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.

I am amazed at how on the ball the communty team is, today's article reveals exactly what was spoiled in today's leak.

Elbows wrote: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.

That was not my intention, but it is an interesting correlation. Most campaign systems campaign fall apart utterly under the strain of accommodating casual players. Warcry's is written in such a way to make that a virtual impossibility. Anyone with a modicum of any campaign experience will be highly familiar with the struggle to maintain said campaign due to the requirement that all players, well, actually play. Any campaign system that does not hinge on 100% commitment from its' players already has a step up from every other campaign system. So, yes, I find the criticism that is leveled against a campaign system such as this is mostly likely coming from a place of inexperience.

lord_blackfang wrote: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!

It is remarkable in that so many other systems promise this but utterly fail in their execution due to the greatest variable of all, the players. Warcry makes it so that the dude who can only play once every couple of weeks can have an equally enjoyable time as the fella who plays three games in a row, every other day. I have yet to encounter any advancement-based campaign system that makes this possible without removing all granularity.


There seems to be a torrent of criticism against this campaign system but I do not see why. Can anyone provide clear examples of how it is bad or unplayable?

 lord_blackfang wrote:
I am amazed at how on the ball the communty team is, today's article reveals exactly what was spoiled in today's leak.

Lol where do you think the leaks come from

Obispudkenobi wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
I am amazed at how on the ball the communty team is, today's article reveals exactly what was spoiled in today's leak.

Lol where do you think the leaks come from

some leaks yes but I doubt they leaked the book and reviewers have apparently received their copies so it's out there, I'm more surprised it hasn't been pulled yet.

Obispudkenobi wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
I am amazed at how on the ball the communty team is, today's article reveals exactly what was spoiled in today's leak.

Lol where do you think the leaks come from

At this stage only a few weeks from release it could be anyone. Stock is likely already heading out toward distributors and packing and warehouses etc... Ergo its stuff heading out there into the wild and thus more leaks and such are going to happen as the circle aware and with access grows.
Of course they could also be seeding their own leaks as well, its not a bad idea since it does help satiate that "leak" desire people have for sneaky info and also means that they retain control over it.

On the whole, I really like what I've seen thus far - and am in for... almost everything. I do wish there had been a slight in the melee to really hammer home the importance of engaging, disengaging, tactics involed, etc, and that there were a few more ranged weapons. Here's hoping there will be rules for traps and special scenic pieces.

Next week is going to be pricey, but I quite like the campaign system they have. Not quite necromunda level, ut certainly far FAR more appealing than the current Skirmish ruleset.

Leaks are almost always sanctioned by the parent company, attaching the word leak makes it go viral.and let's face it ,the timing is perfect and it shuts out stuff about pricing hikes etc.

Stock shortages will be next too

Could anyone summarize generally how to build your warband for this game - does each type of model in a faction have an individual point cost and can be mixed and matched, or are all warbands of the same faction identical, etc?

Thanks for the earlier clarification on the grot box, too!

Point costs are on the cards, which have fixed weapons

The iron golems article mentions mixing it up specifically -multiple ogres or several of the whip types (iirc).

Though it does suggest you'll need another box to do it.

Ah that's just excellent, thanks

 judgedoug wrote:

Elbows wrote: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.

That was not my intention, but it is an interesting correlation. Most campaign systems campaign fall apart utterly under the strain of accommodating casual players. Warcry's is written in such a way to make that a virtual impossibility. Anyone with a modicum of any campaign experience will be highly familiar with the struggle to maintain said campaign due to the requirement that all players, well, actually play. Any campaign system that does not hinge on 100% commitment from its' players already has a step up from every other campaign system. So, yes, I find the criticism that is leveled against a campaign system such as this is mostly likely coming from a place of inexperience.

lord_blackfang wrote: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!

It is remarkable in that so many other systems promise this but utterly fail in their execution due to the greatest variable of all, the players. Warcry makes it so that the dude who can only play once every couple of weeks can have an equally enjoyable time as the fella who plays three games in a row, every other day. I have yet to encounter any advancement-based campaign system that makes this possible without removing all granularity.


There seems to be a torrent of criticism against this campaign system but I do not see why. Can anyone provide clear examples of how it is bad or unplayable?

As someone who played a boatload of Mordheim campaigns back when I was younger and was able to do such a thing, I 100% agree with Judgedoug. Running a campaign is hard, because most adults have a lot going on in their time and very often have something more pressing going on then playing a game. A lot of campaigns would fall apart because 6-8 people would sign up, 2 of which would only play the first week, 1's warband would fall behind and stop showing up, 1 would get a new job and not be available at that time, and next thing you know you have 2-3 players, warbands become stagnant, match-ups become stagnant and the campaign just kind of stumbles to a close.

