Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Zetan

  • Rank
  • Birthday 05/04/1984

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    Durham, North Carolina, United States

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Okay, I am going to wade back in after all. I have more to say about this situation. Josh made a good point about the "what got you here" of this situation, but I think it's interesting even without that. I find this interesting because it does depend on what else is going on elsewhere on the board, even if it's not nearby enough to affect this particular conflict. How much does each player want engagement to happen here? If the Latari player is hoping to stall that Spearmen unit, they could dial a 1-march and +1 defense. This will make losses much lower so they can hope to counter-attack at full strength next turn. Or maybe keep stalling by dialing the defense again, just bogging that spearmen unit down while they do something more important elsewhere that the Spearmen could disrupt. Maybe it's the Daqan player who wants to stall, at which point they might not dial a charge at all; they could dial a rally 3 and +1 defense. If the Latari player dials the charge (thinking the Daqan player is attempting a late charge to avoid the swing) this will negate that. The Daqan could even dial a late attack with a hit modifier. It all depends on which player wants this combat to happen faster so the survivor can go influence the rest of the battle. If the Daqan player wants to draw things out and doesn't dial a charge at all, and the Latari player doesn't realize this and dials an attack, the Daqan player has successfully stalled that Latari unit for a turn. That's strategy, that's reading your opponent, and that's interesting. Back to the Latari, maybe they want to get this over with as quickly as possible, one way or the other, so they dial the charge. They would rather armor up or take a swing, but they can't take the risk that the Daqan player doesn't charge at all, so they decide to guarantee engagement. If they guess right, and the Daqan player didn't move, or even better dialed a late charge, they get what they want. Both players in this simple situation have a lot of options. I don't look at it as a guessing game, but as a bluffing game. It's not rock-paper-scissors, it's poker. (Granted, rock-paper-scissors has more going on than people give it credit for, but it's still way more guessy than this.) Poker isn't really about who has the better hand (the Daqan player, here). It's about what's at stake. It's about who has more chips (or who has killed more elsewhere, and/or is in a better position to score more objective tokens). It's about how brave or reckless you think your opponent is, or whether they prefer safe moves. It's about looking at their expression when they set their dial; do they look worried and nervous? Do they look cheeky and puckish? However they look, do you think they're faking it, or is it genuine? You can go "all in" as the Latari player and dial a charge, even though it's a bad move on paper, because you can afford the losses if the Daqan player makes the obvious move, and you think there's a chance they're making a not-obvious move that you can counter. Take the bluffing out, make all the moves safer, and I am no longer interested in this game. The bluffing is the most interesting part of it by far.
  2. Hey everyone! As I've mentioned, I'm going to be try to work on an unofficial FAQ/errata to go with my unofficial tournament document. My goals for it are as follows: Do not change power level, just clarify rules that are unclear. The power level adjustment rules are in the very capable hands of several others. I just want to be sure everyone is using the same rules. Try to have all rulings follow general community consensus of how something should work, even if not everyone agrees that's how it does work in the current rules set. This is why I'm adding both FAQ questions and errata, since sometimes errata is necessary to make a rule function at all. This these ends, I'm going to be posting several threads like this with a handful of FAQ entries and/or errata to add to the document. For each of them, please look them over and see if you disagree with how I've handled anything. If you do, please post a reply and we'll talk through it. If we can't agree, we'll eventually put it to a public vote. Once everything either has no objections or has been voted on favorably, it will be added to the FAQ/errata document (which I will create soon). I'm posting only a few at a time like this so they can each be discussed without too much distraction. As mentioned, please reply to any/all of these that you disagree with! For ease of discussion, use the bolded text to refer to one particular FAQ/errata entry.
  3. I am definitely not wading into the details of this thread, but I'll drop in to say I agree with most of the others here; I'm not personally interested in any attempts to remove the "just hit" or "just missed" from the game or removing any of the head games. The head games (guessing what your opponent will do and dialing the correct counter) in particular are part of what make this game better than the others; without them, I could just go play Warhammer.
  4. That, and putting language like this in any unofficial rules we publish: "If an organizer does make use of any game-balancing extra rules at their event, they should announce these rules as part of the tournament announcement." (That's from my unofficial tournament rules. )
  5. Tournaments using unofficial balance system will have a link to that balance system in the tournament write-up, and hopefully draw extra attention to it in the posting.
