Kill Team didn't do it. They just said they're doing it for official GW events. It solves a fake problem for roughly 0.1% of players. The compendium teams were broadly not considered "real" teams -- dropping those doesn't simplify the options so much as it prevents new players from starting at a grave disadvantage.
Another way to cut bloat in Warcry is to identify Underworlds warbands that contain models that are essentially just alternate sculpts of existing Compendium profiles, and eliminate distinct profiles for those models. For example, Skulck and Krowcht', from Skitterhsank's Clawpack, are just slightly-upgraded Skaven Night Runners; the game wouldn't suffer greatly by eliminating the distinct profiles for those two models, and letting folks use them as alternate sculpts for generic Night Runners. Similarly, in Gashrak's Despoilers, there are three named Ungors that don't need to exist. Ushkor and Gnarl are virtually identical to generic Ungor Raiders; Korsh the Sneak is very similar to an Ungor with Gnarled Shortspear and Half-shield; and Murghoth Half-Horn is essentially a Gor with Pair of Gor Blades. I think it's important that heroes and other unique models from Underworlds warbands retain their unique profiles as Bladeborn fighters in Warcry, but very few of the chaff and mid-range models from Underworlds are distinct enough to merit adding a unique profile for each. Thus, each Underworld warband would bring 1-3 named heroes with unique profiles and abilities, plus a few alternate sculpts for existing Compendium profiles. Making this change would cut 200 or more profiles from the game, the vast majority of which rarely see play.
This is a very valid point imo; Most WHU teams dont actually add all that much to the game and you could totally push those more interesting profiles and abilities into the factions themselves to make them more interesting to play.
I agree with your perspective on officially merging non-hero and non-unique WU models with their "line" equivalents to reduce bloat. The biggest potential loss I see in that is a reduced sense of "hand holding" for WU players starting in Warcry. I think that can be mitigated in the Bladeborn lists with the right notes.
I totally agree. There might be many players that love the amount of options, but a framework that includes compendium, bladeborn and bespoke feels to me like a Frankenstein of three games (AoS, Underworld and classic Warcry). People with old models can surely find an alternative for their cool minis... well, maybe not for some bespoke...
Both from a model collecting/building and gameplay perspective, I like the direction GW has gone in to simplify loadout profiles. Get that right for Warcry and it means I can still play my existing models for the most part, just in a single simplified profile where before it may have been several. I'm dealing with that with Skinks right now for example. Yes, that would disrupt current lists if you took 4 loadouts with different costs down to 1, but I can still use my models. I also support rotating out (or making legends) of ranges you can no longer buy like the Cold One (but I recognise I am not in a position to be impacted by that in my own warbands!)
There is alot of pushback from some people who want the barrier of entry to remain VERY low, and I understand those arguments but to get more players into the game it's got to at least look like it is tighter then it is XD
I remember in AoS 2nd Ed, the Scar Vet on Carnosaur had 4 different main weapon profiles and they have been simplified down to 1 "Celestialite Weapon". As a Seraphon enjoyer - we dont need 4 different skink profiles, take the average of all of them and make that the main one. This should also be done with any other chaff-like unit that can have multiple profiles, simplify those down.
As a fairly new player to WC but not tabletop gaming, I’m on team balance and streamline. I’d love more Warbands to be viable out of box and balanced enough to have a chance in a game. I’d buy way more if they were….I do also see the fun w/the “all in” style too, maybe 2 different rule sets or game modes could be an easy option?
