soak314

@Sleboda @Moldek @Lior'LecI think you can climb and then attack in two parts as one activation. p42, Falling rules, makes a point of differentiating when a moving, non-climbing fighter falls, and when a climbing fighter falls. Moving, non climbing is at the end of the move action (ie. doing a scooby doo run right off a ledge). If you do this as your first action, you proceed to Falling rules, resolve those, then do your second action. (Ignore for a moment that this rule is at complete and utter odds with the Jumping mechanics, we'll get back to it in a bit.) Climbing however does not cause you to fall at the end of the action, only at the end of the activation. If you look at the example diagram on p43, you'll see the fighter making two move actions, the first one transitioning into and ending while in a climbing state (fighters that begin a climb are said to be climbing until their base rests on a platform!). He carries on with another Move action, resuming the climbing state, and getting onto the platform. His activation ends, he isn't in a climbing state, he doesn't fall. Now let's pretend that instead of moving for his second activation, he'd done an attack instead. Ending an action in the climbing state makes it so he does not fall. He finishes the second action, the attack, and you now check his status. He's not on a platform or on the board, but is in a climbing state. It's the end of his activation, while in a climbing state, therefore climbing no longer saves him. He now goes into the falling rules, and your opponent decides where he lands. *** Earlier I mentioned the Jumping rules being at odds with the moving, non-climbing fall state. Take the example of the scooby doo ledge run. If willfully done, it's technically a jump. The Falling state does not occur, and the controlling player puts his fighter straight down horizontally. The opponent won't get to decide where he lands, as they usually would during a Fall. Why would you ever not willfully turn the scooby doo ledge run into a jump? Why would you, as the rules writer, go through the trouble of defining a special moving, non-climbing fall state when anyone could just turn instances of those state, during their turn, into (relatively) safe Jumps? I think this is because Warcry's activation rules were initially written to be like Infinity's. For those not aware, Infinity works off a near identical two-action-per-activation system. The key difference is that in Infinity, you declare both of your actions before you ever touch your tape measure to check if you can actually do them. *** With this in mind, let's look back at your climbing combat example. (Just to be clear I do think you can solid snake in MGS2 it across the thin ledge via climb up until you get the clearance you need.) In Warcry with pre-measuring, this is all a risk free endeavor. You see how far your dude can go, see if he can make it to the safe spot. If he can, then peachy. You do a Normal Move, which is also a Climb, to assassins creed around the side safely onto the platform. If he can't, then you don't bother with this course of action at all. But if you were doing this with no pre-measuring, from the bottom of the climb, you risk not making that second move action all the way. If you'd declared Move > Move, started the climb on the first action, carried it on with the second, and ended up either in a climb state without fitting legally onto the platform, then you'd fall. Imagine a similar situation, but with both fighters up on the platform. Say one player activates and wants to move around the other without engaging. He declares Move > Move to run past the other guy while staying up on the platform. If he fudges the first move, and ends up not on full platform contact, he'll then fall. If he saves himself by saying he'll climb around the ledge for the first move, he still has to successfully make it onto a flat surface with both moves. If he ends while climbing, he again falls. So uh yeah I think you can climb and attack but I also think warcry was made with a "declaration first no pre-measuring" action system initially, up until someone in corporate told them to make it ez premeasure all the time because it was too close to Infinity / too fiddly for their vision of a simple system.

To be perfectly honest, if I were new and coming into the tourney scene, and someone told me they'd prepared a curated tournament environment for me where the most problematic elements of the scene are curbed in favour of a less negative gaming experience, I'd just drop AoS then and there. It tells me the game isn't balanced at all and wasn't made with competitive play in mind. Consider running meeting engagements instead of standard maybe? ME de-bloats the game in a lot of ways by removing stacked horde buffs, limiting what you can wombo combo for allegiance stuff, and staggering out deployment so entire armies aren't ramming into each other turn 1. Also it's 1k points working off 2x MSU at the most. That's a hell of a lot more accessible than pretty much any of the other tryhard options, especially for new players.

I'd drop some bodies to make room for another stabba. I've found a totem and a stabba in your dagger and shield each can really help give you the punch you need vs tougher warbands. Arrow boys are a tempting grab but I'd drop em for the aforementioned stabba or more shield choppas. Agreed that arrowboss is the way to go for tryharding, dead cheap 25 wounds at 4T. You could stick him in a battle group next to a stabba to give that stabba either alpha strike/catchup capability depending on situation. Turning an early high value double into a triple and chucking your stabba right into your opponent's most important model on your first activation does a number on their morale.

Hey all, I've released my rules for Greenskinz, and have updated the Dispossessed rules Dwarf update includes: Testing and feedback is as always greatly appreciated!

