Jump to content

Unmade first convergence questions.


Keith

Recommended Posts

I was playing my first convergence for the Unmade campaign Path of the flayed Prince. (3 times and failed)
How do you read this scenario , if my opponent can stack the shield and all they have to do is run away for 3 turns.
This Victory combined with this deployment means if I'm attacking they know I have to choose their shield as it's the only battle group on the table.
 
Does that sound right ?
 
I tried three times but if they take thrall Fury in their warband , I cant catch them , especially if they have a quad for extra moves etc.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel it's against the spirit of the rules (and of the general gaming covenant) to alter your deployment groups for this purpose. Usually, you decide dagger, shield, hammer before knowing the set-up at all, so I would encourage your opponent to choose these as if it was just a normal battle. Alternatively, you could randomly decide after choosing groups whether you're playing your convergence or a "regular" game to encourage a more typical set-up.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just for some background, we played this 3 times.

My 'normal' breakup is

  • Shield: Thrall Master, Mirrorblade with glaive, mindbound
  • Hammer: Luminate, Mirrorblade with glaive, mindbound
  • Dagger: Mirrorblade dueling swords, mindbound with double bladed sword

1st thrall goes in the dagger to even things up, 2nd in shield (has to have 1/3).  Haven't got to a third thrall yet, but probably to help out the dagger as that is a bit weak  ...

btw, this gives me a sweeping blade attack in each group, so no matter what comes on, I can use most of my abilities, and the luminate and thrallmaster are separate so can use the others too. Leader is always in the shield (in all my warbands) but thats a whole other discussion ...

In the first game, after a bit of discussion about whether we would 'know or not' (I argued that we wouldn't know) and I ended up putting 2 extra in the shield (so a 5 - 2 - 2 split) and Keith had all in his shield on the board and one in each of the dagger and hammer. End result, a complete slaughter to the cypher lords.

We agreed after that to split them up as per a normal game ... but if I had done a 7-1-1 split it would have been ridiculously easy (and agree, this would have been against the spirit of the rules). Note that some people stack their shield anyway, so a 5-2-2 split would not be too unusual as a standard setup ... Hence Keiths comments about loading the shield - but this goes both ways as Keith would have had less on the board as he would have had more off the board as well.  

Again, as an aside, my Iron golems have the dominar, ogre and armator in the shield (always a leader, the ogre as he needs to be hitting quick, and can take a hit to protect the leader, and the armator is so slow I need him on the board to start with) plus potentially another on (needs 1/3 when I have 10) so that would also be quite hard to take down ... especially as the other could be the signifier to help boost the leader and keep him alive ... Actually I have been runnign a 4-3-2 split with these guys, but will be moving to a 3-3-3 (potentially 4-3-3 once I get another dude in ...)

So the second game we played again, and this time I used the standard 3-3-3 setup as above (I only had one thrall, a raptorix, in the dagger, so didn't come into play).  So basically the thrall master, a mirrorblade and a mindbound.  Keith pinned my leader with his double ability, and I got one guy to fly to a building, then next turn used a quad to move three times and get one guy away.  Closer, but also a little easy (I sent one guy wide on each side and his fast guy (leader) could only chase one ...).

Third game, I had progressed to an extra thrall so the Shield had the extra thrall (a raptorix in the shield, fury was in the dagger). Then the twist gave me an extra one too (fury this time). Again, sent  guy wide on each side and engaged in middle, and a quad in turn 2 meant I got away ... with 5 guys on the board it was easier to send people around to stay alive. The twist meant -1 Move unless you could fly, so maybe that made it too hard as well.

One more turn and I think Keith would have won the second game, but 3 turns just seemed a little tough (or a little easy to get one guy away). Most scenarios like this seem to have a limitation of not being within 4" of the table edge with the guys trying to survive ...

It should be noted that I won both my convergence (for Cypher Lords and Iron Golems) in first turn for both (or effectively in the first turn) ... so maybe that tainted the perception of the results a bit. Maybe I was a bit lucky ...

Next week we will try again and I will use the splintered fang (they have only had one game so far) and the Iron Golems. 

I suppose the question is/questions are ...

Has anyone else found a disparity between the convergence scenarios? Or was it just a really unfavorable match-up (Cypher Lords v Unmade)? Or does this particular convergence need a slight tweak (not within 4" of board edge, or similar)? Has anyone won this Unmade convergence scenario and if so, what happened? Alternatively, are the Iron Golems and Cypher Lords convergence too easy (back to first point in disparity between scenarios)? Or do we both need to drink a cup of concrete and harden up?