yeah completely agree with the saurus scar vet on cold one. I really like the aggradon models but just can't justify the points cost when even the saurus knights aren't far behind on stats
Honestly, I would hate to see a competitive rotation come to this game. I love Kill Team and I think it is one of the best games GW produces, but the freedom of list building selection is something that I love about Warcry and I think makes it special. I think it's a game that should focus on casual accessability and robust narrative play and should, for the most part, stay away from going down the Kill Team route of things (outside of say rebalancing things like damage disparity on crits and hits, creating more flavorful and active faction rules, or borrowing keywords). That said the game definitely needs a culling and streamlining of rosters. There's the obvious routes as mentioned in the video of more actively culling outdated models and unit profiles, as well as consolidating a lot of profiles that are just slight differences in gear, but I think we could go even further than that. I personally would give the boot to every single unit champion profile in the game from the heroes roster and instead expand blessings to allow players to buy special Champion Runemarks for non-heroes that give a stat bonus along with the ability to inspire the same model type as themselves on a double. Removing all the champions as discreet profiles would help cleanup the bloated heroes section for all the Compendium. I would also take this idea further and add Runemarks for totems and instruments that give special bonuses so people can get more variety out of their Compendium Warbands without bloating the unit rosters. To help out even more with flexibility and freedom it would also be cool to see Warcry add the Anvil of Apotheosis that AoS narrative has had in the past and let players build custom heroes from traits based on their Grand Alliance. I think that would give people something to do with the older heroes that would be culled, pave the way for other redundant heroes to be removed (maybe even the Underworlds varieties) without anyone having to feel bad (since they could just recreate the hero in a manner) and it would create all sorts of fun kitbashing opportunities or allow people to run models that have yet to be given rules. This system would also allow people who are just playing off a one box AoS units to turn the unit champion into a leader for the warband as well to fill the gap of their units profiles getting axed in this hypothetical.
That's actually a pretty smart way of doing it. I also figured it would be best to get rid of unit champions, but I hadn't considered using a system like blessings to do it. It works well with the fact that unit champions seem to be fairly standardized now. They usually get something like +1 attack, +4 wounds, and the Hero runemark for around 55 points (I have just looked at the S2D unit champions), so it would work well. I'd also add shields to that list. Shields basically give +1 toughness, -1 attack, and the Bulwark runemark (usually for no extra points) anywhere they occur as an option.
I am not sure if it's actually correct but the rumor is GW keeps its main flagship and specialty games revenues separate. It makes sense for them in the short-term to go to rotation and use that. They are going to be ruining the value of the models though since for some reason none seems to play legends outside of basement games.
I think I'd prefer a curation as opposed to a rotation. Like, each faction gets a warband or two designed from their existing range, in line with bespoke design, with the remaining heroes who aren't utilised as leaders for these new warbands available as ally options. Having nearly every AoS model available, while impressive, is just unnecessary bloat. So I guess I'm saying... yeah, rotation... of a sort.
I thought of a solution where you have something similar in that each faction has a limited number of fighters but with a pool of generic allies for the GA that people have access to
@OffMetaMusings I'm sure I would be shouted down if this wasn't a reply to my own comment, but I think that's a half measure (and also just speaks to my preferences). I think list building in Warcry is to its detriment, not its benefit. No amount of balancing will prevent list building becoming "just take the most efficient thing, unless there is a specific combo you're after". Personally, I'd like completely locked lists, one box bespoke or bespoke design ethos with compendium units, and then each warband gets an allotment of points* or what-have-you to spend on various things (boons, equipment, allies, more fighters etc.) I think that would produce a much more interesting looking game state and push model variety on to the table.
New profile should have a list of older model that you can use to proxy this new profile, so people dont have tons of miniatures that artificialy run obsolete... Its so frustrating, you put effort in your minis and they can become obsolete.. soon after... I agree to the fusion of similar profile to reduce the mass amount of profile.
If you play with cool people you can always play minis as proxy but it should be official ! So you dont have to think about which mini go with which profile.
I think proxys only really matter if you are playing in events where its essential for opponents to know exactly what people are armed with. Otherwise players are generally pretty cool about it :)
"Legends" never work - show me one example when GW put something into "Legends" and there wasn't a huge backlash? That said I don't think there's anywhere to go for models that are out of print, unless we somehow make them as "invisible" proxies - i'e, here's the sacrosanct models, here's their stats, and all of them fit nicely into thunderstrike counterparts. We'd still have outliers of course, but these could be "understat-ed"? This would be more easily doable with Bladeborn - keep the ones in UW rotation as they are, and for rest of them give official proxy stats that are identical to existing models. Of course you'd need to add some understat-ed special cases for models without a sensible counterpart. Possibly keep the minimal bonus/downside of a different base size. Only the UW bands in rotation would have unique runemarks/skills. People need to feel that every miniature they invested in, time, money, skill, needs to be "officially" playable. Legends for people means basically "you can as well come up with stats for anything yourself, we don't care", which doesn't work. Proxy-stating legends models could work better.
