novakai Posted April 9 Share Posted April 9 Funny thing is if THWG theory is correct then anytime some 40K player start a Daemon of Chaos army or bought a Daemon prince for their Chaos Marine army, then all that revenue would have been report for AoS because all the daemon stuff (especially product like Be’lekor ) are label as AoS products first and foremost. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flippy Posted April 9 Share Posted April 9 1 hour ago, Mortal Wound said: My sentiments exactly. Warcry would have been an even more stellar game if it stayed narratively focused on Eightpoints and Chaos Weirdos as a self-contained ecosystem. That's the game pitch I initially fell in love with and wanted to see expanded. What I didn't want to see is the current 'anything goes', Smash Bros style melting pot where you have three skinks, a Lord Relictor, an Idoneth wizard and a Kharadron Overlord fighting against Callis and Toll's crew and Jelsen Darrock in a meat tree forest. I think there was simply a lack of faith that this original concept would have sustained the game and they immediately shoehorned AoS models into it without giving it time to breathe. Chaos-only Warcry = zero interest. I used to check this game out in the past and only started playing once GW pivoted from this weird initial choice. 12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jagged Red Lines Posted April 9 Share Posted April 9 (edited) 9 minutes ago, novakai said: Funny thing is if THWG theory is correct then anytime some 40K player start a Daemon of Chaos army or bought a Daemon prince for their Chaos Marine army, then all that revenue would have been report for AoS because all the daemon stuff (especially product like Be’lekor ) are label as AoS products first and foremost. AoS and 40k are both main studio. Specialist studio (formerly Forge World) is HH and TOW. This is why prior to 10th edition, GW remove HH kits (like the leviathan dread) from 40k. Edited April 9 by Jagged Red Lines 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyantheFett Posted April 9 Share Posted April 9 3 minutes ago, novakai said: Funny thing is if THWG theory is correct then anytime some 40K player start a Daemon of Chaos army or bought a Daemon prince for their Chaos Marine army, then all that revenue would have been report for AoS because all the daemon stuff (especially product like Be’lekor ) are label as AoS products first and foremost. What is going inside GW is a pretty big question that I wish we would get an honest answer for. Like really the only two answers that make sense is that they are set up stupidly like the rumors suggest or they are greedy/stupid. I jump around between the two a lot lol, but it is clear that GW does not want players to use 1 army for two games. They have done it with 30k/40k and with ToW/AoS. And now it seems they are trying something with Underworld, so we will see when 4.0 hits. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Still-young Posted April 9 Share Posted April 9 2 minutes ago, Flippy said: Chaos-only Warcry = zero interest. I used to check this game out in the past and only started playing once GW pivoted from this weird initial choice. Personally it’s not about it being Chaos only, it’s about the lack of emphasis of the models made for the actual game, and the watering down of it as its own thing. I like the warbands they’ve made for it for factions that aren’t chaos, but I don’t like the fact that a jumble of order models from the main game perform better than the cool models they specifically designed for Warcry. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonhel Posted April 9 Share Posted April 9 14 minutes ago, Mortal Wound said: Customer uncertainty is a significant concern and I wonder how much it will come back to bite them in the behind sales-wise. Because this fundamental paradigm shift in brand confidence isn't just limited to AoS. There's a lot of cross-pollenation between AoS and 40k and even 40k-exclusive people are watching this debacle keenly. If 6-year old models for a mainline faction that constitute a full sub-army with a unique playstyle isn't safe from culls, what is? People are gonna consider their purchases more carefully. Eldar Harlequins, are those a safe purchase in this 'new normal'? What about Dark Eldar Wracks and Pain Engines? Death Watch Veterans? Thousand Sons Mutalith Vortex Beast? I was gonna get a couple Predator tanks for my Black Legion Chaos Space Marines. I am not so sure now that I should make that purchase. Heck, I'm assembling Venomcrawlers right now in preparation for the new codex. I was gonna get another one because they'd be cool to play as a formation of three. But should I? Those don't even have a separate kit but share an old starter set-style sprue with another unit... The erosion of customer trust is a big deal and they opened a Pandora's Box full of it. Imo you are overreacting. Most GW customers are doing in 6 years something else. It's a shame that GW did this, but this will have zero impact on customer behaviour. If GW releases beautiful mini's I will buy them. I will certainly not worry what possible could happen with these mini's in 6 years. Lol, if that is the worst thing that could happen to me in 6 years. I am all in.😀 4 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogregut Posted April 9 Share Posted April 9 43 minutes ago, Ejecutor said: A year in tournaments, you would be able to play with them the whole edition, very likely. It is not like rules are going to change drastically in the middle of an edition. Yep, the only thing changing in summer 2025 is beasts, bonesplitters and wizardcast won't be supported for GW official events and go into legend but they stated that all will receive rule and balance update through the entire edition. My thoughts on it is, there were 3 factions in dire need of a make over. Skaven as we know are coming very soon which leaves beasts and ogors. Of the 2 remaining factions, I see beasts as most in need of a complete rework and with them being in TOW there is a opportunity to give them a digital battletome for this edition which gives time to do a complete redo of the range and solidify them into AoS without any warhammer hold overs. I think we'll see ogors long before beasts reappear and I wouldn't be surprised to see a 2nd wave of kruleboyz which will fill the savage monster killer slot left by bonesplitters. