Jump to content

jcshep19

Members
  • Content Count

    137
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About jcshep19

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

498 profile views
  1. Good points all around. I've got a fair bit of mileage with Maegan Archers w/ Fire, while I can see the uses, I think I'll keep that on the bench for now. I've also decided I've had quite a few reps with the style of the first list I posted, so I think I'm going to try out the second list, and then a variant of it: 199/200 Prince Faolan [36] 1x1 Malcornes Bequest [6] Legendary Prowess [5] Total Unit Cost: 47 Darnati Warriors [43] 3x2 Verdant Sorceress [3] Shield Wall [5] Greenwatch Herald [3] Hedge Shroud [2] Total Unit Cost: 56 Leonx Riders [30] 2x2 Aliana of Summersong [12] Bull Pennon [3] Hedge Shroud [2] Total Unit Cost: 47 Ventala Skirmishers [30] 2x2 Tempered Steel [3] Hedge Shroud [2] Total Unit Cost: 35 Aymhelin Scions [14] 1x1 Total Unit Cost: 14 Originally had LotL on the Leonx and Raven on Darnati, but decided last minute to triple down on the hedge shroud and free up a point for greenwatch again. I think the overgrowth 2 from the sorceress COMBINED with the post deployment greenwatch token can lead to a pretty significant coverage area across the board. I think file leader can still make a big difference for the Darnati (play them against a fair amount of Uthuk with a beserkerstar) and I think that might help answer some of that, combined with everything else. Maybe after I give them both a few goes I'll try a hybrid, though the only way I see that happening is dropping the Leonx for some Archers to shoulder some of the upgrades, but don't think I'll like the reduction in more melee. Side note: I've seen you guys try out some of the other Faolan upgrades, and I know I need to switch even if it's just to try it out, but I'm a big fan of Legendary, I run him primarily as a duelist and have been having good success. One of these days I'll switch it up...one day...
  2. @Jukey started writing before I saw your post! yeah depending on whether my groups interpretation of those two questions is correct or not I think I’ll probably adjust to something much more like that.
  3. @Church14 Good call on the extra inspiration. Yeah hunters guile for me has always pretty much been dead on arrival and not worth the points. In that list I’m essentially treating the card as having the text “Hunters Guile: Overgrow 1”. Outside a late game Hail Mary fishing for a MS against 3+ armor, I can’t see a legit reason for changing a die within the Ventala as I have them. So the only reason I’m bringing it is for overgrow, so that way I have one terrain piece (pre-deployment) with a token, and then one token (post-deployment, which I think is huge) with some restrictions to place. I think hedge shroud can be strong but if you’re relying on a single token that’s a severe limitation and tiny part of the board you’re tethered to. I don’t know of another non-infantry champ that could get the overgrow. TS is basically the gold standard of upgrade cards (outside maybe rank) across all factions for units that can take it, so no convincing needed there. Making that switch could also allow for hedge shroud on the ventala bringing it to a clean 200pts, still suffering the same limitation but at least there’s potentially less telegraphing. More drastically, could drop file leader for verdant Sorc for Ovrgw 2, and Hunters for TS/Hedge on the Ventala, and maybe metered for good measure. That certainly opens up the board more for overgrowth. But I reeeeally like the idea of file leader. two quick rules questions for the gurus out there: 1: overgrowth token from greenwatch, could you place that on a terrain piece, provided the terrain meets the same range req, and if so Can you then measure overgrowth range from the entire terrain as normal? 2: I had always dismissed file leader before as my interpretation of the “this (melee) can only be performed while your command dial is revealed with a (melee) selected” as meaning post activation. Example: Darnati have a init4 melee selected, gets charged at init3, file leader does not trigger. If they were charged at init5, it WOULD trigger. Is that correct? If so, then yeah Raven has to be stapled on Darnati with that to help compensate for the short charge. In which case the alt change I listed above is what I’m thinking is the best bet for that second list.
