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.

 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.

Liberator wouldn't bring anything new to the game other than being walking beaststick brick, but I do think they'll eventually make their way into the game in later expansion.

And about GSC in KT, they had 4 different boxes choice of units. And it's usually ill-adviced trying to make a force out of a single unit box with them.

 Sabotage! wrote:
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.

Given GW's recent history of issues with printers, I fear the opposite. If you print all your cards in bulk in China, it's also difficult to add a single model through Forgeworld, for example.

And cards are super awkward to errata. Can you imagine? "Iron Golems Burninator Card: Replace flamey skull icon with spiky mandala icon."

Warcry is a lot closer to a Kill Team version of AoS than to a Mordheim revival.

I think it's going to be good for quick pick up games, and the campaign system is great for someone who just wants to play many pick up games at the store. There is a tiny bit of advancement, but nothing that matters so much that you can't play against someone playing their first game in their own campaign. The models are great, and the rules seem okay.

But there is close to no customization, no exp and no lasting injuries. These are all elements that I need to enjoy a campaign system. You'll never end up with a dwarf who's an absolute beast in combat, yet struggle like hell because a leg injury reduced his movement even more. Or roll +1A and +1WS on a group of archers. You'll never have the same thrill when rolling on injury tables, advancements or loot.
In Warcry, if a guy dies, you just replace him. You lost a little upgrade, but nothing big. Because of that, you can never become invested in your warband very much.

I'm still very exited about this game, and will buy a few warbands. I think I'll enjoy some games once in a while, especially if it takes off at my store. But I'll still very much play Mordheim, and I'll probably convert some warbands to play Mordheim with them, given how good the models are.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Sabotage! wrote:
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.

Given GW's recent history of issues with printers, I fear the opposite. If you print all your cards in bulk in China, it's also difficult to add a single model through Forgeworld, for example.

And cards are super awkward to errata. Can you imagine? "Iron Golems Burninator Card: Replace flamey skull icon with spiky mandala icon."

Yeah, they haven't had great success recently. That said, a new expansion of models would require all new cards so I don't see how they would be all that affected (other than being delayed like the new Slyvaneth). Keeping cards in stock to stuff in to boxes may be another issue, as they had a ton of issues with the AoS warscroll cards for a while.

And yes, cards are pretty awful to errata. I don't really look forward to that at all.

Warcry is a lot closer to a Kill Team version of AoS than to a Mordheim revival.

If this is true, this will make me a bit sad.

Maybe someone will pull a Hinterlands 2 to Warcry, like Bottle did for Skirmish

I expected a lot of campaign stuff, maybe like HATE with those clear cards to put on top of your fighter cards. The community might still provide such rules. And missing models for other Warbands*. Maybe not, since people are less inspired by the newer games, but it's at least a chance.

*I need boingrot rules for my "knightly" Orda Zalamandra gobbos!

Well, the iron golems look really great.
But these guys are at 28'' bases. Strange. For the first time.
I wonder why not using them in 40k say proxying Grotesques?

Regarding people asking about the Underworlds war bands.

Half of them are just going to be playable straight away by picking their faction cards anyway.
So the one with all the skeletons would be that one and you’d just buy whatever else you need.
For a lot of Underworlds warbands they are just nicer sculpts than the troops boxes of what they resemble..

Given that War Cry assumes 10-20 strong warbands, there would not be much sense in bespoke rules for Underworld teams.

I'm afraid they're still stuck fighting in Shadespire.

 Binabik15 wrote:
Maybe someone will pull a Hinterlands 2 to Warcry, like Bottle did for Skirmish

I expected a lot of campaign stuff, maybe like HATE with those clear cards to put on top of your fighter cards. The community might still provide such rules. And missing models for other Warbands*. Maybe not, since people are less inspired by the newer games, but it's at least a chance.

*I need boingrot rules for my "knightly" Orda Zalamandra gobbos!

You are aware that Warcry was written by Bottle? Based on the design pitch he got And he surely welcomes people expand/change it to their liking.

This game seems to be the ultimate distillation - the endgame if you will - of GW's dream skirmish game.

1. No customisation (so no options for minis).
2. All terrain is set configuration, built to specific parameters only with Official Citadel Scenery™ kits.

Well played.

Oh, and blackfang, you get to say "I told you so!" about the mausoleum terrain.

They do have options, just not for everyone. So if you don't like that Dwarf or durable chain and flail bit you just have to take it or leave.

