exliontamer
-
Posts
70 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by exliontamer
-
-
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.
-
1
-
-
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.
-
4 hours ago, whiskeytango said:
man, in the (admittedly few) games I've played my Awakened Ones haven't done anything except be Visage triggers. my Ascended Ones have done way better. Then I come here and hear they apparently suck. Who knew?
It's not that they suck, it's just that they are one two action activation and not hugely better stats (and a very mediocre ability) for more than double the price of two activations (four actions) if you had taken two Awakened Ones instead. That's not to say in some matches that the better stats of the Ascended Ones wouldn't make the difference, but for many objectives out activating your opponent, while it isn't a guaranteed win, is a huge advantage.
-
2
-
-
Yup! Malifaux had some real fun ones too, so worth looking at those and adapting them. One I remember fondly is that you designate one of your own models as a patsy and essentially try to get the other team to kill them...and you score if they do. If that one is in the pool the opponent has to really second guess each time they kill one of your dudes...and you have to decide do you put it on an obvious threat or just some silly grunt? Soooo many mind games.
-
1
-
-
On 8/24/2019 at 11:22 PM, grimgold said:
I think one of the big changes needed is that there has to be some way to avoid awful objective and twist cards, so here is my thought on modifying the way objectives and twist are determined;
- Deal three Objective cards and three twist cards face up,
- Players roll for priority,
- The player with priority chooses either an objective card or a twist card to discard,
- The player who does not have priority then chooses to discard a twist card if the priority player chose twists, or an objective card if the priority player chose to discard an objective.
- The player who does not have priority then chooses to discard a card, they discard a twist card if the player with priority chose an objective or an objective card if the priority player chose to discard a twist.
- The player with priority then chooses one of the remaining two cards to discard.
Basically the players deal three of each and take turns vetoing twists or objectives, the player with priority gets first and last pick which is balanced out by the fact the player without priority gets 2 picks in a row. It makes the objectives and twists a tactical thing and decreases the chance of Objectives and twists heavily favoring one player or another.
I'm a programmer by profession so the steps are probably too wordy (and I'm sure others on the board could be much more succinct with the rules), but I think the idea is solid and pretty easy to grasp. What do you guys think, would this work?
*edit* Trying to make this more succinct
- Players deal three objectives face up and three twists face up
- Players roll for priority
- The player with priority chooses a Twist or an objective card to discard
- The player without priority chooses a twist and an objective to discard
- The player with priority chooses to discard a card, if their first choice was an objective they must discard a twist, and vice versea.
I think it would be good in competitive/matched play to come up with a slate of victory conditions based on the existing ones, but modified to all generate a certain amount of VP (either per round of doing something like holding an objective or all at once when the objective on the card is "completed"). Then you could deal out 3-4 of them and each player picks two (in secret?). Or perhaps deal out one "major" victory condition and always have 3-4 minor ones available and each player chooses one of the minors in secret and doesn't announce which one until they score it.
This is all basically ripped off from Malifaux 2E...I always loved having at least one "secret" objective as it really requires you and your opponent to think tactically...allowing for feints, tricks, etc. It also allows you to basically get rid of the twists, which are not really good for matched play imo. It makes the "twist" entirely dependent on player choice and interaction instead of a random card draw.
-
1
-
17 hours ago, The Traitor said:
Took close-ups of the six converted flails and the leader, didn't convert the awakened ones too much as they already are amazing models.
Amazing work! Reminds me of one of my favorite follows on IG: ingrimmson (which is meant to be a HUGE compliment...dude is legendary)
-
I hear you. And if I'm being honest I really hope they introduce more universals in an expansion. They could be tied to the under-utilized role runemarks maybe?
Like there's all these rules for falling damage (pretty complex given the largely simple rules of the game)...there should be a universal "Push" action for beefier fighters where if you are within 1" of a model you can push it 2-3" away from you (maybe require an opposed strength roll or something if it seems too good to auto succeed...I dunno), that way you could push people off of buildings/platforms, or break enemy lines and be able to move through them without triggering the 1" rule on Move actions. Or push them into the 4" death zone at the end of round 4 in some missions. Wouldn't that be cool?
-
2
-
-
20 minutes ago, Sleboda said:
Isn't that the ability that fails one third of the time even after you got lucky enough to get the needed doubles and spent them?
Seems to risky to plan on.
Don't get me wrong, I'll give it a go. It just seems far too luck dependent.
