I've been wanting to pick up a Warcry boxed set, so I'm crossing my fingers for it to be the same size. If it turns out to be slightly smaller, I'll probably make a base for it and still use it as a proxy.
I just compared the image I posted earlier to the Realmshaper Engine I have, and I'm quite confident it's the same size, because it looks like the main structure shares the same parts. Every detail of every brick, sigil and vine is the same. It looks like they only changed the top. Plus, I put some models with the same base sizes as in the photo on top of mine, and they cover the same proportion. Edit: Actually, there is some retooling to make the new Engine a bit more crumbled and worn. But the vines are unchanged and in the exact same pattern.
Oh, that also means that, like the original Realmshaper Engine, the sides are likely reversible to make a clean, vineless version.
Season of War has an interesting Seraphon (Starborne) vs. Tzeentch battle. Spoiler; Seraphon lose, but it was close.
Now I regret building mine on the old side vs the new star born side…. This would make a nice one too…. It’s weird giving that it’s so close yet so different so there all new sprue just weird but it’s nice
I waffled and built mine with one corner "new" and one corner "old." That way, I can turn it to pick a style.
I have the same dilemma. I'm even considering getting the engine from this set and another of the original engine and mixing their parts to make a clean engine with the new top. I might even magnetize it so I can swap the tops. But I'm not sure I'll want to spring the cash for that.
Tzeentch is still the most broken army with the highest win rate. There's very little counterplay to them at the moment. Not sure why, but they've consistently been among the most powerful, if not the most powerful army since AoS launched. Does a lead designer at GW just have a thing for Tzeentch? Or did they just come up with some mechanics that were too strong and refuse to remove them?
They don't like that Tzeentch is so strong. They're just showing their defiance by resisting any change.
And yet Thunder Lizards got nerfed to the ground in our new book because it was "too good" previously, smh
I feel like Thunder lizard’s problem is less with the subfaction itself and more with our big dinos, Stegadon being cut at the knees and most of the other stuff costing more than it probably should seems like it makes it hard to run an effective monster mash with them
True. But the TL subfaction ability is still the weakest of them all simply due to the fact that you would run out of monstrous rampages before all your monsters got to do two of them. But Stegadons definitely need to go down in cost if they're going to be useable. Stat-wise, they actually got a minor buff so they should technically play pretty well, but not for 300 points...
Remember though that all of our monsters got more wounds, more rend and don't start to lose their stats so early due to wounds. That's all a pretty big deal. I do think the Thunder Lizard subfaction ability could be better though.
It's a magic + ranged army. It inherently has certain advantages given how AoS works. The only way to prevent them from having a high winrate is to make them terrible, e.g. by giving them bad stats or terribly high costs. Which isn't exactly fun. Same reason why there's always been Seraphon players that perform well, there's some basic tools the army has that gives them some inherent advantages, even when our warscrolls aren't particularly impressive. Which is a prime example of the downsides of focussing on winrate, especially in assymmetrical games. Certain armies are inherently easier/better/fit the meta more and can only be kept at a "healthy" winrate by activly handicapping them. (Or alternativly; maybe just don't allow a full magic + ranged army exist to begin with )
And yet prior to the new book, many people I played considered Seraphon a crutch army in spite of the sub-50% winrate we're sitting on. Tzeentch and LRL have been eating good for a stupidly long time and yet you see far fewer complaints about them than Seraphon.
People tend to be short-sighted, considering that Seraphon were still playing by their 2nd Ed rules when everyone else was moving over to the tamer 3rd Ed. I saw this firsthand when Orruk Warclans was released, which was the biggest reason why I shelved my collection for the majority of this edition.
The sub-50% winrate has only been a thing in the past few months after yet another point hike. When our book came out 40 skinks were 240 points and salamanders were 80 points each. It was freaking insane. For the last 3 years, seraphon have consistently 5-0'd events so yeah people are going to think it's cheesy.
I for one want a balanced army. Yeah, some of our hardest hitters were toned down offensively, but they were largely strengthened defensively. And our Saurus battleline was buffed quite a bit (but for a price hike, of course). We have rend finally, and our monsters don't degrade so fast. I want a balanced game where there are use cases for every unit in the army. Did Games Workshop do that perfectly? No. But they're trying. I think Thunder Quake was probably overly nerfed, but the other factions all seem viable and interesting. I'm willing to give it time and see how things play out. That said, we will find new loopholes to min-max certain units. For example, a Koatl's Claw Scar-Vet on Carnosaur general with Prime Warbeast and the Bloodrage pendant is pretty freaking deadly. Once in Frenzy, going solo against an unwounded opponent, he averages 20 wounds against a 4+ save, or 16 against a 3+ save, with no buffs from other units or command abilities. He gets in a few more wounds on the charge. If you're playing Path to Glory and you add in a Sacred Spawning of Sotek, even moreso. Then he's dealing 24 wounds against 4+ and 19 against 3+, with just the Carnosaur's Frenzy ability.