We've been houseruling cover into... well something that makes a bit more sense as necessary. As written it's serviceable, but the moment you have two models up against a wall trying to whack each other (one might be in cover!) we just throw the basic cover rules in the bin and play it by ear. Another thing is fall damage and dangerous terrain. I'd tweak it to 1d6 wounds from 3 inches of falling, then add another 1d6 per inch over. If there's dangerous terrain where you land, just do another 1d6 wounds. Falling's waaay too safe IMO. It reminds me of how an ork in gorkamorka could pinball between a cascade of dramatic vehicle collisions and come out completely unhurt (funny but immersion shattering). Also a basic courtesy ruling of 'if the scenario generated is an instawin from one side, redraw the condition or deployment as necessary, or maybe just don't make it so you instantly win the scenario if you're the one picking the conditions'.

Too early to call. There have barely been any tournaments and the one I did see report winners had still houseruled their twists a bit. Even then, the campaign mode is an entirely different beast altogether. This forum's userbase also tends to be way reliant on theorycraft, so even after a few months on I'd say its better to just speak with people on your store who run the factions. Or better yet, make a point of playing as/against them yourself.

The minus to max range ones always get stormcast players testy. Don't mind em myself but I can imagine why you'd not enjoy pulling em out. Other than that maybe the minus to movement ones? Some people just dislike having penalties, and while I enjoy the challenge I *don't* enjoy when the other person starts blaming your win/their loss entirely on the twist. I'd have preffered if the twist was all just bonuses just to get rid of that particular psychological variable. But it's easy enough to cull out the cards and personalise your group's deck.

More Battle Reports! GAME 1 vs IRONJAWZ (me as dwarf) GAME 2 vs GLOOMSPITE GITZ (Me as Gitz)

@Oath Stoned Thanks for the feedback! A lot of my statline decisions have been predicated on Grudgebearer, and now Shield Wall. Especially on the warriors. I've made it so you can get em to 5T reliably through doubles. 4T's a great baseline, but 5T is where you get rank and file hurting you on 5's only. I didn't want to push this further than that however as it'd invalidate a lot of the other faction's 5Str options vs our chaff. Don't forget Resolute in Defense used in conjunction with Shield Wall also lets them add a total of +2 to their tough, meaning any one warrior can get to 6T, and -1 to all damage for two doubles provided they got a champ/leader nearby. Bumping warriors and miners up to 10 wounds however is something I've been considering, and will now likely put in with 1.02. Hammerers and Longbeards are wonky atm, and will get a good looking at. The longbeard is meant to be a support model that can attack from the rear, ala the bonesplitter totem boy. The hammerer is meant to share a similar spread tweaked for 1 inch punchy burst, sort of the irondwarf equivalent of the classic slayer. Ironbreakers are getting -1att +1tough, because I actually would like ironbreakers in particular to easily invalidate everyone else's 5str.

You get two duplicates of the one orruk set in the box. Each set has enough for one big stabba, one melee leader, one bow leader, and one totem and skull drummer. That's two melee leaders as intended. The bow leader only really needs a choppa in one hand to be wysiwyg. That's three bodies for your leaders. Two totems is all you'll need in most cases, same with big stabbas. That's 6 bodies for the stabbas and the totems, 9 total. That leaves you with 11 more orruks to work with. I'd say you won't need more than 3 of each kind of melee boy, and likely never more than 2 arrowboyz. So it comes down to exactly what you need! EDIT: Also unless you really like em or they get faqd I'd just make the morboyz into more spear, arrow, or shieldboyz.

@Skyeline Fabulous! The only thing ever holding us back from 3 player games of this was the funky deployments on the basic plans, so these are a huge help.

I would! Stuff like this is much appreciated.

Yeah the movement isn't so big an issue when you realize you can shoot at the entire board, even with a mixed loadout. It also pushes people to drop points into miners, and not just take more guns. If you do use em I recommend going for the classic dwarfs (warriors, thunderers, slayers, miners + their leaders) as I feel they're in a fantastic place atm. The irondwarfs, not so much. I'll likely be focus testing the modern models for a longer period of time. Leaders, especially duardin melee ones, actually aren't all that big an issue to play around with. You'll find that for most factions the footslogger leaders have the exact same spreads, essentially behaving as the same frontline buff vectors with varying toughnesses and max wounds. The biggest one to pay attention to for me was the Ironwarden, and potentially the smashboss Slayer leader. Both feel like they're pretty alright at the moment, though I need to play em both maybe half a dozen more times each to get a really good say on it. Additional prospects are a Quarreler leader (just a tweaked thunderer leader with a different range band and damage swing) and maaaaaaaybe a Prospector once I square everything else off. Final note, I'm trying to get as many options in as I can because the primary goal of the homebrew is to let people play with as wide a range of their toy soldiers as they can. Balance is something I pay attention to, but it's always with deference to options.

Testing Battle Reports! GAME 1: vs Bonesplitterz (me as orruks) NOTES: Game 2:vs Flesh Eater Courts (me as dwarf) NOTES: *** That's all for right now, I've got a couple more games lined up soonish, one with all all classic slayers list vs squigs, one with thunderers spam vs all brute Ironjawz!