  4. So I have two adjusted Latari builds I've been waiting to try out. I'm going to end up playing them both, but wanted to get people's thoughts on them first, which they think is better and any minor tweaks. First one: (169/31 ratio) 200/200 Prince Faolan [36] 1x1 Legendary Prowess [5] Total Unit Cost: 41 Darnati Warriors [43] 3x2 Raven Tabards [2] Total Unit Cost: 45 Leonx Riders [30] 2x2 Aliana of Summersong [12] Raven Tabards [2] Total Unit Cost: 44 Ventala Skirmishers [30] 2x2 Total Unit Cost: 30 Deepwood Archers [30] 2x2 Maegan Cyndewin [10] Total Unit Cost: 40 Pros: Faolan, Darnati, and Leonx all have strong initiative to win out the short charge battle. Ventala are there for the flanking harassing fire and the opportune flank charge, and Meagan Archers are there to primarily fish for surges to splash as much as possible, but can switch over to low-med damage as necessity/runes permit. I like that I'm getting a sizable force on the table, and able to do med-high damage across multiple fronts. Cons: Winning the charge game CAN be terrible against an enemy who's anticipating it, particularly for those init4+ return attacks. Leonx get the worst of that I think. Not necessarily Cons but more trade offs is: no 1 or 2 heavy hitters to help win that initial momentum, and light on upgrades means each unit has less tricks up their sleeves to get them out of a bind. Second one: 199/200 Prince Faolan [36] 1x1 Legendary Prowess [5] Total Unit Cost: 41 Darnati Warriors [43] 3x2 File Leader [6] Shield Wall [5] Greenwatch Herald [3] Hedge Shroud [2] Total Unit Cost: 59 Leonx Riders [30] 2x2 Aliana of Summersong [12] Bull Pennon [3] Metered March [2] Lay of the Land [4] Total Unit Cost: 51 Ventala Skirmishers [30] 2x2 Hunters Guile [4] Total Unit Cost: 34 Aymhelin Scions [14] 1x1 Total Unit Cost: 14 Pros: Modified based off the first one. Really wanted to try and maximize the Darnati and give them some staying power. I've been experimenting with them for awhile and have tried out multiple options (warsong, wind rune, LotL, TS, etc) but inevitably, even when I the charge or win the maneuver battle and even get a flank, that return attack or next turn attack more often than not tips the engagement into "unwinnable" for the Darnati. File Leader was inspired by @Jukey‘s latest exploits. Unless someone is aware of something different, shield wall and Hedge Shroud CAN stack? Optimal Scenario bumping them up to Armor 4 for the turn, but more likely one or the other being better suited given a particular turn, and then rally/reform after combat to line up the next threat. Greenwatch and Hunters Guile are there to provide what I think is a pretty low cost and versatile Overgrowth strategy with some additional situational benefits. Changed the Leonx build to try and maximize the benefit of winning the charge and win the fight via morale deck instead of just damage. Cons: Had to downgrade the Meagan splashing archers to a single scion to free up the points for upgrades. Darnati are pretty heavy at 59, and while I think they'll be completely worth it, the "baiting the enemy charge" strategy can backfire heavily, particularly matched up against a weaker unit, potentially wasting valuable turns (though this principle applies to unit match ups as a whole). The Leonx is probably the more potentially dangerous "points sink" at 51, as they are really depending on winning that charge and spiking damage/effects before taking a return attack. Overall comparatively lighter on the plastic in exchange for what I think are strong upgrades in the second list. In general I keep more of a "plastic > cardboard" mentality. Right now I'm leaning more toward the 2nd list, but am aware that may be more due to it being more of a new idea for me, as I've been working variations closer to the 1st list more recently when I do play Elves. Thoughts?