At first I was disappointed the campaign system isn't as deep and varied as Mordheim but then I remembered Mordheim still exists and I can just play that if I want. Warcry seems like a system I can have a lot of fun with too, but on a more casual level, kinda like how Kill Team is to Necromunda.

 Not-not-kenny wrote:
At first I was disappointed the campaign system isn't as deep and varied as Mordheim but then I remembered Mordheim still exists and I can just play that if I want. Warcry seems like a system I can have a lot of fun with too, but on a more casual level, kinda like how Kill Team is to Necromunda.

Which is basically what GW wants - this isn't Necromunda, this is a super-light version of AoS designed to entice people into the game with a single box of miniatures. Get a box - build it - start playing.

Also lets not forget there's the AoS RPG game coming at some point which will certainly flesh out adventuring in FAR more detail.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
1. No customisation (so no options for minis).

Don't the iron golems come with some guys where you choose the weapon options? Or to have a signifier/standard?

Though if our point of comparison is the era of late 90s/early 2000s kits where every arm, torso, legs and weapons are individual pieces and interchangeable, then I guess nothing GW has made for quite some time counts as customizable.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2019/07/18/warband-focus-untamed-beastsgw-homepage-post-4/

 frozenwastes wrote:
Don't the iron golems come with some guys where you choose the weapon options? Or to have a signifier/standard?

You have 9 different, preset fighter profiles. Your only customization is in picking how many of each you field.

Some of those fighter types are the same body sculpt with different arms.

That's not customization, that's just cost cutting.

So different arm and weapon options for a miniature doesn't count...right. lol

On another note, it's interesting to see a GW game without random 2d6" charges

 frozenwastes wrote:
So different arm and weapon options for a miniature doesn't count...right. lol

I suppose if you're delusional enough to claim that the baseline is 6 different fighter types just so you can argue that we got 3 extras thanks to the arm options, then go ahead.

If I have a miniature and I pick from different parts to build the one I want that's an option I choose.

If one entry says I can give something a sword or an axe and another version has two entries, one with a sword and another with an axe, they are functional equivalents.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
90s style armoury lists are not coming back. They also sucked because the same weapon isn't equal in different hands and the cost in gold/credits/points never reflected the wielder back in those games.

I have no idea if the balance is going to be better in this game but at least when the wielder and weapon are coated together there's a chance it's accurate.

 frozenwastes wrote:
If I have a miniature and I pick from different parts to build the one I want that's an option I choose.

If one entry says I can give something a sword or an axe and another version has two entries, one with a sword and another with an axe, they are functional equivalents.

Yes. So do we both agree on "You have 9 different, preset fighter profiles. Your only customization is in picking how many of each you field." which is what I originally said?

Making more option/unit variety mean they had to spent more to make bigger molds, less profit = bad.

At the 50US$ price mark this could easily be a 2 normal sprue kit, which give plenty more space for more spare bits. Not this 1.5 normal sprue cost-saving product. Again, don't like it, don't buy it, nothing will change, people will buy it regardless.

Iron Golem at least get to see some unit varieties.

Untamed Beast on the other hand, doesn't seem so. The only "options" for them that I can see is two weapons swap for the 2-handed dudes. And they're completely cosmetic.

Warhams-77 wrote:

 Binabik15 wrote:
Maybe someone will pull a Hinterlands 2 to Warcry, like Bottle did for Skirmish

I expected a lot of campaign stuff, maybe like HATE with those clear cards to put on top of your fighter cards. The community might still provide such rules. And missing models for other Warbands*. Maybe not, since people are less inspired by the newer games, but it's at least a chance.

*I need boingrot rules for my "knightly" Orda Zalamandra gobbos!

You are aware that Warcry was written by Bottle? Based on the design pitch he got And he surely welcomes people expand/change it to their liking.

I am. But there's still nuGW design DNA in the game, no matter who designed it.

Can't wait to get my beastdude spear chucker Anyone not wanting theirs...I might be interested.

It’s weird—I was stoked for this when first announced. Unfortunately most of the miniatures are of a chaos style that I just don’t love. The terrain is of a style that I can (and do) easily duplicate with my 3d printer (obviously with a slight quality loss).

No rules for Seraphon and the only Stormcast are the Vanguard that I find pretty unappealing and don’t own. I would even justify buying Kharadron for this as I LOVE the models but they’re so damn limited in AoS I can’t justify buying any.

It’s a real shame because I know my wife would play this (she liked kill team) but there’s just nothing there for the armies we have.

It’s really strange that it’s so heavily skewed to chaos when they’re pitching it as Kill Team for AoS.

 frozenwastes wrote:

90s style armoury lists are not coming back. They also sucked because the same weapon isn't equal in different hands and the cost in gold/credits/points never reflected the wielder back in those games.

