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.

Dunno, still feels ridiculously expensive to me, for what it is.

And you say this set doesn't include the rules? Well then.

 Albertorius wrote:
And you say this set doesn't include the rules?

That's still a a matter of contention. The book index has everything that matters for play I think, just no stats for other warbands.

 Albertorius wrote:
Dunno, still feels ridiculously expensive to me, for what it is.

And you say this set doesn't include the rules? Well then.

It doesn't include the Core Rulebook but all of the rules required to play are in the Red Harvest rulebook.

 DaveC wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:
Dunno, still feels ridiculously expensive to me, for what it is.

And you say this set doesn't include the rules? Well then.

It doesn't include the Core Rulebook but all of the rules required to play are in the Red Harvest rulebook.

That's what I meant. €160 for a game that doesn't actually include the game is something else.

Looking at my old book angain, I think the only thing missing is the faction-specific campaigns.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Looking at my old book angain, I think the only thing missing is the faction-specific campaigns.

So it does include the rules of the game at least, then? Well, that's something at least. The lack of rules for everything not in the box seems in line with everything else GW does these days.

Still. 160€ for two gangs and some scenery. That is mental.

Garfy's review which includes the warband cards.

He confirms that the RH rulebook only has narrative play rules the open play and matched play rules are missing and you will need the Core rulebook for these.

Spoiler for size

Good thing Narrative is the default for Warcry! But as the review says, dick move to skip a handful of pages to make you buy another book.

 DaveC wrote:
He confirms that the RH rulebook only has narrative play rules the open play and matched play rules are missing and you will need the Core rulebook for these.

Wow. FFS.

Yeah, for that price they could at least include the full rules of the game, regardless of what is standard mode of play. We shouldn't be expected to just settle for the next best thing.

No matched play rules, $210 sticker price..... Pass. I actually want to try WarCry, too.

Moving away from the value discussion for a moment, after seeing the 360s for the Darkoath I like almost all the models I wanted to see from a better angle. Unfortunately it confirms that Red Sonja isn't for me. She really should have skipped leg day. Getting a humongous axe positioned so close to such a small head is an unfortunate design choice to begin with, but somehow the designer thought it was a good idea to double down on the size mismatch by giving her massive thighs as well. It's a horribly unbalanced sculpt. They couldn't even be bothered to hide it with voluminous hair or an extravagant headdress. Aside from that, cool warband. I'll get one once it's released individually.

I've got enough credit to pick this up from clearing out a bunch of (arguably better) games a few weeks ago, so I'm probably going to get this.

I'm hoping not a whole lot has changed rules- wise since the last set of releases, so I can get by with the previous books and what comes in this box.

Looking at the stats of the Darkoath alternative builds, the axe on the leader with Strength 6 and the flail on Conan with Strength 5 seems like out-includes in a warband with more than enough Strength 4 attacks.

Blastaar wrote:
No matched play rules, $210 sticker price..... Pass. I actually want to try WarCry, too.

Since you're in the USA at some point you'll be able to buy Bladeborn which is a simplified version with smaller warbands at Barnes & Noble. Not quite the same but a much smaller cost of entry.

ecurtz wrote:

Blastaar wrote:
No matched play rules, $210 sticker price..... Pass. I actually want to try WarCry, too.

Since you're in the USA at some point you'll be able to buy Bladeborn which is a simplified version with smaller warbands at Barnes & Noble. Not quite the same but a much smaller cost of entry.

Agree. The contents look nice but given typical discount in USA is only 15% @ $210 it is a very easy pass for me as well.

 frankelee wrote:


Bwahahahahaha. Is this sculptor being paid by the disappointment? I'm surprised the people who are into that sort of thing are defending this, I would have thought they'd be the most let down by the terrible job they did making muscular women.

I'm more amused by all the people across various internet forums and subreddits mad that they look more like real humans and less like anime waifus, submissive and breedable. But I've learned that the gaming community is full of fragile men so...

My heart goes out to any real human who looks like that.

So, thinking your torso shouldn’t be the same length as your leg makes you a fragile man?

Good to see we're back to classy meta commentary.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
My heart goes out to any real human who looks like that.

If you just scale up and don't adjust for style, don't you feel compelled to say that about every human GW model?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Joyboozer wrote:
So, thinking your torso shouldn’t be the same length as your leg makes you a fragile man?

Ignoring the part about Togusa's jab, have you had a look at the 360s for those two models? This is a classic case of sucky photography. GW is skilled at choosing bad angles for their model presentations. Pretty consistently so. If you see how their legs are angled, this criticism doesn't hold up.