Oops, I missed that. Yeah that does make it significantly worse (though still more useful than the damage abilities with the 33% chance success rate IMO).
-
3 hours ago, Sleboda said:
Why is that?
I've played several games of Warcry now, with various warbands, and (even though I am/was very excited to get going with them) The Unmade seen like the low end of things in the game, in terms of power.
How are folks making them work?
Horrifying Visage, for the low cost of a double greater than one, allows even your lowliest grunt 60 pt fighters to tie up any model on the opposing team with only a 1" range weapon and essentially nullify their activation (seriously, all they can do is "Wait"). This is very powerful against some warbands, and just meh against others.
It does of course have its downsides:
- 66.6% success (haha, the BIG obvious one I missed)
- Only really works against a fighter who hasn't activated yet...if opponent sees it coming and is going first they will just activate the endangered model first. (Of course then you have forced their activation order which can be its own benefit.)
- Only really nullifies targets with 1" range weapons...many warbands have access to fighters with mid- and long-range weapons, or multiple weapons.
- Only really works in a game where victory condition relies on movement (though it can be used to take a big melee damage dealer out of action dropping the opponent's ability to kill your models in killy missions)
- Disproportionately affects warbands with lots of elites/low model counts, high model count opponents will likely just shrug it off.
I do think it is a really powerful tool, and unique from what I've seen so far(?)...and in conjunction with what I was suggesting above with taking lots of the 60 pt Awakened One models it could really just stop a smaller force dead in its tracks. If you're already out-activating them by 3-5 fighters and then take one of their guys out of action every turn...that's gonna hurt in most scenarios.
Of course for me this is all based on analysis of rules/theory. I hope to get my spooky bois built and painted up this weekend to start playing with them ASAP.
-
So I just picked up the box and haven't had a chance to play with them yet, but what kinds of lists are people running outside of the designated contents of the box? Just fooling around via the warband builder app on the GW site I noticed you can take 13 Awakened Ones of either flavor and a leader. Is there any reason to take the other two "special" guys. 13 grunts is a LOT of activations. The other guys' abilities seem a little too random (requiring a roll of 5 or 6 to do any real damage)...and it seems like your doubles and triples would be better spent on generic abilities in the first place. Are their stats (Dmg 2 base is nice, I admit) really worth it? Their cost seem WAY too high. Thoughts?
-
1
-
-
That Blissful One is really one of the most inspired minis GW has released in a good long while. Seems like they might have been trawling the #aos28 and #darkageofsigmar hashtags on Instagram 😁
-
7 minutes ago, tom_gore said:
Have you seen the rulebook? Matched play has fixed scenarios just like AoS, so the battleplan cards are not used there.
Which is good, since I cannot imagine playing in a tournament with the battleplan cards. That just wouldn't make sense.Yes I have. And sorry, that final paragraph likely should have been a more clearly defined separate thought. I think it's the right direction for matched play, I just wish there was more tactical variety. In fact the "randomness" of the card draws in the other play modes isn't inherently bad, it's just implemented poorly. Imagine if you drew three cards for victory conditions/goals and could choose two of them (and your opponent could choose two of their own, not necessarily the same two)...that's the type of thing I'm talking about. It would instantly make the game better and it is so easy to do. It's something I will definitely playtest with my group given the opportunity.
-
2
-
-
4 minutes ago, Moldek said:
I understand people’s concern but I disagree with the idea that the game is lazy / early access.
I think their main goal was to make an easy to learn game with some meaningful variations and cool model. Could it be more balanced / tactical? Sure but let me counter with this ; I took 2 people to my GW to play demo games, not having played myself, and both times we were able to figure out the rules and have a fun 30 minutes game. Can you do that with infinity / malifaux?
I just don’t think their focus is on a deep game and people looking for that will be disappointed. And I think that’s fine. I’m not playing AoS because I don’t enjoy list building and learning 60 different abilities and synergies. I want a simple fun game with cool models, that is swingy and tells a story.
I do think there are some cool ideas in this thread (hidden agendas for instance sounds really fun) and the discussion is very interesting. I hope they do deepen the game and create cool add-ons, but I just don’t think they are targeting seasoned strategists
obviously the game is not perfect and criticism is constructive so I’ll keep my eyes peeled for any improvement I can add to my houserules!