I think cleaning up bloat would be fine, trimming unavailable models & options is good in all. However I'd also rather see things like old Underworlds Warbands brought into production rather than squatted from the rules. Though I don't think all that really fits with what a Rotation implies. I would really not want to see a rotation put in because of the potential for how much we can lose.
Totally agree. Things you cant buy put into legends. Things that are doubles of, put into legends. If they need to remove models, only if its absolutely necessary for the game. Gw has been increasing prices constantly and gutting peoples toys which is making masses backing right off. Lets be smart about keeping player base healthy above anything else. If no players, rules dont matter.
Rotation is a hard requirement for creating a serious competitive environment. Balance should be razorsharp to have diversity and reward creativity, and that is only possible with a smaller scope of fieldable units. I feel all arguments against this are ussually brought up by people that don't play in the context where these rules matter anyways. I really like how Kill Team is doing it, by creating a distinction between normal and competitive play. As long as warcry continues to support non-rotation play for normal players, there is no harm in using rotation in the more competitive context.
Maybe I am wrong when I'm saying this, but Warcry should just trim the AoS part from it. The main bloat of the game comes from the Bladeborn and the main AoS. It sometimes causes, and it's only my opinion, loss of the charm of Warcry as it was presented to us the first time. It is especially noticeable when we compare the rotation of Kill Team and Underworld (since we basically in the same boat). Both of these systems don't have cross-play with other systems. By that I mean you can't take some abstract models from main AoS and play in Underworlds, nor can you take other models from wider 40k faction to your killteam. Warcry, while made its unique feature, also caused itself a lot of harm by importing a ton of models from the main AoS. It may sound a bit wrong, but imho it is much better for the overhaul health of the game. Warcry should try to be more like Necromunda in 40k - live in the same setting, but use different models and approaches.
If there were enough people sure but im not sure you have enough people willing to only buy warcry warbands just to play warcry. For me, i wouldn't even look at warcry if i couldn't use my Aos models. It also guts list building, probably the most important part of any war game. Without it, things get stale fast. I'm not sure how long you've been in the hobby but you should be totally against anything that stops you using your models. Letting people use what they have is always a good thing because it means more people can play and not keep paying gw their crazy prices. Wargaming needs people more than the best rules imo.
In my opinion the overlap with AoS is one of it's strengths, because it gives existing players an easy way into warcry and vice versa. List building is also something that makes warcry more interesting then kill team to me, and with only bespoke warbands that would be very limited.
@@Midgar88 I am in hobby for about 10+ years (including working at LGS), and in some things I totally agree with you, about the prices and the people as well! However, it really depends on gaming store to gaming store of what community needs. I dedicated a lot of my time on creating AoS campaigns, though I am mostly a Necromunda player these days. We have a small community of players who don't really have a problem to change something we don't like in the core system. But the fact you have to do it with most games, including Warcry (I won't even start with Necromunda) is bad. As for the aos models in warcry, for me personally as an Idoneth player, I don't really find the Warcry spin appealing for my faction and I have no bespoke warband either. The Ydrilan (who are close to Idoneth at least) were a disappointment for what they bring to the table. So basically, I am in no real benefit from either. But it's only my view, and as a warcry casual player, I can be completely wrong! In any case, I hope I didn't upset you in any way and thanks for the comment!
It's a blessing and a curse that you can use AoS wholesale in Warcry; one one hand it's really easy for people to get into the game, but on the other, you kind of need actual warcry sales to guarantee continued support which is something I've talked about on numerous occasions
I see your point, but for me it's exactly the opposite: I like AoS Warcry but I don't fancy bespoke... and I'm not sure they are a very profitable option for GW.