The Warcry system may not be perfect to me, but it will be absolutely fantastic for allowing people to play whenever they want and still have a good experience. You also won't have to worry about a newbie playing against someone who's warband has 15 stat and skill advances on each guy and having horridly lopsided games. I know for myself, as someone who works in a very busy hospital in a pretty critical roll (and as such has a terribly unreliable schedule), I love that I will be able to participate in Warcry campaigns and not ruin other people's experiences. For the last few years I haven't been able to sign up for any sort of campaign games because my schedule is unpredictable and I don't want to derail other people's gaming.

 Sabotage! wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:


It is remarkable in that so many other systems promise this but utterly fail in their execution due to the greatest variable of all, the players. Warcry makes it so that the dude who can only play once every couple of weeks can have an equally enjoyable time as the fella who plays three games in a row, every other day. I have yet to encounter any advancement-based campaign system that makes this possible without removing all granularity.


There seems to be a torrent of criticism against this campaign system but I do not see why. Can anyone provide clear examples of how it is bad or unplayable?

As someone who played a boatload of Mordheim campaigns back when I was younger and was able to do such a thing, I 100% agree with Judgedoug. Running a campaign is hard, because most adults have a lot going on in their time and very often have something more pressing going on then playing a game. A lot of campaigns would fall apart because 6-8 people would sign up, 2 of which would only play the first week, 1's warband would fall behind and stop showing up, 1 would get a new job and not be available at that time, and next thing you know you have 2-3 players, warbands become stagnant, match-ups become stagnant and the campaign just kind of stumbles to a close.

The Warcry system may not be perfect to me, but it will be absolutely fantastic for allowing people to play whenever they want and still have a good experience. You also won't have to worry about a newbie playing against someone who's warband has 15 stat and skill advances on each guy and having horridly lopsided games. I know for myself, as someone who works in a very busy hospital in a pretty critical roll (and as such has a terribly unreliable schedule), I love that I will be able to participate in Warcry campaigns and not ruin other people's experiences. For the last few years I haven't been able to sign up for any sort of campaign games because my schedule is unpredictable and I don't want to derail other people's gaming.

You could already play any campaign system whenever you had time with whomever showed up. War Cry does not solve the problem of players dropping out. The one "innovation" is that nobody will fall behind because there is virtually no advancement. Which is then the same as just playing a series of pick up games. So yeah, it's fancy packaging with no content.

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

Takes the best parts of Mordheim [...]

Massive variability based on pages and pages of different outcomes, in terms of both injuries and crazy magical items? It's not as lacklustre as I thought it might be, but I still don't see a huge amount of replayability, unless playing with a very different warband in consecutive campaigns. And as just posted above, if advancements and growth have limited meaning, the campaign doesn't add much more than just a series of balanced xxxxpts games, which anyone can always play with a made-up narrative to give them meaning.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Sabotage! wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:


It is remarkable in that so many other systems promise this but utterly fail in their execution due to the greatest variable of all, the players. Warcry makes it so that the dude who can only play once every couple of weeks can have an equally enjoyable time as the fella who plays three games in a row, every other day. I have yet to encounter any advancement-based campaign system that makes this possible without removing all granularity.


There seems to be a torrent of criticism against this campaign system but I do not see why. Can anyone provide clear examples of how it is bad or unplayable?

As someone who played a boatload of Mordheim campaigns back when I was younger and was able to do such a thing, I 100% agree with Judgedoug. Running a campaign is hard, because most adults have a lot going on in their time and very often have something more pressing going on then playing a game. A lot of campaigns would fall apart because 6-8 people would sign up, 2 of which would only play the first week, 1's warband would fall behind and stop showing up, 1 would get a new job and not be available at that time, and next thing you know you have 2-3 players, warbands become stagnant, match-ups become stagnant and the campaign just kind of stumbles to a close.

The Warcry system may not be perfect to me, but it will be absolutely fantastic for allowing people to play whenever they want and still have a good experience. You also won't have to worry about a newbie playing against someone who's warband has 15 stat and skill advances on each guy and having horridly lopsided games. I know for myself, as someone who works in a very busy hospital in a pretty critical roll (and as such has a terribly unreliable schedule), I love that I will be able to participate in Warcry campaigns and not ruin other people's experiences. For the last few years I haven't been able to sign up for any sort of campaign games because my schedule is unpredictable and I don't want to derail other people's gaming.

You could already play any campaign system whenever you had time with whomever showed up. War Cry does not solve the problem of players dropping out. The one "innovation" is that nobody will fall behind because there is virtually no advancement. Which is then the same as just playing a series of pick up games. So yeah, it's fancy packaging with no content.

