Psyco
-
Content Count
30 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Psyco
-
-
Here's what I think the Orcs should look like. Through collaberation I thought it best to create some new Traits and some new components. Here they are first:
Stalwart = Units with the Stalwart attribute may not become routed or be forced to retreat by an opponent during a battle.
Taunt = When placing damage to your units in battle, standing units with the Taunt attribute must be assigned damage first. Assigning damage to already damaged units still applies.
Protection Token = A Protection token may be used at any point during a battle to absorb one damage or to remove one damage from any unit. Unused tokens are discarded after the battle.
Entangle Token = When a unit has an Entangle token assigned to it, the unit may not draw Fate cards for the remainder of the battle. In addition, during any battle the unit may not become routed until all other available units have been routed first and the unit cannot be forced to retreat.
Zul Orcs (Neutral, 3 TAC/2.5 INF)
4 Food – Fighter, TAC, Fighter, INF, Blank, Fighter, Fighter, Blank
1 Wood – Goblin, TAC, Shaman, INF, Goblin, TAC, Blank, INF
2 Ore – INF, Shaman, TAC, Ogre, INF, Ogre, TAC, Shaman
Name, Initiative/Shape/Health/Number
Goblin Raider (Fast), 1/REC/2/8Pillage: Your opponent must discard 1 Influence. This ability has no effect against unallied neutral units.
[sHA] Orc Assassin, 2/REC/1/8
Paralyzing Poison: Deal one Entangle token. Your opponent must assign this to a unit with Initiative 3 or higher (if able).
Fighter (Stalwart, Taunt), 3/TRI/1/16
Cleaving: Deal 1 damage. If this defeats the unit, deal 1 additional damage.
Ogre, 4/HEX/4/4Knockback: Deal 1 rout. Then deal 2 damage.
Shaman, 5/CIR/1/8Dark Charm: Your opponent must select one of his standing units. Take the unit from your opponent’s side and add it to your own at initiative 1. Destroy the unit at the end of the battle, after calculating final strength. No cards are drawn for the stolen unit.
[OGR] Beastrider (Fast), 5/HEX/3/4
Whirlwind Attack: Draw another Fate card, select any area of the Fate card and apply its effects. A special ability deals 2 damage. Then deal 1 damage to this unit.
Home Realm: Food, Food, Food/Food, Ore (Single Water)/Ore, Wood (Single Mountain)
Developments: 2 Resources, 1 Neutrality Pact (Place 2 Neutral TRI units at the Stronghold), 3 Obarak Tribesman (Your opponent must discard 2 Tactics cards in order to play a Tactics card in this area during a battle. If your opponent does not have 2 Tactics cards to discard, he cannot play a Tactics card.)
Development Cards:Wargs – Goblin Raider (1 Food, 1 Wood): After resolving the special ability Pillage, you may gain Influence.
Forced Discipline – Fighter (1 Food): When participating in a battle on a tile with a friendly Hero, Fighters resolve Fate cards as if they were REC unit types.
Underworld Connections – Orc Assassin (1 Wood, 1 Ore): Each time you recruit an Orc Assassin you may spend 1 Influence to receive 1 Tactics card.
Darkwood Club – Ogre (1 Wood): After resolving an Ogre Knockback ability, you may add one Protection token to your army.
Combat Barding – Beastrider (1 Food, 1 Wood): Your Beastriders now have 4 health each.
Blood Sacrifice – Shaman (1 Food, 1 Ore): When resolving a Shaman Dark Charm ability, you may select which unit to take.
Spirits of the Lost – Faction (2 Wood, 1 Ore): When resolving the secondary ability of all fall Season cards, you may gain either 4 Influence or 2 Tactics cards instead of the printed values.
-
Whoops. In the above, the Battlemaiden is supposed to have the "Fast" trait.
-
Here's my version of the Dunwarr Dwarves. Through collaberation I thought it best to create some new Traits and some new components. Here they are first:
Stalwart = Units with the Stalwart attribute may not become routed or be forced to retreat by an opponent during a battle.Taunt = When placing damage to your units in battle, standing units with the Taunt attribute must be assigned damage first. Assigning damage to already damaged units still applies.