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personal opinion (which is highly unpopular around here, I know)...the "campaigns" are complete garbage. They are simply afterthought rules that were thrown together without much design or testing so that they could use their favorite catchphrase..."THREE WAYS TO PLAY!!!11!!!1!" I am maybe exaggerating a bit here, but not really...

Now I will admit, that's an unhelpful answer. I would say that they have a sliver of potential if you and your playgroup/opponent are willing to do a bunch of additional homebrew work to make them have even an ounce of narrative flavor AND still be fun matches of Warcry to play instead of ticks on a sheet of paper (or impossible slogs, as in the example you have given). So yeah, I would recommend just agreeing to alter the rules when there appears to be a very glaring design oversight. You will have likely spent more time thinking about said rule than GW did.

I am coming around on "fun" Warcry and matched play Warcry...they are a game, a game I didn't want, but a fun-ish (with a bit of tweaking) game nonetheless. But as somebody who really wanted a flavorful narrative option (simply in the vein of Mordheim, not its second coming mind you) I continue to be thoroughly disappointed with that part of the book (by this I am referencing everything from the campaign rules, to the lack of meaningful character progression, to the lack of equipment, etc). I hold out hope that one day maybe they'll release a more detailed narrative book, or maybe do the rules in White Dwarf...but from disappointment often comes ingenuity, so if anyone in my area ever were to express interest in home-brewing flavorful narrative rules and campaigns for Warcry I'd be willing to try. However it seems for the moment people are happy to ignore that aspect and just stab each other to death in a matter of minutes and call it a day. That's totally fine too. I didn't buy the box, just the book, so for me the investment is low and I am happy to wait and see where the game goes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just wanted to chime in on my experience with 2 different Convergence games thus far.  The first was my 1st Convergence for the Cypher Lords.  It gives you a deployment with everyone on the board and you get 1 VP for every model on elevated terrain (which the setup has lots) at the end of a turn for 3 turns.  My opponent ended up being Ironjawz, so it proved to be ridiculously easy for me as I had 10 models and got them all on elevated terrain in round 1.  He was slow and was able to take down a model or two, but with 10 models spread over the terrain to prevent him the ability to climb onto the platform made it very hard for him to stop me.  Perhaps it was just the match-up, but he only had 5 models vs 10, so he had to come at me and try to whittle me down.

My next experience was doing a 1st Convergence for another Ironjawz player last night (just happened to match-up) and the scenario had a decent spread of terrain and required me to deploy 6 objectives 4" away from each other and the board edge anywhere on the table.  He only won if he held and burned 3 objectives.  We both start with everything on the table.  I had 11 models and he had 6.  I was able to put all the objectives on my half of the board, with 2 elevated and the rest on the ground.  While his abilities gave him some extra movement, he just did not have the movement and models to stop me from holding him up and blocking him.  It seemed like it would be a very difficult scenario for the Ironjawz to win, unless you were more generous with objective deployment, as he never even captured one as I always had more models and by the end of turn 3, I had killed all but his leader and he had taken out my raptoryx and 2 models. 

So, I definitely think there are some faction Convergences which are going to be incredibly difficult or easy based on match-up or how friendly you intend to play .  it. It also just so happened that the Twist in both the games above had no impact on the game itself, but there are certainly Twists which can affect Convergences quite a bit.

  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel like most of the narrative stuff (and the non-symmetric cards in general) are only roughly balanced (even then they can be off quite a bit) using chaos warbands from only a single box.  As soon as you custom build warbands from multiple boxes or bring in AoS units, it seems a lot of the non-symmetric scenarios fall apart.

Edited by Pickle The Hutt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whilst I agree that the convergences are poorly thought out (and I hate the “buy the scenario cards to actually use the rules on the book” they went with), it sounds like the problem is partly that people are treating narrative fun missions as serious games they HAVE to win. All the convergences have short narrative flavor which gives a general idea of how the battle is expected to go.

if the battle is an ambush for example, you could ask your opponent to act as though his units are experiencing an ambush, unaware of enemy positions etc. I get that it can make it harder to play at times than just doing your normal thing but I feel every player involved will have more fun if they embraced the narrative when playing a narrative game rather than trying to work out how they can break the scenario.