  5. First Campaign Overview: We got to play through a few Rounds last week and try things out, it was an absolute blast! We got all the way through Round 5. We had a lot of pretty epic experiences: Latari ambushed Uthuk after an unfortunate but necessary Forced March to contest a neutral castle, which led to an absolute bloodbath. The Uthuk were shattered, Ravos was slain (Huge!) and Kethra was weakened, however the Latari suffered heavily for their victory and their losses were beyond counting. Daqan and Waiqar maneuvered strategically in the North, trying to gain the dominant terrain, after Waiqar failed to successfully organize a Forced March Daqan seized the settlement dominating the Northern pass, and a stalemate ensued as both sides awaited reinforcements. Eventually they arrived and a Legendary battle ensued, obliterating the forces of Ankaur Maro and Baron Zachareth, and ending with a bloody draw between Lord Hawthorne and Lord Vorunthul;, with Vorunthul ultimately seizing the battlefield and forcing the Daqan to withdraw. Meanwhile in the South, Prince Faolan desperately rebuilt his forces in preparation for a overwhelming siege from the combined forces of Thu'Uk Tar's monstrous beasts and Kethra's newly formed horde of beserkers, while Aliana of Summersong led a swift force to the North in hopes of relieving a beleaguered and retreating Daqan host... It really did feel pretty epic and the narrative made it feel impactful and very fun. Ultimately we decided to call it and reset the campaign. The biggest factor was the map (see below) and a few balancing tweaks we saw needed to be implemented and would fundamentally change the campaign. Very excited to start again! Suggestions and adjustments: Be very careful and deliberate in your campaign map building. You want the map to be balanced, but accessible for all players. Our problem with the initial map we designed (see imgur link above) was that with too much restrictive terrain in the middle, we made it too easy for the Campaign to devolve into two 1v1 scenarios: Daqan v Waiqar and Latari v Uthuk with it being too difficult for either Ally to support or become involved with each other. We're redesigning it to instead open up the middle of the map a lot more and force the contest into those areas. Allow for direct assaults toward each others capitals to happen and have incentives for conquering exterior map spaces, but have those choices come at a cost and make it worth the Players' time to move toward the middle where a diversity of fighting can happen. Also be careful on using minor/major settlements. You want them to be important, but not so strong that players ignore the rest of the map and you just play “King of the Hill” over one or two territories. We reduced the Turns on Ambush from 8 to 6. Due to the closeness of deployment zones, it was just too much destruction to play a full 8 turns, 6 definitely felt more appropriate. We had thought about potential other objective factors (Attacker has reduced forces and has to withdraw forces after turn 4, defender has to withdrawal back off near short edge, etc) but couldn't come up with a good balance yet and thought it would just be unnecessarily complicated for now. Clarified the Round sequence and what happens during each step, cleaned up the tables and the spreadsheet in general. Also split the Army cards into a separate doc and tried to make the Round sequence reference more useful. Clarified recovery, as this is how it was originally intended but we didn't spell it out and therefore forgot about it: After every battle, unless destroyed, both Armies conduct an Army Recover Test. We feel the recovery is currently well balanced, but if the only way to recover is to fortify the Round after, an Army can be out of action for a third of the Campaign to get back to near full strength after a particularly bloody battle. While that has its own merits, ultimately we want there to be more battles than not in this campaign and so we agreed that mechanic should be there (it was supposed to from the beginning). So fight a battle, recover, and then next Round if you want to recover more you can fortify.
  6. @Skaflok Hope it can be of some use to you, please take whatever you want out of it and let me know any feedback on things you think could use some adjustment/rebalancing etc. As I understand it you're saying supplies would limit you to a 3 Player Campaign, 1 Army each Player, Daqan, Waiqar, and Latari? If that's the case a couple of recommendations: I would think you'd be forced into a 3 player free-for-all, meaning no alliances of any sort. The balance concern with an odd number like that (or Free-for-all in general) would be stalemating because no one wants to commit (especially with only one Army) or an imbalanced dogpile of for example Waiqar destroys Daqan, only for weakened Waiqar to be destroyed by Latari next Round, only for weakened Latari to be destroyed by reformed Daqan the Round after that and so on... To help balance that, I think reducing the Army destruction standards may help, ie an Army that is destroyed immediately reforms back at the Capital with half strength (meaning half trays), or even that an Army defeated in battle can only lose a maximum of half strength, though that may be too powerful. Swap out Hero death with wounds if you have to keep heroes in the campaign for real world supply issues. If you have enough excess forces for each faction to create a 2nd, fairly distinct Army, though not enough to field them both at once, I'd highly recommend running 2 Armies each, and just limit the size of the battles. Figure out what a good amount of additional points that each faction could add to an Army as "Supporting Forces" and limit reinforcements to that. Similarly a Legendary battle would just be a say 240Pt v 240Pt battle instead. The more units you can get on the table the better, but obviously there's a limit to how much you can field real-world.