Idea about moving some bespoke to legends with possibility to still play in casual sounds kinda okay. But in that case i would really like to see some new bespoke warbands. And removing from the game profiles for AoS models, that you can't buy anymore (STD example) sounds legit too. About UW warbands - i would not touch them and keep as it is.
UW warbands I'm conflicted on; Let's say for example Thricefold was out of production but was still legal for play; thats a blatant ebay play to win right there. I guess if you just moved them into legends anyway they can always come off as and when they come back into production,
@@OffMetaMusings well ye, but on the other hand - how much models like Vex (autoinclude in almost any chaos roster) we have from UW? Shouldn't GW just nerf these 1-2-3- models and it will be ok? :)
According to this article: www.warhammer-community.com/en-gb/articles/ep5buday/warhammer-underworlds-organised-play-the-shape-of-competitive-games-in-the-new-edition/ There are only going to be 33 warbands available for organised play (16 existing ones that are in those new boxes, 13 recent warbands, 2 from the box) with new warbands released being added to this list. Yes they say eventually older warbands will come back with new rules but there is no word on the timescale for that OR how many will make a return. The idea of a legends format is that I talked about is that things can go on and come off for matched play so it's basically the same rules that apply.
The biggest problem for me with warcry is that it is not possible to play with the warcry bespoke teams. Games Workshop should just change it so you can only use single box bespoke warbands in warcry. And then balance those against each other. The fact that you can just bring anything and ally in innumerous models makes the game too complicated.
I think it depends on how you like to play really; i did some polling earlier in the year which seems to say that the majority of players really only play one box bespokes with a single ally at most so outside maybe 20% of the playerbase, thats the most you are likely to actually see.
the number of teams needs to be cut down. I don't love rotation but kill team is on to something. And while warcry might be a little more casual, from someone starting out it's just crazy how much there is in terms of teams. it's just too much
I take the stance that casual players are going to play the way that they like anyway, including playing older formats, so the reduction of teams for matched play is probably where we want to be.
Drop the first edition chaos warbands, then combine each Warcry bespoke box with their AoS compendium into one faction. That way you could make each Warcry box a "starter" of that AoS faction, 1000 points premade list, then expand from there with different models from the same of AoS faction, heroes or non-heroes.
If I want rotations, I'll play Magic The Gathering! Rotations in miniature games, where you need to put a bunch of time into building, cleaning and painting is utterly unacceptable! You want to reduce bloat? Just kick all of the AoS and Bladeborn warbands!
By far the worst thing GW did to Warcry was introduce AoS warbands into it. WHU warbands are almost as bad. That created a whole mess of bloat and cheese. It's like if you introduced 40K factions into Necromunda! The difference between rotating out bespoke warbands and rotating AoS / Underworlds warbands being you can use AoS miniatures in AoS and WHU miniatures in WHU (which they were meant for in the first place), but if the bespoke warbands are rotated out, you can just shelf them. By removing AoS / WHU warbands you'd reduce both the bloat and the balance issues. But that will, of course, never happen.
Despite what that last comment said this is a great conversation. Thabk you man.
Kill Team didn't do it. They just said they're doing it for official GW events. It solves a fake problem for roughly 0.1% of players. The compendium teams were broadly not considered "real" teams -- dropping those doesn't simplify the options so much as it prevents new players from starting at a grave disadvantage.
Another way to cut bloat in Warcry is to identify Underworlds warbands that contain models that are essentially just alternate sculpts of existing Compendium profiles, and eliminate distinct profiles for those models. For example, Skulck and Krowcht', from Skitterhsank's Clawpack, are just slightly-upgraded Skaven Night Runners; the game wouldn't suffer greatly by eliminating the distinct profiles for those two models, and letting folks use them as alternate sculpts for generic Night Runners. Similarly, in Gashrak's Despoilers, there are three named Ungors that don't need to exist. Ushkor and Gnarl are virtually identical to generic Ungor Raiders; Korsh the Sneak is very similar to an Ungor with Gnarled Shortspear and Half-shield; and Murghoth Half-Horn is essentially a Gor with Pair of Gor Blades.