Protection Token = A Protection token may be used at any point during a battle to absorb one damage or to remove one damage from any unit. Unused tokens are discarded after the battle.
Entangle Token = When a unit has an Entangle token assigned to it, the unit may not draw Fate cards for the remainder of the battle. In addition, during any battle the unit may not become routed until all other available units have been routed first and the unit cannot be forced to retreat.
Dunwarr Dwarves (Neutral, 2 TAC/3.5 INF)2 Food – Ranger, Ranger, INF, Blank, Ranger, Blank, Ranger, Blank
2 Wood – Battle, INF, TAC, Defender, INF, Catapult, INF, TAC
3 Ore – TAC, Defender, INF, Catapult, TAC, Battle, TAC, Defender
Name, Initiative/Shape/Health/Number[DEF] Watchman (Taunt), 1/REC/2/8
Flank: Until the end of the battle, when an enemy unit is damaged, you may deal 1 damage to a standing Watchman (which must be applied to one that is already wounded, if possible) to deal 1 additional damage to that enemy unit.
Ranger, 2/TRI/1/16
Aimed Shot: Deal 1 damage. Your opponent must assign this to a unit with Initiative 3 or higher (if able).
Defender (Stalwart), 3/REC/2/8
Guard: Stand 1 of your routed units or add one Protection token to your army.
[CAT] War Priest (Stalwart), 3/CIR/2/4
War Chant: Deal 1 rout and add one Protection token to your army.
Battlemaiden, 4/REC/2/8
Threatening: Choose 1 enemy unit with 1 health remaining. That unit must immediately retreat from the battle.
Catapult, 5/HEX/3/4
Fire Bombs: Deal 2 routs or 3 damage.
Home Realm: Ore, Food/Ore, Wood (Double Mountain at the point)/Ore, Wood, Food (Double Mountain at the point)
Developments:2 Resources, 1 Neutrality Pact (Place 2 Neutral TRI units at the Stronghold), 3 Clan Leader (Immediately before a battle in this area, this token may be discarded to add 3 Protection Tokens to your army. These Protection Tokens remain until used. This token is discarded after use, but may be built again.)
Development Cards:
Reconnaissance – Watchman (1 Food, 1 Ore): Immediately after resolving the secondary ability of a fall Season card, you may rout any number of Watchmen to discard an equal number of Tactics cards and draw that same number from the draw pile. Any cards gained this way may be used in the same season.
Boldness of Youth – Ranger (1 Food): When an opponent plays a Tactics card against you during battle, you may sacrifice up to 2 of your standing Rangers to deal an equal number of damage to your opponent.
Rousing Song – Defender (1 Food, 1 Ore): When calculating final strength, gain an additional +1 strength for every Defender (standing or routed) in the battle.
Axes of Cool Name – Battlemaiden (1 Wood, 1 Ore): When resolving Fate cards for your Battlemaidens during battle, each damage result instead deals routs of the same number.
Staff of Booming Voice – War Priest (1 Wood): The War Chant ability is now: “Deal 2 routs and add 2 Protection Tokens to your army.”
Salvagers – Catapult (1 Wood): When at least one Catapult is destroyed during a battle, instead of placing it into your reinforcements, you may instead place it in any area of your home realm. Then place one of your activation tokens in the area if there is not one there already.
Under the Mountains – Faction (1 Food, 2 Ore): Your units may ignore mountain (red) borders. If the movement of your units passes through a mountain border you may use the Hidden Pass Tactics card to have all of your units gain +1 movement. You may never retreat through a mountain border.
-
And thank you for yours!
2) I missed that and I understand your perspective.
3) Every faction is at an advantage or disadvantage...that's the point of it not being equal. Once again, if the Dwarves were the only possible faction I understand your point. As I think there is room for more than one faction, I think the total of 5 makes all the more sense.
And if it was me, I would definitely write down the ".5" numbers on the faction sheet. I say this because for new players they only need to reference the rulebook once to find out that all ".5" numbers are rounded down, versus referencing the rulebook every time they were trying to remember the tiebreaker scenario. It's a matter of how many times it's done and looking over it's obvious to everyone that 3.5 is bigger than 3 and smaller than 4. I would have the Orcs be 3 TAC/2.5 INF.