  7. Just posted a new version after some further review within my group. If it looks weird on a phone, try it on a computer or printed out, as that’s how it was formatted so that’s the easiest way to see everything correctly. I Clarified terms and made sure they were consistent throughout, modified some minor mechanics. Biggest things probably are I included a “FAQ” tab to better clarify some of the rules or concepts, and created a makeshift template Army Card to keep track of everything between rounds. Discord had suggested using TTS for all of this or at least the Campaign map for anyone without the resources for a physical campaign map or wanting to play beyond locally, so that’s definitely an option for anyone who wants to try. Hoping to try out a full campaign off the latest build starting tonight and getting as far as we can these next couple weeks. Again, feedback very much welcome!
  8. Something I had been meaning to address that's not in there (I know there's a lot of things, but this one stuck out) is what happens to your Army when your Hero dies for good? Now I tried to make it pretty rare, or at least uncommon for Heroes to out right die, they are meant to be Heroes after all. I think the low dice odds, nerfing the campaign effect of heavy wound effects (Margath, Ravos, Obcasiums,etc) and the fact that you have to fail at multiple points, and not "everything's going great and-DEAD" makes it justified when Heroes die, you don't feel cheated. Only time will tell I suppose. Anyway, the clarification on "what happens after a Hero dies?" I see as this: An Army must maintain at least 1 Hero in its Army when it is initially formed. If a Hero dies, that Army's maximum point value is reduced by the cost of the Hero until that Army performs a Fortify order in friendly territory. The Army is not REQUIRED to return to friendly territory and fortify, but will continue to suffer a significant penalty until they do (an Army that loses a Hero and potentially its leader should really feel the impact, IMO) Once that Army fortifies in friendly territory, the Army may replenish those reduced points in multiple ways: -If there is still a Hero within the Army, the Army may replenish those points with either new units or expanding current units. -If there is no Hero within the Army, the Army MUST recruit another Hero (remember that embedded Heroes are treated as entirely different characters). The Army is allowed to adjust upgrades as necessary across the army and may increase/decrease the size of a single unit in order to make a new Hero fit as well as not waste points. The player cannot arbitrarily change upgrades that do not actively contribute to adding the new Hero. If a faction runs out of Heroes, it may elect or add a champion (same rules apply from above) to serve as the Army's new leader, and this champion must be unique in this Army. I can see the argument for either allowing this right away after the first Hero is lost for gameplay purposes (not all Heroes/embedded Heroes are created equally and you probably will end up punishing a player who is already losing), but I am ultimately against it as I think a campaign is better served telling a narrative and having iconic faces for you to identify with each Army, not "Uthuk Army 1" and "Uthuk Army 2". If your group wants to allow champions to lead Armies earlier feel free to change those rules (or any rules in this campaign, for that matter!) but my recommendation is Initial Hero, then adjust for a new Hero, then champion once you're out of Heroes.