Necromunda -- a currently supported, in-development Games Workshop system -- is exactly this.

It was reasonable for people to hope that Warcry would be the successor to Mordheim and a peer of Necromunda '18. Mordheim probably needs a successor, rather than a straight rerelease -- the Underhive still exists in current 40K lore, whereas Mordheim was blowed up with the rest of the Old World. The fact that Warcry was introducing new warbands/kits hinted that it might be different from Kill Team (which was built around existing available units).

So it's wrong to act like people had unfair expectations or were hoping for a ruleset with unprecedented granularity. Up until the last few days of previews/leaks it was entirely possible that Warcry was going to go the Necromunda route and not the Kill Team route. Give us some time to grieve.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

Yes. So do we both agree on "You have 9 different, preset fighter profiles. Your only customization is in picking how many of each you field." which is what I originally said?

Well, the campaign does allow you to pick up artifacts of power as you play.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Quasistellar wrote:
It’s weird—I was stoked for this when first announced. Unfortunately most of the miniatures are of a chaos style that I just don’t love. The terrain is of a style that I can (and do) easily duplicate with my 3d printer (obviously with a slight quality loss).

No rules for Seraphon and the only Stormcast are the Vanguard that I find pretty unappealing and don’t own. I would even justify buying Kharadron for this as I LOVE the models but they’re so damn limited in AoS I can’t justify buying any.

It’s a real shame because I know my wife would play this (she liked kill team) but there’s just nothing there for the armies we have.

Well, none of that is Warcry's fault. I mean, should they design the game around the fact that you have a 3D printer? Or that you don't like Stormcast Vanguard? They aren't making a game with the audience of just you. I mean, I sort of go back and forth on how excited I am for this game too, but I think it is silly to blame Warcry for being Warcry and not something else. It's kind of like saying Warhammer Underworlds would be great, but you'd like the game better if they replaced all the miniatures with cakepops.

It’s really strange that it’s so heavily skewed to chaos when they’re pitching it as Kill Team for AoS.

The recent video is the first time they've even mentioned Kill Team. For the last few months, it was always pitched as chaos warbands fighting against each other. They still haven't even technically announced which non-Warcry models you can use (that was from a leak).

 Altruizine wrote:

 frozenwastes wrote:

90s style armoury lists are not coming back. They also sucked because the same weapon isn't equal in different hands and the cost in gold/credits/points never reflected the wielder back in those games.

Necromunda -- a currently supported, in-development Games Workshop system -- is exactly this.

It was reasonable for people to hope that Warcry would be the successor to Mordheim and a peer of Necromunda '18. Mordheim probably needs a successor, rather than a straight rerelease -- the Underhive still exists in current 40K lore, whereas Mordheim was blowed up with the rest of the Old World. The fact that Warcry was introducing new warbands/kits hinted that it might be different from Kill Team (which was built around existing available units).

So it's wrong to act like people had unfair expectations or were hoping for a ruleset with unprecedented granularity. Up until the last few days of previews/leaks it was entirely possible that Warcry was going to go the Necromunda route and not the Kill Team route. Give us some time to grieve.

Anyone who think this will be like Necromunda is naive and have unfair expectation. With the preview showing everyone in elaborated pose, and so diverse in body type and race, it is impossible to have anything that resemblance Necromunda, which had arms interchangeable with all bodies. What (more reasonable) expectation from people is...more variation , because from the preview it was show that the same dude had different weapons, that's what gave people hope. Turn out those variation are... sprue filler because only a few got it and some warband got less than the other.

I really have no clear idea how the rules work, but it seems that there are not really rules for separate weapons right? There are just different fighter types? If true,that is in a sense kinda nice from modelling perspective.

You could model a fighter with a ranged attack with a spear, a bow or even a gun, a big brute with a powerful melee attack could have a giant axe, a hammer or a flail etc.

 Sqorgar wrote:
The recent video is the first time they've even mentioned Kill Team. For the last few months, it was always pitched as chaos warbands fighting against each other. They still haven't even technically announced which non-Warcry models you can use (that was from a leak).

Today's Warband Focus does give us an idea of what non-Chaos models/kits can be used in Warcry. The top picture shows the Untamed Beast facing off against Vanguard-Hunters, while the previews for the First Fang and the Harpoon Snag ability mention Orruk Brutes and Khinerai Heartrenders respectively. And looking back, the Warband Focus for the Iron Golems has a picture of them facing off battling some Grimghast Reapers.