really see the other 4 heads in detail; I can just count 8 between the two sprues.
This article has a closeup of all of them. It seems like the Clawback and Cave Howler have single head options with six different options for the other three
Here is a closeup of the 6 heads, the other two are on the Clawback and Cave Howler in the promotional material:
Spoiler:
That article has many pictures at every step of building with all different options layed out so I recommend checking it out. Only drawback is its in German but thats what translators are for
Great article, thanks for sharing. Nice to have so many heads, though the one with an entire skull in it's mouth is a bit weird. I wonder if crypt horror heads would fit on them?
New Cities of Sigmar rules in French only for now just as well the stats are picture/icon only - it's dated 9th November so that's probably when the English version is due.
I can't zoom in on the sprue pics to really see the other 4 heads in detail; I can just count 8 between the two sprues.
This article has a closeup of all of them. It seems like the Clawback and Cave Howler have single head options with six different options for the other three
Here is a closeup of the 6 heads, the other two are on the Clawback and Cave Howler in the promotional material:
Spoiler:
That article has many pictures at every step of building with all different options layed out so I recommend checking it out. Only drawback is its in German but thats what translators are for
Chaos Bunker is a great resource and has a handy feature in the top right of screen to change from German to English text.
980 points for the Black Talons. Neave gets a glow up but I think Hendrick drew the short straw to make them fit points wise he’s a Knight Zephyros after all. The others broadly fit their archetype. Glad to have rules for them.
It's very cool the Blacktalons fit in 1000 points for Warcry. They can also be played in campaign mode and recruit allies to fit higher if needed. It's still an elite band with few warriors, but it's a hard hitting one. Should be interesting to play in special scenarios.
Have to say, I'm 50/50 on the lumineth. But I felt the same about the claws of karanak before I painted them and now I adore them. So it will probably be the same here. Pyregheists are fantastic though. And if the slann head is anywhere near the size of the mawpit, it will be a real pleasure to paint.
I’m similar on the Lumineth, the masked ones are sick, the unmasked ones less so, but they’re still okay and I think they’ll grow on me. I really like the Ghosts too. Seems weird the elves having more models than the undead force, I always think of elves as elite and death as hordy generally.
Inquisitor Gideon wrote: Have to say, I'm 50/50 on the lumineth. But I felt the same about the claws of karanak before I painted them and now I adore them. So it will probably be the same here. Pyregheists are fantastic though. And if the slann head is anywhere near the size of the mawpit, it will be a real pleasure to paint.
The Lumineth warband highlights a major failing on the part of the design teams for WarCry and AoS both:
Not being willing to separate out the constituent components of the warbands into multiple units.
The unmasked, unarmoured Aelfs are supposed to be the "initiates". Lorewise? They haven't bonded with the aelementari temple they've chosen yet(River Temple initiates, per the lore, bind themselves with stones and jump into a river. If they drown? They drown. If they manage to bond, they can start getting air via the river's spirits), so they wouldn't have all of the benefits that the bonding brings yet.
Maybe I'll be wrong and they'll pull another Hunters of Huanchi(the only warband I can think of where they have differentiated between the components when ported over), but I dunno.
Agreed. It's the worst part about the Warcry warbands when they force them into a single unit in AoS. They don't look like a unit. They just look smashed together and it makes no sense.
The Lumineth highlight another area where GW could improve.
The poses are mirrored.
It wouldn't take that much more design time to tweak the poses.
Feels like they hit the mirror button, swapped the uniform/skin, & call it done.
It calls attention to the stiff, lifelessness of CAD designs to me.
I have a hunch that the Lumineth band will look better in person. I feel like the jumpy/leapy miniatures don't always translate well to 2D photography.
Only thing I want out of that box is the terrain piece though. Not like I need it. It figures that they'd start releasing more explicitly Seraphon terrain now that my collection is already more than big enough.
Not a fan of the double spear with the cruciform profile. It's so ugly and also not very useful. At least the alternate weapon build Kusarigama didn't look too bad.
Also suspenders? I swear someday someone gonna replace the weapons in the back with kiddy backpack.
I feel like the Lumineth are a bit overdone, giving so many of them tactical branches to leap off of puts it over the edge for me. The face sculpts also leave me liking the masked ones better.
Pyrehaunt I like more, but I'll need to see those white robed ones in person, their posing seems oddly... incomplete? I get T-pose vibes.
