Thought this was a terrific discussion that is overdue.. I've never really understood the position that Warcry is all luck and kt is all strategy... But that notion persists, thank you for the thoughtful look at dispelling that myth
I would argue that the importance of pre-game mechanics in Killteam (current Killteam, who knows for the new edition) is where you get into it being considered more competitive. There are a lot of decisions before the game that impact it, and if you don't know how to perform them well, puts you at a distinct disadvantage. A lot of that also includes knowing a lot about the opponent's team. The game play can be largely similar after that.
Team selection in Kill Team is far easier than in Warcry. Kill Team, pick a faction and buy the box. Every model that you need is in the box. With Warcry, unless you just go with the models in a two player box set, you’re faced with a much bigger set of options for building your team. And the models you want are probably not going to be found in a single box.
Team selection yes, but box assembly is a pain in the ass. There's always a 'right' way to assemble the box, usually with as many specialists as possible but it can be tricky when you're forced to pick one specialist or another. Usually 2 boxes is needed for the full roster, not a problem but certainly a hurdle at the start.
It has to be done as evenly as possible by numbers. If you know nothing about the mission pack, then making them about equal strength is sensible, so a roughly even division by points isn't a bad place to start
First thing is to determine what people mean by competitive vs casual. What you see with many people who consider themselves competitive players is that they look for predictable rules and abilities. So, if you’re playing Warcry as presented, the fact that you use random cards to generate a scenario makes it much less predictable. Sure, you can creat custom scenarios but then you’re modifying the basic game to support a competitive setting. So the basic version of Warcry is random scenario generation and Kill Team is fixed preconceived scenarios. In other words... Warcry is a casual game that can be modified to support competitive play, whereas Kill Team is a competitive game that can be modified to be more casual.
Yes! But the default is determined by the core box contents. Warcry has matched play and Killteam has random mission decks but not in the box. So the perception of each game is defined by the presentation.
I love both games, specially Warcry. But there are a few things I don't like in Warcry. The game set up needs to be as KT, not that you choose and split your band before even know the deploy. The cards need text such as the name of the mini and the name oh the rune ability. The runes like "fly" or "beast" need to be differenciated in color or other way. And finally the abilities as runes instead of the name are a pain in the ass, if not for the Warcrier app that sorts them out and identifies the users by portrait.
On the runes being Skull, Skull, Skull and Skull XD. Definitely an issue and one of the reasons my card creator has names under the runemarks as an option. You're not wrong about the battle groups and deployment though, while in this video I do talk about how experienced players know what to do, at the same time you can often have issues if the event has no real differences between the battles or where you've got a massive selection of deployments to pick from and it's totally random. I'm a big fan of playing a single mission and letting players tailor the battle groups for just that mission. Alternatively, a series of games (e.g. 3) where the players know whats coming up and get to try split their groups in the best possible way across that. It is unfortunately quite common though, where even an experienced competitive Warcry player won't be able to work it out because unfortunately the tournament organiser doesn't understand how important it is!
@@optimalgamestate I teach Warcry to people that are looking for casual and relaxed games, and many end up liking Warcry but frustrated for the setup rules, so after the 1st game, I always setup the deploy and mission first and after that we choose the warband.
I love GW models and some of the lore too is :) Every year they mange to make soem new stuff that makes my mouth water somehow. Long since. When it comes to rules though GW are ..shal we say amateurs? They constantly mess up all their rules and FAQ upon release is standrad. For rules, sold rules and codexes that is... Warcry has few rules and therefore is my favorite GW gameset. Easily. Off course it has been changed up back and forth left-right-center constalty too. But it is a very good smooth FUN gameplay system. Kill team is good too but more rules heavy and it is GW-rules (written by soemone tahts eems drunk at best).
Yeah, I think GW under-invests into game systems unfortunately. Tight deadlines, minimal if any playtesting, a constant churn in rules to sell more books. I was delighted that the changes from Warcry v1 to v2 were minimal. I do still stand by the idea that Killteam is the same system just with a different twist, definitely a lost more to read and more traits to be aware of. On the flip side I did like Warcry getting the battle traits, so maybe there's a nice balance between them somewhere.