  9. https://imgur.com/9yZvar5 that image should work? @Budgernaut let me know if it doesn’t. That’s the first map I just through together. My initial reaction too was “wow 48 seems like a lot” until I saw it on the board (everything below the river is in play and is 48 tiles). Once you add in terrain, particularly limiting terrain, settlements and capitals among 4 players, that space actually becomes less daunting I think. Definitely open to the idea of a smaller map, I think just depends on how reactive you want things. I think the best argument FOR a smaller map would be to try and ensure every player has a battle, just so if your campaign is the group plays one round a week, most weeks everyone has a battle. the actual number came from the WFB guide suggesting that your number of campaign rounds should equal number of map spaces divided by 4. Now I reverse engineered it, as I had decided on 12 rounds first, and built the map off that. I can definitely see the merit in a smaller board, particularly for the health of the campaign as stated above, but maybe there’s another way to address that? This campaign is definitely designed for there NOT to be a battle for EVERY army each turn, you need time to rebuild, maneuver, etc. which is part of the campaign, otherwise you might as well just play a “tree” campaign. definitely something for me to think about
  10. ok I think I fixed it with just putting in google drive?
  11. Hey guys, So I've been working on this for a little while, really wanted to try out a more meaningful series of games that can build its own narrative. This is a work in progress, the biggest shortfall right now is needing A LOT more time to playtest these mechanics and systems to make sure there's some semblance of balance (although some things are intentionally meant to be imbalanced) across the whole campaign. I leaned pretty heavy on some old WFB do it yourself campaign guides, but definitely it's a mutant of many different ideas all rolled up. I figured I'd get it out there to the community, FEEDBACK IS VERY MUCH APPRECIATED! If anyone wants to adapt it or even try it with their group, even better! Main things I'm looking at first: Does it even make sense? I'll try and upload a picture today or tomorrow of the campaign map I'm using so at least that can maybe help provide some context, but does the sequence of events make sense for the campaign round, etc? Are there places where it's overly complicated and how could it be streamlined? I know a lot of this can be more fleshed out and better explained, I don't think I'm up for making a nice pretty manual or anything but definitely could expand/better organize some things. Do things seem balanced where they should be: IE faction campaign and battle effects, criteria for determining battles, penalties/rewards for winning/losing battles. Many of the elements can easily be turned on/off to players preference (battlefield weather for instance) just a matter of whether people think this are too simple, too complex, or just right. Do the battles seem varied and fun without becoming overly complex? I know some of it can be a bit math intensive but the percentages are the best way I know to keep things even when point values may vary. And does it feel like Runewars or does it feel like a completely different game just with Runewars figures? I tried to incorporate some of the objectives and deployments, but also liked many other elements that just haven't made it into this game yet. I tried very much so to avoid any sort of economics for the game, and tried to keep the materials to a minimum: biggest barrier to entry for most people I would think would be a good campaign map to use. Maybe if someone knows a good online hexagonal map generator or something? Other than that should just need 2d6 (or even 1d6) and a notepad and paper to keep track of army status. It's designed to be a 2v2 game, with each player having 2 Armies, but I think you could easily adapt it to 2v2 with 1 army each for simplicity/supplies sake, or a free for all, or a 1v1 with 2 Armies each (recommend smaller map). https://drive.google.com/open?id=18v3xizgI8QgN-gXELF4ivPvM00xCRq69 Again, I really encourage any feedback out there, and I'll try to get back to anyone as soon as I can. Cheers
  12. Making it standalone integrated within a campaign or as the first stage in an epic battle would probably be the cleanest way. Limited number of points, probably on a 3x3, put terrain equidistant from either side and have points associated with it. Victor gets to choose all terrain placement on the main battlefield or something to simulate scouts choosing the best engagement area, and can recover 1-2 trays of lost vanguard units. Something along those lines. I personally like the idea of just having it as a few turns before the actual battle, on the same board/game state, but I know this might be harder to balance. You would have to incentivize each side to actually attack and not just turtle up to draw the other Van into superior numbers. Maybe something like 3-4 rounds, 50-100 points, no heroes, side that destroyed the most points get a free turn of maneuver and actions (no attacks) before the other side can act. The side that wins the vanguard clash would be able to organize their forces better than the losing side, who may be in some disarray, so that makes sense to me. I do like your idea of the random deployment element, that could be a lot of fun I just think you’d need some other incentive to force the Van engagement. I never played WFB (Runewars is my first rank and file, and I’m all in!) but I have some of the written material available and so I’ve been trying to look at ways of incorporating elements of the scenario generator and various campaigns and adapt them to Runewars. It’ll take some work but I definitely think it could work great.