  6. Everything major is listed on the first page.
  7. Me too! Some of the early design work I'm seeing looks very cool. I think people are going to really enjoy them.
  8. Thanks! I tried to mirror the style of the official one so those already used to it would find it familiar.
  9. Reading the comments, it seems like there's a decent amount of agreement that this version of Ardus is too strong. Your design goal seems to be leaning into his battle commander status. Recent Runewars design usually seems to represent this by using a skill action to move another unit. Take, for example, Etharyon of the Ailatar or Beastmaster Thu'Uk Tar. Both have a very similar skill action to each-other, and both can activate that skill action at initiative 2, in the right circumstances. Both also have a downside, and I think Ardus would need one too. Etharyon is an upgrade card, costing 5 points and giving up Prince Faolan's other upgrades. It's also in the faction that is best at movement shenanigans, so it should stay the best of the three, imo. Beastmaster Thu'Uk Tar, by contrast, only works at range 1-2, doesn't work on heroes, causes a wound, and doesn't get the optional turn modifier. This is all very flavorful, since it seems to represent him using his whips instead of commanding with his voice. This is probably closer to the power level we're looking for on Ardus. A different, but still very relevant downside could be giving them a bane instead of a wound. Any of them could work, flavor-wise; they could get blight because that's what undead do and whatever power he's commanding them with could add that. They could get panic because he's scaring them into doing what he wants. They could get a stun or immobilize to represent the extra effort it takes to move like that. I think any of those could be potentially worse than a wound, so maybe increase his range; he's most likely using his voice, not an attack, so he could go up to 1-3 or maybe even 1-5. This would also help him out since he's not very fast and he can't move in the same turn he uses that skill action, so he's likely to get left behind pretty fast. Maybe test some of these options, see which one feels punishing enough that the ability isn't too good, but not so punishing that you never want to use it.
  10. Tournament document I talked about in this episode is up now.
  11. As promised (though a little later than I intended) I have created the first version of the new tournament regulations document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MTWOPL1s-E9KmMXU_IPoc3DLSQv48SchbanyhoUbHYY/edit?usp=sharing I'm pretty proud of it, but I did just type it up in about a week, so I have to assume there are at least a few small errors. If you see any, please let me know and I'll fix them immediately so I can fix them. Also, if you disagree with any of my changes, or think that some things need changing that I didn't touch, please let me know and we can talk it over. I'm definitely open to change with any of the decisions I made writing this; I want it to be what it needs to be for the whole community.
  12. I'm thrilled to hear it. I'm hoping we can put on a great event for you!
  13. All of these are fair points. I only called the thread the "Initiative One Community Organized Play" to differentiate it from other efforts going on elsewhere on the forums. Upon further reflection, I've decided that while I'm going ahead with the four points outlined above, I have no interest in forming/managing a rules committee. Many others are much more passionate about the correct way to implement balance changes, and it is beyond the scope of what I'm trying to accomplish here. Balancing of the game (whether that means army composition rules, changing point values, or changing rules) is something others should take on. Whatever is decided, once the community gets behind a single movement, my tournament document will link to that set of rules. Until then, it will give advice, but no rules changes, as I initially intended.