Thought this was a terrific discussion that is overdue.. I've never really understood the position that Warcry is all luck and kt is all strategy... But that notion persists, thank you for the thoughtful look at dispelling that myth
Great Vid topic :)
I would argue that the importance of pre-game mechanics in Killteam (current Killteam, who knows for the new edition) is where you get into it being considered more competitive. There are a lot of decisions before the game that impact it, and if you don't know how to perform them well, puts you at a distinct disadvantage. A lot of that also includes knowing a lot about the opponent's team. The game play can be largely similar after that.
Team selection in Kill Team is far easier than in Warcry. Kill Team, pick a faction and buy the box. Every model that you need is in the box. With Warcry, unless you just go with the models in a two player box set, you’re faced with a much bigger set of options for building your team. And the models you want are probably not going to be found in a single box.
Team selection yes, but box assembly is a pain in the ass. There's always a 'right' way to assemble the box, usually with as many specialists as possible but it can be tricky when you're forced to pick one specialist or another. Usually 2 boxes is needed for the full roster, not a problem but certainly a hurdle at the start.
And yes with Warcry sometimes the best list involves buying 10 copies of the warband box and only running one model from each box 😱
I would really appreciate a vid about deployment in Warcry. The way to allocate the three battle groups still eludes me.
It has to be done as evenly as possible by numbers. If you know nothing about the mission pack, then making them about equal strength is sensible, so a roughly even division by points isn't a bad place to start
That I can do! I'll add it to the list 😁
First thing is to determine what people mean by competitive vs casual. What you see with many people who consider themselves competitive players is that they look for predictable rules and abilities. So, if you’re playing Warcry as presented, the fact that you use random cards to generate a scenario makes it much less predictable. Sure, you can creat custom scenarios but then you’re modifying the basic game to support a competitive setting. So the basic version of Warcry is random scenario generation and Kill Team is fixed preconceived scenarios. In other words... Warcry is a casual game that can be modified to support competitive play, whereas Kill Team is a competitive game that can be modified to be more casual.
Yes! But the default is determined by the core box contents. Warcry has matched play and Killteam has random mission decks but not in the box. So the perception of each game is defined by the presentation.
I love both games, specially Warcry. But there are a few things I don't like in Warcry. The game set up needs to be as KT, not that you choose and split your band before even know the deploy. The cards need text such as the name of the mini and the name oh the rune ability. The runes like "fly" or "beast" need to be differenciated in color or other way. And finally the abilities as runes instead of the name are a pain in the ass, if not for the Warcrier app that sorts them out and identifies the users by portrait.
On the runes being Skull, Skull, Skull and Skull XD. Definitely an issue and one of the reasons my card creator has names under the runemarks as an option. You're not wrong about the battle groups and deployment though, while in this video I do talk about how experienced players know what to do, at the same time you can often have issues if the event has no real differences between the battles or where you've got a massive selection of deployments to pick from and it's totally random. I'm a big fan of playing a single mission and letting players tailor the battle groups for just that mission. Alternatively, a series of games (e.g. 3) where the players know whats coming up and get to try split their groups in the best possible way across that. It is unfortunately quite common though, where even an experienced competitive Warcry player won't be able to work it out because unfortunately the tournament organiser doesn't understand how important it is!
@@optimalgamestate I teach Warcry to people that are looking for casual and relaxed games, and many end up liking Warcry but frustrated for the setup rules, so after the 1st game, I always setup the deploy and mission first and after that we choose the warband.
I love GW models and some of the lore too is :) Every year they mange to make soem new stuff that makes my mouth water somehow. Long since. When it comes to rules though GW are ..shal we say amateurs? They constantly mess up all their rules and FAQ upon release is standrad. For rules, sold rules and codexes that is... Warcry has few rules and therefore is my favorite GW gameset. Easily. Off course it has been changed up back and forth left-right-center constalty too. But it is a very good smooth FUN gameplay system. Kill team is good too but more rules heavy and it is GW-rules (written by soemone tahts eems drunk at best).
Yeah, I think GW under-invests into game systems unfortunately. Tight deadlines, minimal if any playtesting, a constant churn in rules to sell more books. I was delighted that the changes from Warcry v1 to v2 were minimal. I do still stand by the idea that Killteam is the same system just with a different twist, definitely a lost more to read and more traits to be aware of. On the flip side I did like Warcry getting the battle traits, so maybe there's a nice balance between them somewhere.