In theory yes, in practice playing that way is a mess (trust me I have done it). Not having players fall behind makes a huge difference in the fun of the campaign. Instead of having to play against the person who has gotten every advancement and is near unstoppable, or the guy who has three models left, all of which are severely maimed, you get to play against relatively balanced groups. This means instead of the having a group that needs 8 dedicated players you can host "Warcry Tuesdays" or whatever and make it free to anyone. Someone that's in town for the week on business can stop in and play a game, the guy who normally works Tuesdays but had it off for whatever reasons can play, the person who just bought their warband last night. And they can all play, and feel like they are playing a on a relatively even playing field. You don't have to rely on the same people being able to make it every week.

Having played in BB leagues before, you certainly wouldn't want to join a BB league in week 12. Warcry league in week 12? Sure, no problem.

Also, for all this talk of "everybody plays their own solo campaign" it sure is weird that you have to then beg/bribe/bully an opponent into playing your specific narrative scanario to progress in the campaign. And means that two players who are both in the same stage of their campaigns can't both progress if they play each other. Which goes directly against this overarching premise of playing whomever whenever.

 Sabotage! wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Sabotage! wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:


It is remarkable in that so many other systems promise this but utterly fail in their execution due to the greatest variable of all, the players. Warcry makes it so that the dude who can only play once every couple of weeks can have an equally enjoyable time as the fella who plays three games in a row, every other day. I have yet to encounter any advancement-based campaign system that makes this possible without removing all granularity.


There seems to be a torrent of criticism against this campaign system but I do not see why. Can anyone provide clear examples of how it is bad or unplayable?

As someone who played a boatload of Mordheim campaigns back when I was younger and was able to do such a thing, I 100% agree with Judgedoug. Running a campaign is hard, because most adults have a lot going on in their time and very often have something more pressing going on then playing a game. A lot of campaigns would fall apart because 6-8 people would sign up, 2 of which would only play the first week, 1's warband would fall behind and stop showing up, 1 would get a new job and not be available at that time, and next thing you know you have 2-3 players, warbands become stagnant, match-ups become stagnant and the campaign just kind of stumbles to a close.

The Warcry system may not be perfect to me, but it will be absolutely fantastic for allowing people to play whenever they want and still have a good experience. You also won't have to worry about a newbie playing against someone who's warband has 15 stat and skill advances on each guy and having horridly lopsided games. I know for myself, as someone who works in a very busy hospital in a pretty critical roll (and as such has a terribly unreliable schedule), I love that I will be able to participate in Warcry campaigns and not ruin other people's experiences. For the last few years I haven't been able to sign up for any sort of campaign games because my schedule is unpredictable and I don't want to derail other people's gaming.

You could already play any campaign system whenever you had time with whomever showed up. War Cry does not solve the problem of players dropping out. The one "innovation" is that nobody will fall behind because there is virtually no advancement. Which is then the same as just playing a series of pick up games. So yeah, it's fancy packaging with no content.

In theory yes, in practice playing that way is a mess (trust me I have done it). Not having players fall behind makes a huge difference in the fun of the campaign. Instead of having to play against the person who has gotten every advancement and is near unstoppable, or the guy who has three models left, all of which are severely maimed, you get to play against relatively balanced groups. This means instead of the having a group that needs 8 dedicated players you can host "Warcry Tuesdays" or whatever and make it free to anyone. Someone that's in town for the week on business can stop in and play a game, the guy who normally works Tuesdays but had it off for whatever reasons can play, the person who just bought their warband last night. And they can all play, and feel like they are playing a on a relatively even playing field. You don't have to rely on the same people being able to make it every week.

Having played in BB leagues before, you certainly wouldn't want to join a BB league in week 12. Warcry league in week 12? Sure, no problem.

Another point is that Necromunda and the like try to get around the balance issue by having one person "DM" the game. Ergo manage and control it. So a lto of the experience relies upon them. Do they play favourites in the group; are they any good at it all; do they turn up regularly; what happens on that week where they are off sick and don't turn up.
By removing even the need for a single person controlling the unity of a player team it further frees things up. Of course there will be limitations and aspect which differ, this new campaign method isn't looking to replace, but to compliment; acting as another mode of play that's ideal for pick-up games whilst at the same time giving some sense of advance game to game. It will likely really encourage people to keep playing way more so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Also, for all this talk of "everybody plays their own solo campaign" it sure is weird that you have to then beg/bribe/bully an opponent into playing your specific narrative scanario to progress in the campaign. And means that two players who are both in the same stage of their campaigns can't both progress if they play each other. Which goes directly against this overarching premise of playing whomever whenever.