Fast, punchy, and tough. They can sacrifice speed on their bruiser options to get more ghouls in. Cannot stress how fast these guys are across the board, at 5 move on the ghouls and access to a triple which is the same as an ork waaagh. Skewering strike and chosen of the king are insane doubles. Death scream can be a surprisingly potent horde clearer if you chuck a triple 6 into it. I think their listbuilding is quite flexible despite the base format looking very samey at 2-3 knights + X amount of ghouls left over.

I use cave squigs predominantly, they're pretty damn good with multiple herders helping to push em along. I've one shotted a few SCE with em, great fun every time it happens.

Chalk it up to an anti-monster weapon being wielded in quick melee combat I guess? But likelier to be a go at balancing em out. The big footprint means a 2 or 3 inch range would give them an enormous threat zone.

Main post updated with a quick fix to the Dispossessed PDF. Testing battle reports coming soon!

If you're talking narrative play in a campaign with all the good scenario generation stuff, then maybe. They're excellent at pinpoint murder and not dying. In matched play? Na. Also daily reminder to people that cover rules exist and will save your butt vs the stormcast.

That'd be awesome! Campaigns are a great driver for play and narrative motivation, and the warcry ones can get pretty involving despite their simplicity. Lovely to hear! Noted, but for now I'd like to run some personal tests on em (or wait for people to weigh in after some games on their end) before making any big point or statline changes. *** A little peek at what I'm working on next:

Cheers! I had to include miners and slayers because I wanted to include all of the old dwarf infantry options. Part of the goal of homebrewing dwarfs in particular is to let people with old collections still field em in the cool new system. If GW ever makes dispossessed rules for warcry, I'm sure it'll be around the Ironbreakers/drakes. This way I'll still have a ruleset for the classic stunties even if I have to pull out the fancier duardin. Tying into what i just said about future proofing, it might be a good idea to not tie one whole ability to being one of the newer models. However, I've actively avoided buffs that work in a bubble that increase range/enhance shooting. This is because people have tended to be very leery of shooting in this game (i.e. people dogpiling on stormcast for being broken because of shooting + toughness). Something that increases range also ups the potential for shooting alpha strikes to be a thing, and that's the last thing I want my rules to do is feel like it's brought that back in from AoS/40k/KT. You'll mention the leader quad later, and that's my stealth group shooting buff. Along with rune of accuracy, they're the only true offensive abilities I've given em. You'll find that if they work in tandem it can deal a pretty ridiculous amount of damage, especially when you also gang up on the grudged unit. I'm definitely going to look at Gromril forged armour, though. I think I can work it into something more group defensive (Shield Wall?), that doesn't exclusively belong to the newer models. That'd mean them dropping the bulwark keyword, or potentially giving it to the basic warrior. And I've definitely considered the Quarreler leader. I think I'll give him the same range band as the rank and file, a longer range, maybe slightly cheaper option to the thunderer veteran. Tradeoff for the range would be the inability to shoot into melee, and str 3. Yeah I was thinking of giving both shooty leaders the Destroyer keyword so they get access to the big triple. I'm not sure what to call the ability itself, but I was definitely considering renaming it. Giant Slayer was what I was first thinking, but that's already a model name! Going back to this, I'm thinking of replacing the Gromril double with a triple that works off either leaders or champions. 6" radius, +1 toughness, -1 damage to all hits. Further incentive to take longbeards! And going off my bonesplitterz, I'd say just the +1 tough by itself can be an immense PITA paired with a cheap 4t chaff unit.

I'd normally say yes to 'within X of Y model' abilities working on the fighter using it, but in this case the ability refers to a model that *isn't* the activating model, and is also asking for visibility. I think as intended, it's not meant to work on your leader. Good way to get a horror to a very nasty state, though.

Attached are my custom Warcry rules for Dispossessed and Greenskinz! Both factions are designed to work off their basic faction boxes, incorporating as many of those units as possible into the rules, hopefully letting you get a warband made with one minimum sized battleline box! If anyone would like to volunteer photographs of both the basic* and boss** variant of the Gitmob bow grots, I'd be happy to use them in the pdf (with credit!) *bow grot currently has no photograph on their card **boss bow grot not yet included in rules *** While I'm comfortable writing rules to represent their fighting tactics, I'm not quite as quick to come up with something fluffier! So if someone would like to help write up short campaign quests for the dwarfs and greenskinz in the default warcry format, it'd be much appreciated feel free to also make your own artefacts, command traits, and rewards! Warcry - Greenskinz 1.00.pdf Warcry - Dispossessed 1.02.pdf Design Doc.docx

How exactly is Storm Fire different from Onslaught? From the way Storm Fire is worded, one would assume Onslaught isn't meant to work below 3 inches, but that is definitely not the case!

I think they're lovely! The moonclan grot box is one of the best ones for sculpt, character, and utter ease of construction IMO. As per getting more netters, there's no real trick to it. Either buy a couple of grot boxes, or buy a bulk lot of the old metal netters from ebay somewhere (the old metal ones are amazing sculpts too). I've heard of people weaving together wire and slapping it on the end of a pokin spear, that might be something you can try?