They are short points wise so will need to be filled out with other Order of Azyr fighters - which I believe is just Hexbane's Hunters from White Dwarf 494 for now.
Oof. Big misses all around here for me. I like the three new Dryads, but otherwise this Sylvaneth aesthetic does nothing for me. This would be cool as someone's personal converted army, but I do not need official miniatures like this.
The Bonereapers are such a hodge-podge. The centaur is neat, I guess, and so are the little dogs. But can we PLEASE just get a unit of archers for them already? Just a normal unit of archers?
Both sides and the terrain looks great. Especially the mini morgahsts. Hopefully the dryads are a teaser of a new kit coming and the old junk can get dumped back into old world.
They’re gross but I really like the sylvaneth. I wish more warbands were themed to the setting, like if Underworld warbands actually were themed around Beastgrave. I’m still hoping we get the savage Seraphon Gnarlwood lore teased
If the Ossiarch infantry looked like the two in this warband, I'd get an army of them. But they don't, and likely won't for a decade, so my wallet's safe.
GaroRobe wrote: They’re gross but I really like the sylvaneth. I wish more warbands were themed to the setting, like if Underworld warbands actually were themed around Beastgrave. I’m still hoping we get the savage Seraphon Gnarlwood lore teased
I like them more than a lot of people seem to. As you said, the models have a built-in narrative themed to the setting. Moreso than if they did some kind of tree-dog mini, like some of the other warbands have. And I agree that savage Seraphon would be very cool...
And dang it...another terrain piece I want. It never ends.
Finally, plus the Ruined Spawning Pool terrain differs a bit from the original Scales of Taxalis equivalents with an added covered platform on one and the lower platform removed while the upper platform is extended on the other.
US Prices - GBP and Euro prices based on GW conversions rates - note Warband prices are inconsistent being £35 or £37.50 but the most recent warbands have been at the lower £35 price.
no changes yet but I see they've added $10/£5 to the Killteam Nightmare box ($140/£85) so it's only a matter of time for Warcry
£67 for the Realmshaper? When the original box was like £80? I was thinking of getting that to make a complete arch, but i think i'll skip that idea for now.
Inquisitor Gideon wrote: £67 for the Realmshaper? When the original box was like £80? I was thinking of getting that to make a complete arch, but i think i'll skip that idea for now.
The realmshaper (and trees) was originally in the Nightmare quest box which was the last full sized box costing £110.
The spawning pool set is at least a bit of a discount on buying the idol and pylon separately which are £35 each.
DaveC wrote: Finally, plus the Ruined Spawning Pool terrain differs a bit from the original Scales of Taxalis equivalents with an added covered platform on one and the lower platform removed while the upper platform is extended on the other.
Did anyone pick this up and figure out what the hell was going on with that? Is it a new sprue? That seems a really weird choice.
Gallahad wrote: I miss the old Warcry boxes that sold for a bit more but had substantive amounts of terrain.
I created an awesome full table of the gnarlwood terrain.
they broke it up because if they're releasing these boxes every few months, it quickly becomes too much terrain. they have the big box of terrain that used to come in every box, and then each box has its own distinct piece
for example, i want the unique terrain pieces from the first and last gnarlwood boxes, but to get those i would need to buy the full boxes, and i already have two boxes of trees, so it would just be so much terrain once i had it all built
Gallahad wrote: I miss the old Warcry boxes that sold for a bit more but had substantive amounts of terrain.
I created an awesome full table of the gnarlwood terrain.
they broke it up because if they're releasing these boxes every few months, it quickly becomes too much terrain. they have the big box of terrain that used to come in every box, and then each box has its own distinct piece
for example, i want the unique terrain pieces from the first and last gnarlwood boxes, but to get those i would need to buy the full boxes, and i already have two boxes of trees, so it would just be so much terrain once i had it all built
I think this "They are just trying to save you closet space!" interpretation is very generous to GW and their motives for the change.
I've gone from having duplicate gnarlwood trees, to not having any of the new terrain because I simply stopped buying! At the $110 they are charging you for two bands and a single terrain sprue you have to really like both bands (full price like! not, "yeah that could be cool" like) and then also feel like paying $10 for the terrain.
GW keeps on finding creative ways to suck the happiness out of the system. Thankfully there are tons of great alternatives to get my hobby fix from that don't make me feel like I'm being bent over a barrel.
Not like I need it. It figures that they'd start releasing more explicitly Seraphon terrain now that my collection is already more than big enough.