Or because the game is a lot faster you play both games in one evening.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Also, for all this talk of "everybody plays their own solo campaign" it sure is weird that you have to then beg/bribe/bully an opponent into playing your specific narrative scanario to progress in the campaign. And means that two players who are both in the same stage of their campaigns can't both progress if they play each other. Which goes directly against this overarching premise of playing whomever whenever.

I will agree about this point, it is odd that two players won't be able to play their convergences at the same time. I suppose this way it makes the missions more unique, but on the other hand it is weird to play a mission focused mainly on one warband. I don't imagine their will have to be lots of beg/bribe/bullying though. Pretty much everyone I have played games with regularly it would simply be a kind of agreement "when someone's convergence comes up, play them, and then they will play yours when it comes up."

 judgedoug wrote:

There seems to be a torrent of criticism against this campaign system but I do not see why. Can anyone provide clear examples of how it is bad or unplayable?

It's playable, but I feel it lacks the sense of danger. Everything is made so that if you lose or have someone dieing in your warband, it's no big deal - you can replace your losses as you want, the number of fighters on your roster can always be full. It's the same system in Kill Team. Players have indeed full freedom to have their own campaign for their warband, but it feels like the games themselves don't matter. The player can forge his narrative however he sees it fit.

I guess that's the spirit behind that campaign system and, indeed, for people who want to write their own story, it can be fine. But here, it's like no matter what your fighters will do personnally, they won't really be rewarded/punished for it. They don't lose an arm, an eye or a leg, they won't be crippled by their savages battles. Sure, a grunt may die or lose a destiny level, but if he dies another will replace him at no cost and a destiny level can never be negative, so...he can get it back later anyway. Oh, and your leader will never die no matter what.

In Mordheim, there was this sense of danger. You could fear for your warriors - and not just for their life, because a crippled warrior could make a marksman become nearly useless. They could also gain abilities and new skills as well as getting indeed stronger by gaining experience with some actions instead of just having artifacts or rerolls no matter what they did during the game. Players can be more "relaxed" when playing Warcry, sure, but that sense of danger is partly why Mordheim is still remembered fondly after all these years I think. With Warcry, with what I have read so far, I don't think I will feel the same thing. It's something more like I'll enjoy on the moment but I don't see this particular system thrives years after.

 Overread wrote:


Or because the game is a lot faster you play both games in one evening.

That's not a convincing counterargument to actual rules design being directly contrary to their declared design goals. More like bending over backwards making excuses for GW.

If the game plays quickly why isn't it okay to play two games if both players want to get a convergence thing done? I get you see yourself as standing on principle, but if it works in actual play then isn't that enough? Isn't that really the only thing that matters? How can it be an excuse for GW if it actually works?

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Overread wrote:


Or because the game is a lot faster you play both games in one evening.

That's not a convincing counterargument to actual rules design being directly contrary to their declared design goals. More like bending over backwards making excuses for GW.

It's a counter argument if you're looking to play the open campaign system. If you want to play a more strict system with more risk and reward and more dynamic changes then there's the regular campaign system you can use instead. There's both choices for both kinds of player and heck you might even run two warbands at once in different campaigns. One your "open campaign" band for when you just want an ad-hock game or if half the regular aren't turning up on one night; and a campaign team set aside for a dedicated formal campaign.

Thanks for the leaked rulebook - enjoyed the few bits of lore it had.

I do really like some of the models - likely stick to buying them.

Campaigns are really difficult to admin - agreed - in fact the most successful/enjoyable one I ran had only one player so it was more a series of narrative scenarios.

Will keep getting my campaign kicks from Mordheim online

Hopefully we see a greater selection of units from each non-chaos faction. I am having tons of fun playing the skirmish version of fantasy from One Page Rules. The gameplay is quick and simple (on purpose) but each faction can take figures from nearly every type of troop unit in Age of Sigmar.

Same thing with Hinterlands and the expanded unit lists for AoS skirmish. A Stormcast force could have everything from Retributors to Liberators to Prosecutors in one warband (even though Stormcast ended up being the smallest warband type, for good reasons).

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Hopefully we see a greater selection of units from each non-chaos faction. I am having tons of fun playing the skirmish version of fantasy from One Page Rules. The gameplay is quick and simple (on purpose) but each faction can take figures from nearly every type of troop unit in Age of Sigmar.

Yeah the launch "variety" or lack of seems pretty pitiful for the non-chaos factions

I don't think anyone here said anything (at all) about the campaign being unplayable. Not sure where you're reading that. What we did say is that it looks boring/shallow/uninteresting. That has nothing to do with the playability aspect.