6) I guess it's just too much of a swing for me. Either it's very ineffective or it's ridiculously powerful at Initiative 3.
7) You're welcome. I agree that it shouldn't be the end all to deciding potential units, but I think it's a good place to start. I'd have to see the picture of the Arrow Cannon before I decided which term I preferred.
8) I'm not beginning to see necessarily. I've collaborated with another person and come up with 5 new factions (in total including Banners material) and one of them is an ore abundant group (one that we felt was "more" mountain oriented than the Dwarves). Moreover, it is known that ore is generally harder to obtain, but that would give an edge to any faction with their weakest unit in ore, if only because their stronger units would be in food & wood. If this is taken into consideration when building the factions, I don't think it's an issue.
9) Please keep me informed as I'd like to hear your thoughts.
I'll be posting my version of the Dwarves soon.
-
There seems to be a general consensus that the Zul Orcs will be a race in an upcoming expansion. So, what should they look like?
•Alignment
•Starting TAC/INF
•Dial Configuration/Starting Dial Numbers
•Unit names/abilities/Hit Points/Base Shape/Initiative Number/Quantity
•Home Realm Configuration
•Unique Development
I have my thoughts about what this could look like, but I'd love to hear what you think.
-
Sorry for the delay in my response.
1) You're right in that it isn't a must. I don't think it should be done any other way. The original 4 factions were not created individually and then thrown together. From where I sit I think of "what would an expansion look like?" not merely, "what would a fan made version of Dwarves look like?" The tie in between Orcs & Dwarves seems inevitable, thus that's how I came up with what I did.
2) I think a group of committed players could come up with Objectives on par with the originals.
And you and I will have to agree to disagree on how much the concept is disturbed. I think giving them access to an extra Development imbalances the game more than creating a new one that would apply to any/all Neutral factions.
3) Again, we'll have to agree to disagree. I think that the total value of any starting TAC/INF should be 5. Moreover, from the above I ask, what then do you do with the Orcs? If you plan for only the Dwarves in this way it could foul up any other factions that come down the line.
4) If you'd ever be willing to run the final version through a yellow screen and e-mail it to me, I would greatly appreciate it. Your artwork is very good. I just think grey would be too confusing given the Heroes.
5) Good.
6) I'm not saying it's a bad ability, nor do I disagree with much of what you said. But by having an Initiative 3 unit with this ability, and it hits, you effectively take out every other hex unit. The fact that the Roc deals 4 damage is mitigated by the fact that the Humans were arguably the weakest race prior to the expansion. Every other Hex unit (except the very situational Obscene) is a base initiative 5 because they are so powerful. To say that's it's ineffective against weaker units means, what exactly? I should only try attacking any Dwarf army with at least one bolt thrower with only my weakest units? It just seems that a unit that eliminates the effectiveness of another unit type (aka, any Hex) will be at least hated by those that don't have it and at the worst very imbalanced. I
f nothing else is changed, making it Initiative 4 would take out the imbalance I perceive. Then again, if you like it and the people you know that play with it don't have a problem, leave it. I think we're thinking so differently that changing to please me wouldn't be very fruitful.
7) I only suggested Diskwars because there are already existing units. Battlemist is obviously what Runewars is based in, but there are definitely units within Diskwars that are idenitifed as the Dunwarr _______ unit for the Dwarves. As such, instead of reinventing the wheel, I figured it would be easier/possibly more fun to use what already exists. On the Diskwars page of BGG there is an Excel spreadsheet listed under "Files. http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/397/disk-wars
8) This just comes down to taste. i don't like how your final version (at least on BGG) breaks up your most abundant unit onto two dials (every other faction follows this course). And, if you were truly following the "different like the Elves" your most abundant unit should be on the Ore. That being said, It does seem really weird that the "Stone Scribe" isn't on Ore. It could look like...