I think it's important that heroes and other unique models from Underworlds warbands retain their unique profiles as Bladeborn fighters in Warcry, but very few of the chaff and mid-range models from Underworlds are distinct enough to merit adding a unique profile for each. Thus, each Underworld warband would bring 1-3 named heroes with unique profiles and abilities, plus a few alternate sculpts for existing Compendium profiles. Making this change would cut 200 or more profiles from the game, the vast majority of which rarely see play.
This is a very valid point imo; Most WHU teams dont actually add all that much to the game and you could totally push those more interesting profiles and abilities into the factions themselves to make them more interesting to play.
I agree with your perspective on officially merging non-hero and non-unique WU models with their "line" equivalents to reduce bloat.
The biggest potential loss I see in that is a reduced sense of "hand holding" for WU players starting in Warcry. I think that can be mitigated in the Bladeborn lists with the right notes.
I totally agree. There might be many players that love the amount of options, but a framework that includes compendium, bladeborn and bespoke feels to me like a Frankenstein of three games (AoS, Underworld and classic Warcry). People with old models can surely find an alternative for their cool minis... well, maybe not for some bespoke...
Both from a model collecting/building and gameplay perspective, I like the direction GW has gone in to simplify loadout profiles. Get that right for Warcry and it means I can still play my existing models for the most part, just in a single simplified profile where before it may have been several. I'm dealing with that with Skinks right now for example. Yes, that would disrupt current lists if you took 4 loadouts with different costs down to 1, but I can still use my models. I also support rotating out (or making legends) of ranges you can no longer buy like the Cold One (but I recognise I am not in a position to be impacted by that in my own warbands!)
There is alot of pushback from some people who want the barrier of entry to remain VERY low, and I understand those arguments but to get more players into the game it's got to at least look like it is tighter then it is XD
Fully agree with this!
But still would prefer not going the legends route if possible!
I remember in AoS 2nd Ed, the Scar Vet on Carnosaur had 4 different main weapon profiles and they have been simplified down to 1 "Celestialite Weapon".
As a Seraphon enjoyer - we dont need 4 different skink profiles, take the average of all of them and make that the main one. This should also be done with any other chaff-like unit that can have multiple profiles, simplify those down.
@@chester1882 my only hesitation is where units currently have both ranged and unranged options, and how to avoid losing fundamental options like that
I feel like the rotation won't come before we get warcry's third edition.
That's totally a possibility
As a fairly new player to WC but not tabletop gaming, I’m on team balance and streamline. I’d love more Warbands to be viable out of box and balanced enough to have a chance in a game. I’d buy way more if they were….I do also see the fun w/the “all in” style too, maybe 2 different rule sets or game modes could be an easy option?
yeah completely agree with the saurus scar vet on cold one. I really like the aggradon models but just can't justify the points cost when even the saurus knights aren't far behind on stats
People might be happier if they could play aggradons as cold ones... at the end of the day, they are both humanoid lizards mounting dinosaurs.
Honestly, I would hate to see a competitive rotation come to this game. I love Kill Team and I think it is one of the best games GW produces, but the freedom of list building selection is something that I love about Warcry and I think makes it special. I think it's a game that should focus on casual accessability and robust narrative play and should, for the most part, stay away from going down the Kill Team route of things (outside of say rebalancing things like damage disparity on crits and hits, creating more flavorful and active faction rules, or borrowing keywords).
That said the game definitely needs a culling and streamlining of rosters. There's the obvious routes as mentioned in the video of more actively culling outdated models and unit profiles, as well as consolidating a lot of profiles that are just slight differences in gear, but I think we could go even further than that. I personally would give the boot to every single unit champion profile in the game from the heroes roster and instead expand blessings to allow players to buy special Champion Runemarks for non-heroes that give a stat bonus along with the ability to inspire the same model type as themselves on a double. Removing all the champions as discreet profiles would help cleanup the bloated heroes section for all the Compendium.
