Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Kias

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • AIM
  • MSN
  • Website URL
  • ICQ
  • Yahoo
  • Skype

Profile Information

  • Location
    Charlotte, North Carolina, United States
  1. Thanks for letting us know. I agree with DE that the word "cancel" is what is confusing and it was only a matter of time before this came up at my gaming table.
  2. Thanks Broken, that is sort of the impression I got from the rule book. Granted, looking at the exact wording of what we had, the 'attacker resolves first' made sense. Honestly, I think its impressive that this is as close to a major confusion due to ambiguity on the rules we have come to since the game's release.
  3. Kias

    Two-player game?

    My first play session was with two players and the game works great. Some of the tactics cards are a little lack luster and are clearly intended as diplomatic gestures in a 3+ player game, but for the most part everything scales very well. The map itself is dependant on player size, making set up and getting into the action go a good deal quicker when playing with 2. Just be careful how you set your map up, as its easy to get stuck in a bottle neck somewhere mid-map where your armies play a dangerous game of pong. Then again, a card like mountain pass or a well time winter mobilize order can go a long way to upsetting map choke points.
  4. Well, here is my interpretation of how this is resolved: When a special ability says to deal damage or rout, then resolve that damage/rout in its relevent phase (as if they were damage/rout icons). Other abilities, such as the flesh ripper or berserker (the sacrifice unit part) special, are immediately resolved. 3. Special Abilities (effects that do not deal damage/rout- note: sacrificing the berserker would be done here, while the damage resulted from the sacrifice would be done in step 5) 4. Routs (including routs from specials) 5. Damage (including damage from specials) Normally this distinction wouldn't really matter (which is why I could see it being overlooked in the rule book), but in very particular cases like the above I think this is the intention of playing cards in order, as I can't think of many other reasons to not just throw the cards out face up. Basically, I am basing my reading on the intent of: "if Fate cards have already been drawn for a unit type, then all of the cards will be resolved regardless of whether those units are later destroyed or routed." The intent here seems to be that if units have the same initiative, their actions are performed simultaneously, meaning that by this point in the combat those units shouldn't be interruptible. To be fair, I can see the point of either reading, so an official word on this would be preferable.
  5. Well, the look through the discard bit really depends alot on your players. Its not a big deal in my gaming group, as we just accept that things are random and go from there. We don't mind folks looking through, but its understood that you don't slow down the pace of the game for everyone to dig through the card stack. It's better to play through two games in 5 hours than to only finish one because someone had to min/max for that 15% increase in efficiency.
  6. Kias

    The dwellers below...

    Very nice, I especially like your dwarven tunneling idea. A couple thoughts: Make the tunneler ability apply to same initiative or lower so units will either attack that round or just act as end of battle strength. This prevents OP hexagon creatures from being snuck in and decimating. Also may want to note that it brings in standing units from an unactivated territory to keep things consistent with the rules (i.e. no double using the same unit). The special for your Golem is a little much, as one shotting a player's uber unit is kind of nuts. Routing a players hex may be more acceptable, or maybe something like, rout 3 triangles/circles, 2 rectangles, or 1 hex. Then again, it is initiative 5, and most uber units will have some wounds by then, so insta-killing a wounded hex may not be to big a deal... hmm. As a complete alternative, how about: Defensive Bastion: Block up to two damage or one rout. If either a rout or damage is blocked, deal two damage To make this ability work, your golem would need an intitative lower than 5. Or, you could make the damage reflection be the trigger for the hex insta-kill, as any blocked damage would really have to come from a hexagonal unit at that initiative. Just some thoughts. As for the influence/tactic card ratio, I foresee expansion factions as replacements to existing ones; keeping the same number of players in the game but allowing more diversity in faction choice. So, in this case the dwarves could replace the undead (or, may be more fitting to make them 3 inf/2 tact and replace the humans).
  7. Things I have learned: The game is all about aquiring those runes; don't get distracted by the need to dislodge your enemies. Especially in a four player game. A couple good influence bids and one enemy's runes will win the game. Also, never trust the growing army next to you when he promises not to attack just because you are both the same alignment (especially ore heavy demons). It is an FFA game by default and the following will generally apply: Necromancers are wonderful, especially in smaller skirmishes: nothing like coming out of a battle with a bigger army than you started with. Tactics cards or influence both rock, but sometimes you just need to pick one and run with it. If another player is influence heavy, odds are you will be wasting your time trying to catch up, so dig through those tactics cards for that card that automatically takes away his locked up title or a mountain pass that will catch them off guard (won me my first game). Try to keep your supremecy bonuses going, but after the first year, don't be afraid to break the order if it suits the situation. Winter is a great time for assaults, especially if your food supply is higher than the enemies (or you have necromancers ) And finally, this game is awesome.
  8. Kias