Yeah, I hear you. Believe me I understand that my wants/desires/expectations aren't necessarily going to line up with GW's business plan (or even their philosophy for the game). And that's fine. There are reasons I love Warcry and reasons I am severely disappointed in it. And I agree with you, the reasons I am disappointed are actually pretty easily remedied through homebrew and house rules and such. I'd like it if GW wanted those same things that I do, but I am realistic that it probably won't happen...or won't happen for a long time.
Also to be clear, I am totally glad that other people are having fun with the game. I don't want to be a curmudgeon. In fact I have had fun playing it, believe it or not
-
2
-
-
19 hours ago, soak314 said:
Consider the situation: "kill all of your opponent's hammer, which is just a couple of 8 wound plains runners!". Sound dead easy!
But with a mutual 2-3 stage staggered deployment, over the course of 4 turns, while your opponent's hammer is actively nyooming away from you, WHILE you have a 30 wound chaos beast messing around the middle of it all because loltwists, you'll then be provided with some very meaningful decisions to make.That's not good game design...that's just arbitrary and random. Sometimes goals will be not only challenging but impossible.
Take by comparison Malifaux where you have multiple goals and victory conditions to choose from and in many cases you keep them secret from your opponent until the first time you score so that they can't just move the unit you have to kill as far away from you as possible. And most of them require actions other than standing or killing or moving so you have to make real choices with your economy of actions.
I am not saying Warcry can't be fun, but the inherent randomness to the mission/deployment/twist is just lazy development...not a cleverly built challenge. I won't even get into the standardized terrain because it is literally just a cash grab.
EDIT for clarification:
<break for separate thought about Matched Play>
Now my hope is that matched play goes way more towards the Malifaux side of things with standard but varied scenarios and [adding in] some element of surprise or scheming against your opponent [eventually]. We will see what the future brings. But for now to claim that randomness = tactical depth...I just fundamentally disagree with you. But that's cool. Different strokes.
-
8 hours ago, marke said:
In M3E there are pass tokens to solve the "activation spam" problem. To be honest the core mechanics of the game made it less of a problem in M2E as well. Malifaux is an excellent and well polished game by the way, and should be played by everyone. 😁
Most modern skirmish games have some solution to activation problem. Warcry doesn't seem to have one. However, imo the challenges Warcry's ruleset is facing is keeping the game meaningful while lacking player interaction, resource manipulation and multiple win conditions. Walking to bash face and letting only the dice (or stats) decide the outcome of the game isn't going to be very interesting for very long.
The game is still very new and has potential to grow. These things take time, and I hope it sells well enough for GW to care about it and add more depth.
Amen to all of this. Warcry is like the skirmish game equivalent of those "early access" video games. We're basically fronting the cash and the "support" so that someday, hopefully, GW builds a better game and improves the rules. You can argue about whether or not you like that model, but that's basically what happened with Kill Team as well and it seems to have worked out...okayish? I guess? I mean arguably everything in Elites should have been in the base version of the game. But then GW couldn't charge 40-50 bucks for an upgrade book and open the gate for players to buy more model kits once or twice a year.
Similarly Warcry should have debuted with more varied win cons, more actions and interactions that the units had to take to achieve victory...so that players would have to make a real choice outside of: do I double move or double attack this turn?
I think Warcry can get there, either through GW working it out eventually or through community innovation on the core concept. And at least we got some shiny new chaos model kits out of it! That's cool right?
-
23 hours ago, bonesaww666 said:
I wish we had a ranged unit, but I understand why we dont, being able to fly to the top of a ruin while your enemies climb to engage your banshee would be pure shenanigans.
Yeah...that would be awful 😉
-
1
-
-
I see what you're saying about historical comparison, but the cards seem pretty necessary to play the game at all. The other (non-Chaos) factions are not in the book, right? Or did I hear that wrong? Either way it would seem that the mylar packs are an attempt to print a ton of these and keep them in regular circulation.
That aside, I am kinda bummed out about Warcry in general, seems like they really bungled an amazing opportunity with amateurish rules writing. The few games I have played and watched played out predictably and didn't offer much in the way of tactical depth or replay value. And they really phoned in the narrative and campaign part of the game, but I knew that was going to happen so I wasn't as disappointed in that. Mordheim taught them that you can't make money when you sell one good book with all the rules right off the bat...
I do LOVE the attempt to add depth to the various human factions of Chaos. There's a lot of flavor there and a lot of promise. But none of the factions feel like they play different enough in-game (from the spoilers we've seen) to really hit it home.