2 Food: Guard, TAC, Guard, BLANK, Scribe, BLANK, BLANK, Guard
2 Wood: Scribe, INF, TAC, Bolt, INF, Bolt, TAC, INF
3 Ore: Ranger, INF, Ranger, TAC, Ranger, INF, Ranger, TAC
I only think the Bolt Throwers should be on different dials if you start them with 3 Ore. I don't think they should be able to take over one tile and have access to both Bolt Throwers.
9) I can only point out that every group now has a unit at every initiative number, even the thematically "fast" Elves with the Forest Guardian. Also, every faction needs a "Fast" unit otherwise the "Flanking Charge" Commander card will be useless.
-
Yay discussion!
@Hinnyboy: I really appreciate and commend you for all you've done so far. I know how much time it takes to pour into something like this. Also, thank you for still being open to hear outside opinions. Finally, I'm basing any information for your Dunwarr on the updated sheet from page 3 of the discussion on BGG.
Here's my first couple of thoughts (and I apologize if some of them are nitpicky, but it's what turned me off).
1) Conceptually, when I personally think of adding the Dwarves I think that they literally must go hand-in-hand with the Orcs. As such, I think creating the two together as a concept is a must.2) I think you did the absolute right thing by making them Neutral. The Orcs, IMO, should follow suit as well. As such, instead of coming up with more rules I would try to come up with new "Neutral Objectives" and make any/all starting heroes for these guys be neutral. It would also give them no "opposite alignment", thus any/all neutral factions would not be as impacted by that wording in the game. It could also mean coming up with a "neutral" development (INF = Good, Tactics = Evil). Off the top of my head, perhaps being able to recruit 2 TRI neutral units could work.
3) I think you had the complete right idea of going away from a 5 TAC/0 INF start. But, I don't think there's any reason they should start off with more of either than any other faction (6 total instead of 5). Also, I think it should be just as easy to look at another player's faction sheet and immediately tell who has a higher initial influence. So, that would make the Dwarves & Orcs be something like 2 TAC/3.5 INF & 3 TAC/2.5 INF respectively. The only asterick would be that you round those half numbers as the beginning.
4) I love your artwork. Visually, however, it goes against the basics of the game. If you were to follow it all the way through, the Dwarf pieces would be gray, which obviously doesn't work, I think that you should make everything themed in a bold color similar to the rest. Perhaps yellow for the Dwarves and brown for the Orcs? In any event, please don't change the artwork or the graphics; just make them run through a yellow lens.
5) I'm glad you ditched Tunneler as an ability. I would suggest making some version of that the faction Development.
6) I agree with Sigma that the 3 health REC and 2 health HEX rub me the wrong way. Also, I think the Bolt Thrower ability is WAAAAY too powerful at Initiative 3. When I think Dwarves I think 1 unit of each type, plus two more REC units and have almost all of them have 2 health except for the Bolt Thrower. Perhaps that's entirely personal taste, but that's what I think.
7) I personally, for naming the units, would have used more from the Diskwars game. Instead of Guard I would use Defender. And instead of Stone Scribe I would have used War Priest or Pyromancer. If you want any version of the Dunwarr to stay current, coming up with other new units is a must. I would personally suggest Battlemaidens and/or a Crossbow unit (and keep the Ranger ability more about exploration).
8) I totally agree with the 3 starting Ore. I think if you do that though, you shouldn't have both of the Bolt Throwers on the same dial. Like Humans, split them up with one on wood.
9) Have you worked out two units to round them out with the expansion? Have you thought up Developments at all? Remember that each faction needs a "Fast" unit, one of each base type (which you already have), and one for each Initiative number. Leaving the RAW Dwarves without a Initiative 1 is great IMO.
That's all I've got for now. Like I said, there are a lot of things I really like and fit with the theme/existing Runewars stuff, but some of the above I can't get past. I'm sure I've thought of and forgotten other things, but I think this is a good place to start. I also have a lot of ideas for Orcs too. If others do as I well, we can start an "Orc" ideas thread. -
Steve-O said:
sigmazero13 said:
I agree with Psyco - I didn't care much at all from the BGG version, there's just something about it that seems... I dunno, off. That doesn't mean they don't work, but they just didn't seem to fit the Runewars flavor for me.