    First Game Report

    Happy to report I just wrapped up my initial game of Rune Wars with a buddy of mine and the game really came through in the 1v1 experience (really excited about getting a 4-player game going tomorrow). I don't want to repeat what has already been said, so here are some of the highlights of the game. Map ended up being a bottleneck and my buddy, playing the humans, got a head start on pushing out over my undead. You see, I didn't pay enough attention when I set up my home area. On one hand, my mountains gave enemies only a single point of entry. On the other, I should have noticed that a dragon would be sitting at the point of entry, or exit in my case, and getting it out of my way proved troublesome. Neutral retreats created a nice little gathering of creeps in the center of the map that I failed miserably to persuade over to my army. The humans on the other hand, succeeded, scoring a dragon, two beastmen, and a sorc in one fell swoop. Once again, a Dragon was making my life difficult. My biggest advantage was my food supply, as my side of the map beat him hands down in it allowing my winter armies to stay at full strength. However, a lucky reward draw allowed his hero to rout half of my freaking standing army right before I put up a stronghold, and he then walked his forces in and broke through the front line, pushing through with a conquer in the following season to snuff out a hex full of routed units. He had me outnumbered and was about to grind my economy to dust, but I had one force of 7 units left and a tactics card that let me walk through the mountain creating the center choke point. I walked into his empty stronghold, with walls, giving him a str of 7, and gambled the game on the draw of one necromancer who obligingly raised two reanimates, putting me just over and allowing me to backdoor his forces. After his counter attack failed, losing by 1 strength, it moved into the last year and I was able to nab the dragon runes he thought were safe and clinch the game.
  9. broken said: I'm going to have to agree with Darkelf here, and I think the OP's post itself implies that the OP can't read, or at least didn't, in this case. @Kias The problem with that logic is that there also isn't anything whatsoever implying that you wouldn't get the extra influence for ending additional heroes' quest phases in a space with a temple. The way it reads, it would appear that you would get the extra influence, since it says: "Temple (Location): Keep this token faceup in the area. When a hero ends his Quest Phase in this area, his controller gains two influence." Note that it does not say: "When a player has one or more heroes in this area at the end of the Quest Phase, he gains 2 influence." Yeah, good points. I posted on the way out this morning, so with the rule book in front of me, I have to agree that it does read like multiple heroes can receive the bonus (in context of the other events, etc.). I guess my knee-jerk reaction against it was that it seemed to be out of balance in relation to all the other methods of earning influence. I mean, with ideal, maxed resources, each race can pull in b/w 5-6 inluence on their appropriate action card, and a development, which is costing an actual tic back in a resource dial, only brings in 2, which also needs an needs an action card. It seems off that a trio of heroes could constantly bring in up to 6 influence a year (granted they stop hunting runes, but from what I have been reading, I think 6 is a fairly large amount of influence). But, that line of thought is just whistling in the wind until I get my hands on a copy of the game.
  10. DarkElf said: ckessel said: The question is more generic about any of the "do X if the hero lands here" events and locations, but for example, if I have two heroes land on a "Temple" token, do I get 2 influence or 4? The rules are pretty clear, I think : "Temple : Keep this token faceup in the area. When a hero ends his Quest Phase in this area, his controller gains two influence." I can't say it more clearly, I'm afraid. So, yes, if two of your heroes end their turn there you get 2x2 influence. I am not quite seeing how this is so clear cut. It doesnt say anything in there that implies the controller gets a multiplier for having more than one hero in there. I read exploration tokens as one shots, so I would disagree that you get 4 influence in this instance. We won't know until the FAQ and more hands on time with the game though.
  11. While I am not saying any of you are wrong here, I am curious about how it is a hero may become routed if special abilities (like the Razorwing's) or rout icons never apply to them. Since the rules mention routed heroes several times, there must be a way for them to be routed. On the point of Razor Wings, and Im not sure how we can anwer this question without the game/cards in front of us, I would ask about the wording in other neutral special abilities and if they specify b/w heroes and units. My opinion on the initial question though, is that nuetrals would temporarily act as heroes, meaning the rout would act as a "block one damage." However, on that same note, I would guess that special abilities applying to "units" will temporarily apply to "heroes" in these duels if no differentiation is made in any of the nuetral creatures' ability text (i.e. all of them read "...apply to unit...").
  12. If I am reading the rules correctly, routing damage completely ignores a unit's hit points? In other words, if a unit with 4 hit points is forced to take one point of routing damage, then that unit is effectively routed and out of the battle? Its an interesting concept and works well to prevent armies composed of all high tier units while simultaneously preventing the loser from having all of his troops destroyed in a given battle. However, I could see how this would be frustrating as well: "Oh look, your initiative 2, 1 hp character just routed my initiative 5, 4 hp character." The damage at early intitiatives is compensated by the hit points, but it seems the only affective way of guarding against a rout is numbers. Then again, that depends on how frequent a rout will be, etc. Also, since combat is limited to a single 'round' per initiative, its not quite as big a deal as if combat were to keep going. All in all, I am excited about the mechanics as they stand as it seems like it will interesting impacts on how the game flow goes (i.e. a defeated army that rallies in the spring to take back a keep or a retreating army that falls back into terrain away from the attacker's primary objective, forcing the attacker to choose pursuit and delay their objective or push on and risk a rallied force at their backs). So, what do folks think of Rout damage vs Damage damage?
  13. I don't mind heroes not participating in battle directly, but I do hope some of the tactics cards put them "in the action" in an indirect way. So, for example, certain tactic cards could read: "If a hero is present in the activated area, you may..." which would better reflect a hero's roll in battle (preforming specialized functions) than having a hero be able to deal damage to the armies a single unit would represent. Really, it seems like heroes are there for questing: getting their Frodo on while the armies clash elsewhere. It just makes sense that they can move through enemy territories/forces, as what self respecting hero have you heard of that only does his/her thing in friendly territory?
  14. Kias