  13. I think I’d like to try a 300 or even 400 point game with multiple phases, ie a 2-3 round vanguard deployment and battle before the main armies arrive and deploy. You’d have to figure out limits and conditions to make it balanced(no heroes, 50-100pts, must move beyond range 2 of deployment,etc), but I think it would be a lot of fun and deeper to include something like that
  14. Good arguments across the board, definitely didn’t think about regen. I think there’s answers for reanimates and Maro, but I’m less certain on simple balances for Devouring Maw, Bilehall, or Shard. I personally am ok with kiting and hit and run being less viable, as I prefer to outmaneuver then stay in the fight with my Elves, but that’s obviously personally subjective and bad for a group format. My logic for 12 turns was to lengthen the game enough that units still die, without playing a 4 hour game, or just playing 8 rounds where nothing dies. regarding decision making going away once engaged, if each unit just picks a counterpart to square off and engage, I agree the game becomes pointless and more turns just makes it worse, but I’d argue that by lengthening the combat you allow for as much and potentially even more maneuvering and strategy than before, as tactics like fixing, disrupting, enveloping, etc are allowed to play out to their fullest extent and can take place over multiple turns instead of having to happen all at once or not at all.
  15. So I've been mulling over how to "slow down" combat in the game while maintaining balance, and am looking for perspective from anyone who understands the math behind this stuff better than me. The end state I'm looking for is for is Melee's to last longer than they do, i.e.: When a deathstar (or equivalent) charges a 3x2, the enemy has time to react before they're down to a 3x1. Similarly the tactic of fixing a unit in place while another unit moves in to flank is less instantaneous and can be effected over multiple turns, as opposed to needing to happen in the same round or risk being worthless. There are multiple orders of effects that may make this unfeasible, but I wanted to get some more brain power on this. Additionally you would need to more rounds to the game to account for this, without making a marathon game. I've been theorizing to solutions to make this happen as simply as possible while maintaining balance are, in order of merit: A. Double health of each figure: biggest "con" I see is it reduces the effect of mortal strikes/wounds (looking at you Ravos!), but affects all other attacks equally. Attacks can still have some weight behind them, while still maintaining other balance. Panic is less devastating as well? or at least more recoverable, which I would also consider a "pro" (no more 3x2 is charged, reduced to 3x1, draws a "flee in terror" card, and is completely out of the fight in one action). I believe armor would be unaffected? Correct me if I'm wrong. B. Half the damage pool, from any source, rounded up: MS isn't nerfed, and is probably made too strong? High Armor becomes much stronger, though chip damage from secondary sources becomes equally strong against low armor. The fact that you have to round in some cases adds in its own imbalance. All these reasons and probably others as to why this is the less preferred option to me. But again if there's something I'm not considering at please let me know. Any other possibilities while still keeping it simple, i.e. one rule? Don't want to make it more complex than it absolutely has to be. I love the standard game, I've just been thinking of ways to make the combat feel more like a scrum and have more lasting effects, less emphasis on the charge and who get's the attack off first dominating the fight, while still being important. A big potential imbalance I see is ranged attackers w/o Close Combat and w/o a blocker are significantly more at risk from a strong charging enemy, but again I'm ok with that I think. I'm thinking around 12 rounds? most likely would lead to lower scores (2x health but only 1.5x rounds =Less points) and a less "epic" feel to the destruction, but I'm okay with that. I know you can't have defense be so high in a game that players don't feel the effects of their attacks, but I think this could work. Ultimately just need to put this on the board and give it a shot, but please let me know what you guys think and any other suggestions you have!
×
×
  • Create New...