Compared mechanically to the way the other Runewars races play, perhaps. Although that homebrew does incorporate just about every drop of dwarven fluff we know about from the general Terrinoth universe.
Different strokes for different folks, I suppose. That's the beauty of homebrew - if someone doesn't like what's out there, he can always make his own.
Is there a website that has all of the Terrinoth fluff that you're aware of?
-
I just wish someone had responded to the original post with their ideas. Perhaps I'm the only one who enjoys trying to anticipate what FFG will do in future expansions.
The Dunwarr Dwarves that exists, and was referenced, was extremely lacking to me.
-
Steve-O said:
I'm personally doubtful that an expansion for RW will be announced at Realms. Particularly because of the part where they talk about unveiling an entirely new Terrinoth game designed by Corey. If he's been working on a new game (a new Terrinoth game, even) then I doubt he's been working too much on an RW expansion. Add that to the fact that Corey's games are generally lucky to get one expansion and things begin to look grim.
On the plus side, nothing can stop fans from creating their own material for RW, and I think we've got a number of good ideas floating around here to work with.
RW is a solid, tight game as it is. Even without an expansion I don't think it's missing anything.
I didn't hear that it would be an entirely new game. That makes me a little sad that an expansion won't be announced there.
I think it would be sad and a waste of potential to limit this game to only fan created material outside of the base game. Look at the number of expansions, large and small, for Runebound and Descent. This game, in my opinion has the same exact potential for expansion.
Although I agree that the game is tight, I think it is missing something; more player potential. I think that Twilight Imperium 3E had it right for its expansion, Shattered Empire. That expansion had yet more factions and allowed the game to go from 6 to up to 8 players. Making Runewars playable for 6 players, in and of itself wouldn't make a good expansion in my mind. If a Runewars expansion followed the TI3 example there would be more map tiles, more cards (probably more of just about all of them), a new set of Order cards, more heroes, exploration tokens, and the obligatory new "thing we didn't have before". I could easily see that being a new type of terrain, a new kind of recruitable neutral unit, and possibly a whole new take on playing the game (and those are just things I've thought up, which aren't at all fleshed out). Finally, taking the comparison further, talk to any fan of the game and know that what is now considered a "standard" game of Twilight Imperium 3E includes many elements from that expansion.
In the end I just get frustrated that FFG has an established pattern of releasing expansions for games that sell well (of which I assume Runewars did). And I see a game like Battles of Westeros, a game which came into existence after Runewars, that has two expansions already out and one more on the way. They are very similiar in terms of game components, so I don't understand why an expansion for Runewars isn't already out/near completion.
-
Given the other Terrinoth games and the fact that Runewars is a reimplement of Battlemist, what other races/factions should be included? In my mind this includes races that could realistically get made in future expansions or just ones you think would be cool based on existing Terrinoth lore.
-
There seems to be a general consensus that the Dunwarr Dwarves will be a race in an upcoming expansion. So, what should they look like?
- Alignment
- Starting TAC/INF
- Dial Configuration/Starting Dial Numbers
- Unit names/abilities/Hit Points/Base Shape/Initiative Number/Quantity
- Home Realm Configuration
- Unique Development
I have my thoughts about what this could look like, but I'd love to hear what you think.
-
Ken on Cape said:
Ok, at this point the one thing I want to see in an expansion is an announcment from FFG that there will be one.
My guess is that if they are coming out with one any time soon, that it will be announced at the Realms of Terrinoth event.
-
Hopefully in the next couple of weeks I'll be starting a playtest for a set of my created Star Trek races;
http://www.ti3wiki.org/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1236212373/0#0
There's a sign up thread here that explains what's going on;
http://www.ti3wiki.org/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1238462276
This game has been intentionally set up for those that may be unfamiliar with the wiki and the PBeM process. So, if you aren't a wiki visitor don't worry. All that is needed is the desire to play in an online version of the game. And, for those that are now disinterested in the races as they are, this game is for you.
-
For those looking to spice up their race options and variants, obviously try the wiki. There are many fan-created themed sets of races; Star Trek, Dune, Starcraft, Babylon 5, Stargate, etc.