Though I can understand how you'd think so from looking at the original picture.

 Togusa wrote:

 frankelee wrote:


Bwahahahahaha. Is this sculptor being paid by the disappointment? I'm surprised the people who are into that sort of thing are defending this, I would have thought they'd be the most let down by the terrible job they did making muscular women.

I'm more amused by all the people across various internet forums and subreddits mad that they look more like real humans and less like anime waifus, submissive and breedable. But I've learned that the gaming community is full of fragile men so...

The thing on the left is a woman?

It looks really deformed.

 Geifer wrote:
Good to see we're back to classy meta commentary.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
My heart goes out to any real human who looks like that.

If you just scale up and don't adjust for style, don't you feel compelled to say that about every human GW model?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Joyboozer wrote:
So, thinking your torso shouldn’t be the same length as your leg makes you a fragile man?

Ignoring the part about Togusa's jab, have you had a look at the 360s for those two models? This is a classic case of sucky photography. GW is skilled at choosing bad angles for their model presentations. Pretty consistently so. If you see how their legs are angled, this criticism doesn't hold up.

Though I can understand how you'd think so from looking at the original picture.

Jesus Christ GW, take better pictures, it’s effecting our masculinity!

It's the lack of eyebrows that does it. I feel that a better paint-job would help these models, as is the case with much ofn GW's output.

This angle looks much better. The majority of the problems come from the black facepaint, the heavy shading and the extreme highlights.

Joyboozer wrote:
So, thinking your torso shouldn’t be the same length as your leg makes you a fragile man?

Stuff like that I literally do not pay attention to at all and I still can't even tell what the heck you're talking about, the proportions look fine to me. I was taking jabs mostly at the people on various forums who have outright said "they look ugly, why they no look like anime girl."

Chikout wrote:
This angle looks much better. The majority of the problems come from the black facepaint, the heavy shading and the extreme highlights.

And the fact her face is too tiny for her head.

 Togusa wrote:
Stuff like that I literally do not pay attention to at all and I still can't even tell what the heck you're talking about, the proportions look fine to me. I was taking jabs mostly at the people on various forums who have outright said "they look ugly, why they no look like anime girl."

So far the only people I've seen talking about "anime girls" are the people decrying those that are apparently saying it.

Can you put a scarecrow in a Japanese schoolgirl's outfit, 'cause it sure seems like some people are trying...

People's opinions are always subjective, anyway. Don't like GW girls ? Fine, don't buy them. I have no problem with those personnally, so good for me. Especially because I bought the box with them. If humans are forced to live in a land dominated by Chaos, makes sense they end up like this : more to the muscles, less to the brain and even less to the appearance.

As for the rules...they are complete to play the content in the box. "but matched play ! but the content from the core rules sold separately !"...well, that makes the core rules book still relevant that way. Sure good for players who already bought it (hey at least I don't have to put my copy in the trash directly). Not even sure it sucks that much for new players, because well...you don't exactly need rules for matched play in Warcry, since the profiles are either in the cards or the grand alliance books and, most important, specific rules for matched play are just randomization of scenarios.

Pretty sure the scenarios in Red Harvest will be more than enough to play matched play if your desire is such. Not to say that not all games need to be played matched play at all costs, thank you - and GW doesn't have to include all the rules in a themed starter box just because you don't like it that way. Warcry was always more fit for narrative games, IMHO.

So complaining about that is more nitpicking from people who never wanted to play Warcry anyway, as far as I'm concerned. Because let's be honest : if you want to play matched play, there are good chances the core rules books and the grand alliance books you want to play are more relevant for you than Red Harvest. Also way cheaper.

Here's Laila Ali, a female boxer, multiple times world champion, undefeated throughout her entire career.

Note how she doesn't remotely resemble the Ravagers' gals, who look more ripped than Conan't, and have tiny heads with huge square jaws.

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:

Chikout wrote:
This angle looks much better. The majority of the problems come from the black facepaint, the heavy shading and the extreme highlights.

And the fact her face is too tiny for her head.

Not sure I'd call that a fact before seeing the bare plastic head. The top half of the face looks like it meshes fine with the back of the head. As best as I can make out from a picture, she combines a slim jaw with face paint that unduly exaggerates this feature. The former feature makes sense and is an easy way of helping create a feminine look. It's not surprising for her to be sculpted like that. I don't think the face paint helps, though.