That being said, if I do pick up any of the rules for Warcry it'll be for DoK. They seem the most deep roster-wise and the most fun. Plus I have a few un-built boxes of DoK lying around that I would love to paint up. I actually think Warcry could be great with a bit of homebrewing, I just don't know if I have the time to dedicate to that, nor a pool of people who would be interested in playtesting.
-
1
-
-
5 toughness is all well and good, but the real problem to me would be their across the board Str 3. They are going to be hitting most things in the game 33% of the time, and sure those times will be 50/50 crit or regular dmg, but the regular dmg is mostly 1...which is pretty rough. An people are going to say "oh well they won't be good at killing but they'll be good at holding points." The reality of Warcry is that if you are good at killing you are good at both...since you don't need to spend actions to do anything else a guy who is good at killing can just spend 2-3 rounds doubling attacking and eventually delete all the ghosts to hold the point...
I'm really not trying to be "that guy"...but GW just has no experience with an activation-based game like this and it shows. The more I learn about it (and based on two games I've played and watching about a dozen more) Warcry really seems like a big old dud. Which is sad because it had so much promise and I really, really wanted to like it. I actually think it could still be made into a good game with a little homebrew ingenuity...but I shouldn't feel like I need to fix a game with a $40 rulebook the day after it comes out. Maybe I'll come back to it in a year and see if they've ironed out any of the huge mistakes.
-
1
-
-
39 minutes ago, Gwendar said:
I'm not sure I understand this, or maybe lack of sleep is making me read it incorrectly. You only get 3 torso's per box so what would magnetizing the upper\lower torso do? The main difference is the arms so that's what you would want to magnetize, no?
Crypt Horrors/Flayers technically utilize the same front torso pieces and backs, but the kit has separate back pieces that are for the bat-like guys you can build from Vampire Counts days. So if you don't mind using the boney back for one and the furry back for the other you can glue the arms to the appropriate back pieces, then add a set of magnets inside the torso so you can pull off the back/arms and attach the other variety. Pretty ingenious actually.
-
18 hours ago, Evil Bob said:
That combined with Feast Day stop me from playing Blisterskin all the time. It is kind of frustrating since I don’t get to call out, “Praise The SUN” before important charges.
Meh, I still have my dudes painted Blisterskin and I refer to them as such, even when I don't specifically use that Court. It's not my fault that GW made the Courts' fluff so appealing but also made their rules significantly less appealing by forcing you to take certain artefacts and traits...
-
50 minutes ago, amysrevenge said:
I almost don't need the CP
I'll make use of them, send them over here
-
2
-
-
21 hours ago, Honk said:
nothing compared to my 1995 skellis, which seem to throw off arms like little salamanders.
OMG. That...freaking...kit. I tried to play undead as a youngster and I simply ended up with ranks of armless skeletons. I still find skeleton arms in my childhood bedroom at my parents' house. Lol.
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, XReN said:
GeneralZero's comment made me remember a little something about FEC, @Sometimes, painting big undead winged monstrosities is not an easy task, if you don't have patience or modelism experience prapare for a long paintjob and take small steps doing it. And from personal preference I can recommend painting them in sub-assembly, with forelimbs not attached to bodies. If you don't plan on any fancy base and can find a way to magnetise those or have someone to do this for you - even better, much less strugle transporting models in the future.
Seconded. I just finished painting my first Crypt Flayer last night and I wish I had left the wings off, they were a little frustrating to work with. I imagine the terrorgheist is going to be a bit of a bear too, with all the exposed bones and muscles and skin sitting right next to each other. And the wings seem a bit fiddly and hard transport. I am starting to think magnetizing might be worth it.
-
3 minutes ago, GeneralZero said:
I'm not that kind of guy: I sold my halves less than 60euros and arch regents arount 15eur lol
Well darn, wish I had seen your sales
Actually the folks selling now probably bought your items cheap and relisted them. Supply and demand I guess...
Shardsfall
in Narrative and Open Play
Posted
Amen. For anyone who has ever played Mordheim these rules ARE simple and easy to understand. I see exactly where Grand Exemplar is coming from and it would be cool and useful for me if I could find other Mordheim fans to try it out with...unfortunately I don't have access to any Mordheim players atm in my LGS scene. And to Criti's point, it can be hard to convince players to give something old or something homebrewed a try. That is a fact for sure. But it doesn't change that this is a great hybridization of AoS simplicity and Mordheim campaign rules (and some of the better functional rules). I find it very useful and I will tuck it away until I can find someone who is willing to experiment with me ;)