I would also take this idea further and add Runemarks for totems and instruments that give special bonuses so people can get more variety out of their Compendium Warbands without bloating the unit rosters. To help out even more with flexibility and freedom it would also be cool to see Warcry add the Anvil of Apotheosis that AoS narrative has had in the past and let players build custom heroes from traits based on their Grand Alliance.
I think that would give people something to do with the older heroes that would be culled, pave the way for other redundant heroes to be removed (maybe even the Underworlds varieties) without anyone having to feel bad (since they could just recreate the hero in a manner) and it would create all sorts of fun kitbashing opportunities or allow people to run models that have yet to be given rules. This system would also allow people who are just playing off a one box AoS units to turn the unit champion into a leader for the warband as well to fill the gap of their units profiles getting axed in this hypothetical.
It's true that champion profiles add alot of bloat that are basically never used.
That's actually a pretty smart way of doing it. I also figured it would be best to get rid of unit champions, but I hadn't considered using a system like blessings to do it. It works well with the fact that unit champions seem to be fairly standardized now. They usually get something like +1 attack, +4 wounds, and the Hero runemark for around 55 points (I have just looked at the S2D unit champions), so it would work well.
I'd also add shields to that list. Shields basically give +1 toughness, -1 attack, and the Bulwark runemark (usually for no extra points) anywhere they occur as an option.
I am not sure if it's actually correct but the rumor is GW keeps its main flagship and specialty games revenues separate. It makes sense for them in the short-term to go to rotation and use that. They are going to be ruining the value of the models though since for some reason none seems to play legends outside of basement games.
Completely against a rotation or legends profiles. But fully in favor of abridging profiles. Like all chaos warrior profiles and things of the sort.
I could stand it if they just axed all the AOS-unit-champions..it might clear things up a bit?
it would clear things up quite a bit imo; pretty much none of them are used anyway (with exceptions pre-errata for Kharadron Overlords and maybe OBR)
I think I'd prefer a curation as opposed to a rotation.
Like, each faction gets a warband or two designed from their existing range, in line with bespoke design, with the remaining heroes who aren't utilised as leaders for these new warbands available as ally options. Having nearly every AoS model available, while impressive, is just unnecessary bloat.
So I guess I'm saying... yeah, rotation... of a sort.
I thought of a solution where you have something similar in that each faction has a limited number of fighters but with a pool of generic allies for the GA that people have access to
@OffMetaMusings I'm sure I would be shouted down if this wasn't a reply to my own comment, but I think that's a half measure (and also just speaks to my preferences). I think list building in Warcry is to its detriment, not its benefit.
No amount of balancing will prevent list building becoming "just take the most efficient thing, unless there is a specific combo you're after".
Personally, I'd like completely locked lists, one box bespoke or bespoke design ethos with compendium units, and then each warband gets an allotment of points* or what-have-you to spend on various things (boons, equipment, allies, more fighters etc.) I think that would produce a much more interesting looking game state and push model variety on to the table.
New profile should have a list of older model that you can use to proxy this new profile, so people dont have tons of miniatures that artificialy run obsolete... Its so frustrating, you put effort in your minis and they can become obsolete.. soon after...
I agree to the fusion of similar profile to reduce the mass amount of profile.
If you play with cool people you can always play minis as proxy but it should be official ! So you dont have to think about which mini go with which profile.
I think proxys only really matter if you are playing in events where its essential for opponents to know exactly what people are armed with. Otherwise players are generally pretty cool about it :)
"Legends" never work - show me one example when GW put something into "Legends" and there wasn't a huge backlash? That said I don't think there's anywhere to go for models that are out of print, unless we somehow make them as "invisible" proxies - i'e, here's the sacrosanct models, here's their stats, and all of them fit nicely into thunderstrike counterparts. We'd still have outliers of course, but these could be "understat-ed"?
This would be more easily doable with Bladeborn - keep the ones in UW rotation as they are, and for rest of them give official proxy stats that are identical to existing models. Of course you'd need to add some understat-ed special cases for models without a sensible counterpart. Possibly keep the minimal bonus/downside of a different base size. Only the UW bands in rotation would have unique runemarks/skills.