  14. I've been talking a lot about this on Discord (and in our next episode, going live later this week; it's a biggie!) but wanted to post here for people who aren't in the Discord and/or don't listen to the podcast. I don't have a lot of time this morning, but I have Wednesday and Thursday off, so I'll be able to get into more detail and get a bunch of work done then. The long and short of it all is that I'm working (with help from many others) to step in and do what FFG has decided to stop. So why me? I think I have a lot of qualifications. I've been running tournaments in some capacity for over 10 years, and 7 of those years were spent primarily on a game that had no official organized play (Warhammer Fantasy Battles). I did a lot of work on some of the largest WFB tournaments on the east coast (Brawler Bash 7 onward, Southern Asault 5 onward, Grail Quest (all of them), etc). I also helped organize Krayt Cup 3 for X-Wing, and am working on this year's Krayt Cup (it's at the top of my to do list when I get to work today). Organizing wargaming events is second nature to me. I'm also a host on a reasonably popular Runewars podcast (I don't have listener numbers, but I know we're in the top 3 ) with an 85-member Discord server. This puts me in a good position within the community to collect feedback and data and disseminate information. Importantly, I don't want to seize control of this without the community as a whole behind me. If you think I'm not the man for the job, please contact me about it. I'd love to hear your thoughts. One of the things I've seen cause problems for other communities is when multiple different people/groups all work on rules documents, and each event has to declare who they're siding with. It's a mess. I don't want that to happen here. If anyone else has this idea (and it seems like many do) I encourage you to come to me so we can collaborate. Maybe you think you'd be a better choice to lead the project, and maybe you're even right! But I want to talk about it, rather than running off in different directions and doing all the same work, but slightly differently. With all that out of my way, here's a summary of my plan for replacing FFG-supported organized play: Tournament Document. I'm planning to craft a new tournament document. One important aspect of it is giving tournament organizers the tools they need to balance their metagame, and encouraging them to send their results back to me and a possible rules committee (see below). Most people think the game has at least a few balance issues, but there is no community consensus on what those issues are, and part of that has to do with the small pockets of metagame we have everywhere. Only by trying lots of different ideas and compiling all that data together can we discover which problems are truly with the game, and not just with the local crowd. With that in mind, no game-balance rules will be changed at all, to start with. Errata/FAQ. My current plan is to gather all the outstanding FAQ questions we have and post them, a handful at a time, with my proposed answers. We can discuss them here on the forums. If we come to a consensus about the correct way to address them, we'll write that into the new document I'm creating. If we can't, we may need to create a rules committee to vote and decide on these issues once and for all. My current proposal is that any TO who runs at least four events (with at least 4 attendees, including themselves if they play) per year is eligible to join the committee; this selects people who are successfully building their local communities, and being a TO for these communities indicates that at least a few local people trust them to interpret the rules in a fair and helpful way. If anyone has another proposal for how to form a committee, I'd be happy to discuss it. Event kits. I'm working with Greg of Rebel Light Works in San Antonio. He has thrown his full backing behind this project, and is about as qualified as I am when it comes to supporting a game unofficially. Our plan is to create two tiers of event kits. One is designed for relaxed-tier events. This will, to a certain degree, mirror the quarterly/seasonal kits that FFG has been putting out. Each one will contain enough prizes to support 3 events of up to 8 players, and a new kit will be released each quarter to keep things fresh. Prizes will consist of acrylic tokens and alternate-art cards, with a new focus on upgrade cards instead of unit cards. Keep an eye out for these soon, I think you're going to like what we have planed. The other kit will be a bit more expensive and designed for formal-tier events. Anyone who wishes to run a yearly event with a bit more draw along the lines of a regional/national type event can purchase this kit and get some fancier prizes, such as movement templates and things like that. The contents of this kit will rotate yearly. Worlds 2019 and beyond. We are planning to host the 2019 World Championship at Atomic Empire in Durham, NC in October. My goal is to have a date announced and registration up as soon as possible, aiming for an absolute minimum of 4 months notice. Some problems beyond my control could prevent this (like Wizards dragging their feet on the Magic release schedule for fall like they are for the spring) but I will do everything in my power to meet that deadline so that everyone who wants to come can make travel plans well in advance. For future years, we would like to move the event from region to region. Court of Gamers in San Antonio, TX is a likely location for 2020. We'd love to put it somewhere on the west coast in 2021. Maybe it could even take place in the UK for one year. The idea with moving it around like this is so that the burden of travel is greater for some years and less for others, hopefully making it easier on everyone who wants to come every year. If any of these topics interest you, I strongly encourage you to listen to this week's Initiative One podcast, which we'll try to have out on Thursday. You can even jump ahead about an hour if you're not interested in listening to a summary of our latest event (though it was a good one, so consider listening to that too if you've got time. ). As I said, I'll be posting more detail here as quickly as possible. I hope to have the first handful of questions/answers for rules discussion up in the rules subforum soon; probably by Thursday. Finally, as a special note, thanks for still being here, for sticking with this game and for contributing in whatever way you choose to. Things don't look good for continued releases, but if we can surprise FFG by growing the community on our own and they see a steady increase in sales and tournament attendance, maybe they'll get back to work on new content. I don't know how likely it is, but it doesn't hurt to try, and I'm happy to do all this whether it gets us new content or not.
  • Create New...