    Combat System

    Well, I said this elsewhere, but may as well mention it again: just look at what FFG has been putting out lately. I mean, their general approach to game development has been solid. I liked the card based mechanics in SC myself, but recognize they were cumbersome in ways, so then we see another, smoother variation come out in MEQ. I don't see any reason why the mechanics in RunWars, and in Horus Heresy (which will also use cards for combat from what I understand), should not be an even more refined system than in previous iterations. Since we don't have the rules and only basic overviews of mechanics in the diaries, I think our best source for judgement now remains our past experience with FFG. Short of Android (which has some redeeming qualities, not enough, but some), I have yet to be burned by a big FFG title and I respect how they approach game design.
  15. It seems like player downtime is one of the main aspects FFG has been addressing in their recent releases, so I don't foresee them dropping the ball in Rune Wars. Take Chaos in the Old World for example, turn play is divied up between the players, with each person taking part of their turn, rotating to the next player, etc. until everyone has done all their actions, leaving very few occassions where a player must sit idle waiting for someone else to do their thing. Though I haven't personal played either of these games, a friend was telling me about Middle Earth Quest in comparison with Runebound. Apparently, both games seem to operate on a similar concept, heroes moving around a world map, co-oping and powering up to thwart the one evil player, however Middle Earth Quest is apparently much more involved, always giving the player something to do, while Runebound pretty much has one person play the game at a time (in a manner of speaking). Basicaly, he was using these two titles to show FFG's progress in game design and execution. So, while I can't offer specific insights in comparison to TI:3 (no one can really until we see the rules), FFG has really been on top of their game lately and I think they are well aware of how important it is to keep all players constantly involved in game play.
  • Create New...