It will add no character or interest to your warband going forward. It looks to give you pretty much nothing of interest to even talk about. Mechanically? Sure, it's fine. But mechanically sound games which don't promote actual interest and excitement don't help with the game's longevity. I read that campaign section and thought "eh...boring.".

To some of us, that's an actual concern. Heck, if anything games like Mordheim were the opposite: thoroughly interesting and mechanically poor. Mordheim had no less than 800+ pages of printed support materials over its lifetime. You could play that game forever (and plenty of people still do - myself included when I feel like it). I can put up with the mediocre basic rules, tweak a few and enjoy the "cinema" provided by the campaign and all of the additional options added to the game.

However, that old "passion before profit" kind of stuff from the 90's is dead now. It wasn't great business, and thus is no longer a consideration, but it's why people play WHQ, Mordheim, original Necromunda 20+ years later - even when more modern/streamlined options exist. I don't imagine anyone will be running a die-hard forum for Warcry in 20 years time. So, I'm sorry if the game isn't interesting enough for some of us - that's our opinion. You can enjoy the hell out of your own Warcry experience.

Sotahullu wrote:
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.

Variety is the spice of life though. As a person that has played pretty good amount of Kill Team, I can tell you if you strip the aesthetics of the Warcry starter and a similar amount of Sector Imperialis the play patterns are going to strikingly similar. It is part of the reason I am hemming and hawing over getting this is the idea I might not actually play Warcry (I don't know if there will be a group). I already have the Kill Team starter which does function as basically the same battlefield the Warcry's terrain. Warcry is just a little too expensive for me to have a different looking but mostly the same play pattern terrain.

A while back someone posted (I can remember who, where or when) that the Deathword Killzone was getting the most in his group simply because it offer different terrain challenges. I have actually noticed the same last weekend with my Kill Team group where I setup one board with Kill Team starter stuff and the other as a woodland area. Players actually preferred the woodland one. Eventually, I will ask if someone in the group wants make use of the special death world rules which crank the random bad stuff for a just a chaotic misadventure of two forces trying to kill each other.

I do agree with you to a point though. I am certainly glad the Mausoleum set isn't the starter as it would be rather boring as the example board set I think any starter box implies. But as a second alternate board, I think it could work pretty well. Honestly, I would probably pick it for use in Kill Team if it included the full terrain set and the board was essentially free. It would give me a different kind of 1 level board as well as a good snow board that I could make use of all of my winter/Battle of the Bulge terrain.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Hopefully we see a greater selection of units from each non-chaos faction. I am having tons of fun playing the skirmish version of fantasy from One Page Rules. The gameplay is quick and simple (on purpose) but each faction can take figures from nearly every type of troop unit in Age of Sigmar.

Yeah the launch "variety" or lack of seems pretty pitiful for the non-chaos factions

It doesn’t look far off the Chaos factions, honestly. The one Savage Orc kit can make 7-8 different troop types (bow, spear, hand weapon, 2 hand weapons, leader, musician, standard bearer, big spear thing). That’s about what the Iron Golems have.

That's why I thought that something like Liberators would have at least made the cut for Stormcast, with all the arming options the kit comes with.

But I also don't care for games like Kill Team which are tied so heavily to a player buying one unit box and making their force from it. Great for boxes like Genestealer Cults, not so much for others.

 AegisGrimm wrote:

That's why I thought that something like Liberators would have at least made the cut for Stormcast, with all the arming options the kit comes with.

But I also don't care for games like Kill Team which are tied so heavily to a player buying one unit box and making their force from it. Great for boxes like Genestealer Cults, not so much for others.

Would your prefer the player had to buy multiple boxes units to build their force instead for a skirmish game? I don't quite follow what you are saying there.

Are you lamenting the lack of options? Because while there are a fair number of factions that only a few datasheets of which some have only a few load out options others having a bunch despite the lack of data sheets. Elites greatly expanded the number of options for most factions too. If that is the case, just play Space Marines, Imperial Guard, Genestealer Cults, Orks, Tyranids or one of the factions that does have a bunch of options to pick from and stay away from Harlequins. Kill Team has both with several factions having tons of options and other having like six total options.

I would much rather the game's scope, and balance too, be maintained rather than just add options that really aren't going to do much save be different for difference sake, or for the power gaming minded, create a lot of white noise of false options.

One thing I hadn't considered about not having army lists in the corebook and instead having stat cards in with the Warbands, is it would be very easy for GW to expand factions. If they wanted to expand Iron Golems for example they could simply release a kit with a few models in it and some new cards without invalidating any army list.