Here are some pictures of tiles/starting units.
http://www.ti3wiki.org/index.php?title=Tile_Gallery
As far as I know there is at least one game going of each of the above groupings. We always love fresh blood on the wiki, so please come join us to collaborate on other good ideas and to play in some themed games or heavily varianted games.
-
If referencing the standard races, I would wholeheartedly say the Yin. They are not only a good race, but fit my playing style the best. The L1z1x are a close second.
-
I disagree with most on this one. I think the Winnu tech was overpowered to balance out an underpowered race. This is how I see it;
- 3/4 HS means it can't be refreshed through Assembly.
- Their influence in the HS ability is really good, but not great in comparison to other abilities.
- Their CC saving ability for tech is fine, but it makes you want to buy tech more. Most experienced players know the fine line between buying tech and buying units. Eventually, this ability becomes useless or a liability.
- The Local Unrest ability is fine I suppose, but there are only 4 of them, 6 if Synchronicity & Touch of Genius were used.
- Weakest starting fleet. If anyone is afraid of the Winnu, take them out at the beginning of the 2nd round. It's actually very easy especially because they don't have a Diplomat.
- Their Leaders & Trade Agreements are about average.
- 3 techs is nice, but as noted above they are not combat related, thus leaving them INCREDIBLY vulnerable early on.
Overall, I think the change in their racial tech took them from a top tier race to near the bottom. I think getting their racial tech would be a waste of a tech, thus making it about as useful as the N'orr racial tech. In my group the Winnu is either not chosen or we don't use FAQ 2.2 and they are highly sought after (but still incredibly weak early on).
-
In my opinion the game is ideal with either 6 or 8 people. Any odd number, except 3, imbalances the board in some way. The compensation for this according to the rules is TG's, which doesn't work. My FTF group basically scraps games if they are either 5 or 7 players. That being said, I hate 4 player games because of the aformentioned concept of every strat card being used every round. All games below 5 are really tricky because from my experience the game degenerates into a very complex version of risk. Politics & Trade, two of the big additions over a normal "war game" are reduced to almost nothing. Also, it tends to lead to turtling because if any one person makes a grab for something juicy, the others will more than likely crush them.
One my best friends and I are working on a two-player version. It's not perfect, and tends to be mostly practicing for the big games (trying out new races, new strategies, different variants), but I've still found it to be very fun.
-
Not one person likes Star Trek? You kids must all be too young.
-
I agree with Beren about SET, but not for the same reasons. I just the beginning of the game should be more exciting and my experience is that SET has about as much flavor Elmer's Glue.
Beren is correct on most else, but is HORRIBLY wrong concerning a couple of elements; 1)Distant Suns are great. As noted above my FTF group likes to have something important possibly happen even in the first round. If it's just a big galaxy with open planets, it's lame. 2) VotC can be lots of fun. Just make it mandatory whenever the #3 card is picked. If you want extra flavor, have each player split their total votes between the proposed agenda and VotC. 3)PC's as TG's. Some poo-poo this variant but I've never found anything to be wrong with it and I personally like the flexibility of it. Unless time is an option, always use Leaders because they round out each race.
Race Variants(different than already listed); Give Xxcha +2 GF & have Diplomacy Ability mirror the Jol Nar Tech ability (as in, both primary & secondary). Yssaril only have Antimass to start.
Race Selection in my group works very well by having each player (depending on the size) eliminate 1 race from the game. That way you can avoid getting the same race each time or just get rid of the mutally agreed upon crappy races.
-
If you're a fan of Star Trek like I am TI3 naturally lends itself to the combining of the two. Here are my versions of Star Trek races.
http://www.ti3wiki.org/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1227536088/0#0
For those of you unfamiliar with the site, the wiki has TI3 forums for discussion and for online Play-by-e-mail(PBeM) or Play-by-Forum(PBF) play primarily. These races are currently being playtested in 4 games and I'm getting lots of positive feedback. Feel free to sign up on the wiki site and post any comments you want. Obviously these are just one man's (mine) take on the Star Trek races, so they may not appeal to you. But, if you want to play Star Trek TI3 and don't want to go through the work of creating/balancing races, feel free to use these.