  • Like 3
  • LOVE IT! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@exliontamer I wouldn’t say the campaigns are garbage, but I agree they are a bit too light. I think I get why they went this way though, it makes the game more accessible for people with a limited time to play. From what I remember playing mordheim, the game itself could be broken quite easily (I read an article by tuomas pirinen where he said he intentionally prioritized narrative over balance), but the after battle sequence was always fun. There’s a thread on here about making Mordheim rules for warcry, and you can also check out this project on reddit https://www.reddit.com/r/WarCry/comments/cyvxf4/killing_grounds_warcry_fanmade_supplement/

@Yoshiya I think you make some great points, narrative play is in my opinion best approached as you would a roleplaying game; not try to break it but try to make it sensible within the story :)

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

     This isn’t an issue I’ve had to deal with yet, but thanks to your thread it’s something I’ve been thinking about. I came up with a potential house rule which could help with the problem but haven’t been able to think of an easy way to describe it yet.

     Any time a scripted battle specifies a battle group start on the field replace it with a random roll. On a 2-5 use the group as normal, but on a 1 or 6 a different unit is used. Dagger, Hammer, Shield; remove the scripted group from the list and the first group is used on a 1 while a 6 denotes the remaining group.

     When the battleplan calls for staggered deployments the rolled group and scripted groups just change deployment locations and turns (just swap their groups). You’re still most likely to use the same group however the small chance of having another group deploy first encourages players to keep their warband balanced just like random card draws. An alternative could be rolling 1, 2-4, and 5/6 to give the scripted group a slightly lower frequency while raising the potential of a hammer/shield alternative.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/8/2019 at 7:46 AM, Moldek said:

I think I get why they went this way though, it makes the game more accessible for people with a limited time to play. From what I remember playing mordheim, the game itself could be broken quite easily (I read an article by tuomas pirinen where he said he intentionally prioritized narrative over balance), but the after battle sequence was always fun. There’s a thread on here about making Mordheim rules for warcry, and you can also check out this project on reddit https://www.reddit.com/r/WarCry/comments/cyvxf4/killing_grounds_warcry_fanmade_supplement/

I hear you, but I think Yoshiya hit the nail on the head:

On 9/6/2019 at 9:41 PM, Yoshiya said:

Whilst I agree that the convergences are poorly thought out (and I hate the “buy the scenario cards to actually use the rules on the book” they went with), it sounds like the problem is partly that people are treating narrative fun missions as serious games they HAVE to win. All the convergences have short narrative flavor which gives a general idea of how the battle is expected to go.

So much this. They half-assed the narrative rules to cater to people who don't even want to play narrative games to begin with. Yes Mordheim was "unbalanced" and "broken" at times...that's kind of the point. You are telling a story with your friends week to week, more like D&D, and sometimes those skewed matches happen and they are (or should be) hilarious. And in the aftermath, along with rolling on injury tables and acquiring more gear/loot, you gather yourself up and prep for next week. And the horrible losses or storied victories add to the flavor and shape your warband's characters. Warcry's sterile tickboxes have none of this feel, and for me that is what I miss. I will check out the thread you mention though for sure...I saw its initial post but never really caught up on it.

Edited by exliontamer
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, exliontamer said:

I hear you, but I think Yoshiya hit the nail on the head:

So much this. They half-assed the narrative rules to cater to people who don't even want to play narrative games to begin with. Yes Mordheim was "unbalanced" and "broken" at times...that's kind of the point. You are telling a story with your friends week to week, more like D&D, and sometimes those skewed matches happen and they are (or should be) hilarious. And in the aftermath, along with rolling on injury tables and acquiring more gear/loot, you gather yourself up and prep for next week. And the horrible losses or storied victories add to the flavor and shape your warband's characters. Warcry's sterile tickboxes have none of this feel, and for me that is what I miss. I will check out the thread you mention though for sure...I saw its initial post but never really caught up on it.

Trust me I totally share your preferences! But I also think they are aiming this game at beginners or people who don't have the time for Mordheim style book keeping. I loved the brokenness of mordheim, I remember a beastmen shaman who had his legs severely mangled and could only move 2''; he had to rely on a spell to get anywhere. That's fun. If they do release an "advanced campaign" supplement I'll be all over that, and I'll check out every fan expansion as well as write my own. But I still think you can have a nice campaign with their basic structure, as long as people stay in the narrative spirit, like @Yoshiya said. I do wish we'd  gotten a bit more to chew on :)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been thinking a lot about a pick-up game style campaign for my local GW, and the gaming convergences idea has given me pause for thought. you really could stack it up to be more in your favor, so what are some rules that could prevent this?

I was thinking maybe a good-faith rule? Dont stack your games to be overly in your favor for this battle? maybe roll a dice after setting up the warbands. on a 4-6 you play convergence, but on a 1-3 you draw a random matched play mission and count that as a convergence? maybe a potential third party sets up the opponent's warband for you to play, or set up so each has as close to an equal number of guys in it per group?

or am I overthinking this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...