People need to feel that every miniature they invested in, time, money, skill, needs to be "officially" playable. Legends for people means basically "you can as well come up with stats for anything yourself, we don't care", which doesn't work. Proxy-stating legends models could work better.
I think cleaning up bloat would be fine, trimming unavailable models & options is good in all. However I'd also rather see things like old Underworlds Warbands brought into production rather than squatted from the rules.
Though I don't think all that really fits with what a Rotation implies. I would really not want to see a rotation put in because of the potential for how much we can lose.
Hah, if i were in charge of GW's production schedules then I'd make all that old stuff, if it's still in play, print on demand.
Totally agree. Things you cant buy put into legends. Things that are doubles of, put into legends.
If they need to remove models, only if its absolutely necessary for the game. Gw has been increasing prices constantly and gutting peoples toys which is making masses backing right off. Lets be smart about keeping player base healthy above anything else. If no players, rules dont matter.
It just keep it and allow proxies
Rotation is a hard requirement for creating a serious competitive environment. Balance should be razorsharp to have diversity and reward creativity, and that is only possible with a smaller scope of fieldable units. I feel all arguments against this are ussually brought up by people that don't play in the context where these rules matter anyways. I really like how Kill Team is doing it, by creating a distinction between normal and competitive play. As long as warcry continues to support non-rotation play for normal players, there is no harm in using rotation in the more competitive context.
Maybe I am wrong when I'm saying this, but Warcry should just trim the AoS part from it.
The main bloat of the game comes from the Bladeborn and the main AoS. It sometimes causes, and it's only my opinion, loss of the charm of Warcry as it was presented to us the first time. It is especially noticeable when we compare the rotation of Kill Team and Underworld (since we basically in the same boat). Both of these systems don't have cross-play with other systems. By that I mean you can't take some abstract models from main AoS and play in Underworlds, nor can you take other models from wider 40k faction to your killteam. Warcry, while made its unique feature, also caused itself a lot of harm by importing a ton of models from the main AoS.
It may sound a bit wrong, but imho it is much better for the overhaul health of the game. Warcry should try to be more like Necromunda in 40k - live in the same setting, but use different models and approaches.
If there were enough people sure but im not sure you have enough people willing to only buy warcry warbands just to play warcry.
For me, i wouldn't even look at warcry if i couldn't use my Aos models. It also guts list building, probably the most important part of any war game. Without it, things get stale fast.
I'm not sure how long you've been in the hobby but you should be totally against anything that stops you using your models. Letting people use what they have is always a good thing because it means more people can play and not keep paying gw their crazy prices. Wargaming needs people more than the best rules imo.
In my opinion the overlap with AoS is one of it's strengths, because it gives existing players an easy way into warcry and vice versa. List building is also something that makes warcry more interesting then kill team to me, and with only bespoke warbands that would be very limited.
@@Midgar88 I am in hobby for about 10+ years (including working at LGS), and in some things I totally agree with you, about the prices and the people as well! However, it really depends on gaming store to gaming store of what community needs. I dedicated a lot of my time on creating AoS campaigns, though I am mostly a Necromunda player these days. We have a small community of players who don't really have a problem to change something we don't like in the core system. But the fact you have to do it with most games, including Warcry (I won't even start with Necromunda) is bad.
As for the aos models in warcry, for me personally as an Idoneth player, I don't really find the Warcry spin appealing for my faction and I have no bespoke warband either. The Ydrilan (who are close to Idoneth at least) were a disappointment for what they bring to the table. So basically, I am in no real benefit from either. But it's only my view, and as a warcry casual player, I can be completely wrong!
In any case, I hope I didn't upset you in any way and thanks for the comment!
It's a blessing and a curse that you can use AoS wholesale in Warcry; one one hand it's really easy for people to get into the game, but on the other, you kind of need actual warcry sales to guarantee continued support which is something I've talked about on numerous occasions
I see your point, but for me it's exactly the opposite: I like AoS Warcry but I don't fancy bespoke... and I'm not sure they are a very profitable option for GW.