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vaellas Posted April 9 Share Posted April 9 16 minutes ago, Flippy said: Chaos-only Warcry = zero interest. I used to check this game out in the past and only started playing once GW pivoted from this weird initial choice. My friends and I were the same. At the time none of us were interested in Chaos so overlooked Warcry. It wasn't until later seeing Shadowstalkers being a non Chaos warband that I was like... hold up. I then looked in more and realised I really liked Darkoath Savagers and with the news of non Chaos warbands coming out I looked in to the game more, realised I loved it and got in to it then later my friends did too. Now I did come to love the rest of the Chaos warbands in time, but when you have the game focused on just Chaos it does isolate a lot of other people that would probably love the game, but do not have an interest in Chaos. I am sad to see first edition warbands go tbh because they just had such wonderful variation. It is also a brilliant way to play in to a faction you may love and not have time/ money/ space to play in AoS. For example I really do think Lumineth are cool, but won't be collecting them. The Riverblades help me get my Lumineth fix. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luperci Posted April 9 Share Posted April 9 24 minutes ago, Flippy said: Chaos-only Warcry = zero interest. I used to check this game out in the past and only started playing once GW pivoted from this weird initial choice. It gave us some really nice designs and the 1st ed ruleset was actually very solid but yeah 100%, they lacked the appeal to most of the audience. Also calling 2nd ed warcry "smash bros" because every faction is involved is so silly lmao. What do you think the main game is then???? (Also I believe 1st ed still had rules for all main aos factions) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gitzdee Posted April 9 Share Posted April 9 My only problem with Warcry is the lack of support/ updated profiles for newly released models. Just let me use my new shiny toyz. (Or am i missing some info? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flippy Posted April 9 Share Posted April 9 17 minutes ago, Still-young said: Personally it’s not about it being Chaos only, it’s about the lack of emphasis of the models made for the actual game, and the watering down of it as its own thing. I like the warbands they’ve made for it for factions that aren’t chaos, but I don’t like the fact that a jumble of order models from the main game perform better than the cool models they specifically designed for Warcry. I get it, but… I do not have a single proper Warcry band (apart from the Hunters of Huanchi, never used them for Warcry). I have a few AoS armies though, some larger (OBR), some smaller (KO) - and I can open my cabinet, assemble any warband I want, give them names & story and play mini-AoS with this great ruleset. This is perfection. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
novakai Posted April 9 Share Posted April 9 22 minutes ago, Still-young said: Personally it’s not about it being Chaos only, it’s about the lack of emphasis of the models made for the actual game, and the watering down of it as its own thing. I like the warbands they’ve made for it for factions that aren’t chaos, but I don’t like the fact that a jumble of order models from the main game perform better than the cool models they specifically designed for Warcry. It is a shame they didn’t do warcry more like Necromunda where they have set amount of Gangs and they expand each Gangs as the game develop giving them new units and eventually vehicle. Especially when some warbands had pretty cool design like Iron golem, Corvus Cabal, and Unmade and now they just got discontinued. I would have still preferred to had more diverse warband from the start and not be all Chaos but it would have been nice if they build the game with its own identity instead of going full Killteam 5 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EonChao Posted April 9 Share Posted April 9 35 minutes ago, novakai said: Funny thing is if THWG theory is correct then anytime some 40K player start a Daemon of Chaos army or bought a Daemon prince for their Chaos Marine army, then all that revenue would have been report for AoS because all the daemon stuff (especially product like Be’lekor ) are label as AoS products first and foremost. Not quite, AoS and 40k both share the same studio within GW (along with Underworlds, Warcry and Kill Team). That's why you hear people talk about both the main and specialist studios, there's only really two. So miniature designers in the main studio can work on all five games that fit into the main studio (I'm not sure how specialist studio divides its work force) whilst rules designers seem to work on separate games but they all report to the same overall studio head. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScionOfOssia Posted April 9 Share Posted April 9 Warcry has some balance issues, yeah, but I think that they are definitely solvable, and even in 1.0 they still had rules for AoS models (Including Eltharion and Arkhan, albeit in story missions). My only concern is when the Idoneth and Bonereapers are getting their stuff during 4th edition, especially because I think I have finally gotten my resin bases right and can start on the rest of my Idoneth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EonChao Posted April 9 Share Posted April 9 4 minutes ago, Gitzdee said: My only problem with Warcry is the lack of support/ updated profiles for newly released models. Just let me use my new shiny toyz. (Or am i missing some info? If you mean AoS rules then those are all on the War Com page. If you mean new Warcry profiles for new AoS/Underworlds kits then those are slowly trickling out in White Dwarf 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingBrodd Posted April 9 Share Posted April 9 I just cant comprehend this sudden decision that Ogors may be on the chopping block? Ogors have way more of a narrative presence than BOC and Bonesplitterz combined. GW wouldnt have put an Ogor unit inside COS and given it unique lore if they were going to squat the Faction. Destruction is only 3 and a half* Factions I would highly doubt they would get rid of the only one in need of a refresh for zero reason as they dont even have a presence in TOW. This is a real problem woth BOC and BS being axed. The uncertainty causing anxiety and fear mongering. *Sons of Behemat can be taken by any Alliance. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrimDork Posted April 9 Share Posted April 9 I’m mixed with the makeup of warcry. Part of me really likes the crazy mashup warbands with fun buffs. I love tactics videos and tournament reviews from Wargames on Toast & Off Meta Musings. But I do understand that these optimised lists are not very thematic. I suppose as with AoS it boils down to the same competitive vs narrative/casual play styles. I suppose the game can cater for both, set limits on warcry only warbands? Or free for all list building? Personally I really wanted to like Warcry when it first released, but the chaos on chaos thing didn’t really do it for me. When they opened it up to other factions I bought in. Whilst the Gnarlwood setting isn’t my favourite, I do absolutely love this seasons warband releases! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
novakai Posted April 9 Share Posted April 9 1 minute ago, KingBrodd said: I just cant comprehend this sudden decision that Ogors may be on the chopping block? Ogors have way more of a narrative presence than BOC and Bonesplitterz combined. GW wouldnt have put an Ogor unit inside COS and given it unique lore if they were going to squat the Faction. Destruction is only 3 and a half* Factions I would highly doubt they would get rid of the only one in need of a refresh for zero reason as they dont even have a presence in TOW. *Sons of Behemat can be taken by any Alliance. People just being wary and cautious, it is the only army that would be in the danger zone at this point in time no one outside rumormonger thought BoC was going to be discontinued and yet it happen so. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vaellas Posted April 9 Share Posted April 9 Yeah I am eager to move on from Gnarlwood and get something vastly different. I don't see it happening, but it would be interesting to see realms we don't visit too much like Hysh or Ulgu. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingBrodd Posted April 9 Share Posted April 9 7 minutes ago, novakai said: People just being wary and cautious, it is the only army that would be in the danger zone at this point in time no one outside rumormonger thought BoC was going to be discontinued and yet it happen so. Im just waiting for the inevitable 4.0 refresh. Theyre going nowhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
novakai Posted April 9 Share Posted April 9 3 minutes ago, KingBrodd said: Im just waiting for the inevitable 4.0 refresh. Theyre going nowhere. Didn’t you say that last edition? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EntMan Posted April 9 Share Posted April 9 10 minutes ago, KingBrodd said: I just cant comprehend this sudden decision that Ogors may be on the chopping block? Now we have certainty about Beasts and Splitters we TGAers need a faction to fret about rumoured squatting. 10 minutes ago, KingBrodd said: *Sons of Behemat can be taken by any Alliance. We don't know what allies rules will be in 4oS yet. Now Megas aren't new and GW not pushing for everyone to buy them they might not be available to everyone anymore. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Souleater Posted April 9 Share Posted April 9 (edited) GW not wanting cross sales has cost them sales from me. I had started planning out purchases to make a cross system daemon army. The only way I could justify another army to myself was the ability to use it in multiple games…in fact, narratively I loved the idea of the same daemon’s turning up in different places. Same for the HH/40k Custodes/IK army I have been collecting. They could have put out a plastic kit for one of the Custodes vehicles but oddly (given the wild popularity of Custodes in my area) they’ve gone for Yet Another Character. So I’ve sold off most of the boxes I had picked up so far, and will stick to the armies I have. Edited April 9 by Souleater 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luperci Posted April 9 Share Posted April 9 9 minutes ago, Souleater said: GW not wanting cross sales has cost them sales from me. I had started planning out purchases to make a cross system daemon army. The only way I could justify another army to myself was the ability to use it in multiple games…in fact, narratively I loved the idea of the same daemon’s turning up in different places. Same for the HH/40k Custodes/IK army I have been collecting. They could have put out a plastic kit for one of the Custodes vehicles but oddly (given the wild popularity of Custodes in my area) they’ve gone for Yet Another Character. So I’ve debated most of the boxes I had picked up so far, and will stick to the armies I have. Custodes are just in general very popular, largely because they're one of the cheapest armies to collect and since becoming a full army have been very strong more often than not. I do think the difference between a plastic vehicle and single foot character is pretty massive, it would've been more realistic to see one of their resin dreadnoughts in plastic than a grav tank 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Souleater Posted April 9 Share Posted April 9 1 minute ago, Luperci said: Custodes are just in general very popular, largely because they're one of the cheapest armies to collect and since becoming a full army have been very strong more often than not. I do think the difference between a plastic vehicle and single foot character is pretty massive, it would've been more realistic to see one of their resin dreadnoughts in plastic than a grav tank Oh, they would have sold boatloads of the dreads in plastic! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.