Truth be told, most of the hardcore TI3 fans I know spend lots of time on the wiki as compared to here.
-
I love both.
Leaders I think are necessary because they round out the races. For example, most people agree that the Diplomat is very powerful. Most people agree that the Xxcha are not. The fact that they have 2 Diplomats makes them suck less. To not have them the Xxcha are even more unplayable.
Distant suns are a fun because they add an element of surprise to the game. My group always plays with them so it wasn't until a PBeM game that I realized how boring the first rounds of a game are without them. There's no strategy. If by normal rules you just take over the good or bad systems around you. And they are not game-breaking so no player is ever out of the game because of Distant Suns. If it looks like they are, then they probably aren't a very good player.
-
If anyone is willing to travel I can get about 8 or so guys together on short notice in the La Crosse, WI area. If a formal weekend was well set up I'd be willing to drive to the Whitewater area for a game. My hometown is Lake Geneva.
-
My group defaults to the SE set. Occasionally we go back and play with the original set + Imp II. If we play with 8 players we play with Leadership, Dip II, Political, Assembly, Production, Trade II, Warfare II, Warfare I, Tech II, & Bureaucracy (with the slight change to Political that the primary is to just draw 3 cards and choose which one to vote on, and the Assembly Primary forces VotC to be played). We really love this option because we love the political game so much and Warfare I & Warfare II's primaries are completely different.
Recently I've had a yearning to go back and use the original set. But, I HATE Imp I and I don't like the idea of all the objectives face-up like with Imp II. Also, I like the idea of Mecatol being more important like with the old set, as in, someone will have to take #8 so that the next guy won't get a free point, or go after MR for the same reason. I am in the minority on these boards and like being able to use PC's as TG's (also as 2 votes, but that's another topic). So, here's my original set proposition:
Initiative, Dip, Logistics, Trade, Warfare & Tech remained unchanged (feel free to swap out for any of the #2's in that group).
Political; Primary-Draw 3 AC's. Then draw the top Political Card and resolve it. Resolve the Secondary, then place the top 3 Political cards into your hand. Select 1 from your hand to put on top of the deck and keep the others. Secondary-Spend 1 CC from Strategy to draw 1 AC & 1 PC.
Imperial III; Special-Immediately after placing a bonus token on this card, reveal the top card from the Objective Deck. Primary-Draw the top 2 cards from the Objective Deck. Place one face up in the common play area and the other on the top of the deck. Then choose either a or b: a)You may immediately claim one public objective that you qualify for. Also, if you control Mecatol Rex, immediately gain 1 VP. b)You may execute the secondary ability of this card with no CC cost. No other player may execute this secondary ability. Secondary-Same as Imp II.The high points; Political's secondary gains a PC, which is good. Imperial III allows for 1 PO to be revealed each round and gives the person playing it flexibility.
Lets Help FFG to make an expansion
in Runewars
Posted
Sigma and I worked a lot on expansion stuff. I won't list it all, but here are some of the highlights:
- We argued that the Dwarves were not super influential and the Orcs were not horribly so. Thus, instead of the 0-5 and 5-0 Tactics/Influence, we thought it best to have the Dwarves be 3.5 (rounded down to start) and the Orcs would be 2.5 (rounded down to start). This also served the purpose of us making two custom factions that were 0-5 & 5-0 and were thematically so.
-We definitely thought they should be Neutral and obviously neutral objectives would be needed. We concluded that these factions had no "opposite alignment" and any wording of such would not apply to them.
-The Dwarves would start with 2 Food, 2 Wood, and 3 Ore and the home realm should have a double mountain on it.
-The Orcs would start with 4 Food, 1 Wood, and 2 Ore and the home realm should have a single water and single mountain on it.
-We added several new rules. One of them was the Entangle token, which when assigned to a unit, would prevent the unit from drawing Fate cards for the remainder of the battle. Additionally, the unit could not become routed until all other available units had been routed first and the unit could not be forced to retreat.
-We added two new attributes. One of them was Stalwart, which meant that the unit could not become routed or forced to retreat by an opponent during a battle.