Idea about moving some bespoke to legends with possibility to still play in casual sounds kinda okay. But in that case i would really like to see some new bespoke warbands.
And removing from the game profiles for AoS models, that you can't buy anymore (STD example) sounds legit too. About UW warbands - i would not touch them and keep as it is.
UW warbands I'm conflicted on; Let's say for example Thricefold was out of production but was still legal for play; thats a blatant ebay play to win right there. I guess if you just moved them into legends anyway they can always come off as and when they come back into production,
@@OffMetaMusings well ye, but on the other hand - how much models like Vex (autoinclude in almost any chaos roster) we have from UW? Shouldn't GW just nerf these 1-2-3- models and it will be ok? :)
@konstantin7415 last time I checked, Vexmor had a 23% pick rate in events but yes I get your point
underworlds said they are bringing all the warbands back. don't like this idea at all.
According to this article: www.warhammer-community.com/en-gb/articles/ep5buday/warhammer-underworlds-organised-play-the-shape-of-competitive-games-in-the-new-edition/
There are only going to be 33 warbands available for organised play (16 existing ones that are in those new boxes, 13 recent warbands, 2 from the box) with new warbands released being added to this list. Yes they say eventually older warbands will come back with new rules but there is no word on the timescale for that OR how many will make a return. The idea of a legends format is that I talked about is that things can go on and come off for matched play so it's basically the same rules that apply.
I don’t play competitively. I want to keep playing the game with the models I’ve bought, so I’ll need them to have profiles. So Legends sounds great.
That's specifically why I said that flat-out binning models would be a real bad idea for GW 😆
Bespoke only version is the way to go.
haha I don't think that's a very popular opinion XD
The biggest problem for me with warcry is that it is not possible to play with the warcry bespoke teams. Games Workshop should just change it so you can only use single box bespoke warbands in warcry. And then balance those against each other.
The fact that you can just bring anything and ally in innumerous models makes the game too complicated.
I think it depends on how you like to play really; i did some polling earlier in the year which seems to say that the majority of players really only play one box bespokes with a single ally at most so outside maybe 20% of the playerbase, thats the most you are likely to actually see.
the number of teams needs to be cut down. I don't love rotation but kill team is on to something. And while warcry might be a little more casual, from someone starting out it's just crazy how much there is in terms of teams. it's just too much
I take the stance that casual players are going to play the way that they like anyway, including playing older formats, so the reduction of teams for matched play is probably where we want to be.
Drop the first edition chaos warbands, then combine each Warcry bespoke box with their AoS compendium into one faction. That way you could make each Warcry box a "starter" of that AoS faction, 1000 points premade list, then expand from there with different models from the same of AoS faction, heroes or non-heroes.
That's an interesting take on it
GW should've never gone away from only bespoke warbands
I'd totally dig it if they did like 10x Bespokes for each GA with a pool of Allies and Thralls that you could take
If I want rotations, I'll play Magic The Gathering! Rotations in miniature games, where you need to put a bunch of time into building, cleaning and painting is utterly unacceptable! You want to reduce bloat? Just kick all of the AoS and Bladeborn warbands!
Isn't that the same argument for players who play those minis for warcry?
By far the worst thing GW did to Warcry was introduce AoS warbands into it. WHU warbands are almost as bad.
That created a whole mess of bloat and cheese.
It's like if you introduced 40K factions into Necromunda!
The difference between rotating out bespoke warbands and rotating AoS / Underworlds warbands being you can use AoS miniatures in AoS and WHU miniatures in WHU (which they were meant for in the first place), but if the bespoke warbands are rotated out, you can just shelf them.
By removing AoS / WHU warbands you'd reduce both the bloat and the balance issues.
But that will, of course, never happen.
Why the hell are you talking about this?
needs something to make content about i guess lol
Well, the reason why is in the video..
@@OffMetaMusings which I'm not watching cause this is crap 🤣
@kraziel thats so cool bro.