• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Soulless

  • Rank
  • Birthday

Recent Profile Visitors

306 profile views
  1. When acting as an upgrade, consider it a tray of spearmen supported by a golem. If you need fluff, consider the golem upgrade a weaker, less potent version of the golem unit.
  2. DeepCutStudios makes superb mats in a variety of materials. I have two of their "Mousemat" neoprene mats, one for orbital combat and one 6x4 swamplands mat and I can say nothing negative about them, not a single thing tbh! They cost more then vinlys or cloth, and while they are in europe shipping can still cost ya depending, but I fullheartedly recommend DCSs mats. Check them out, the even do custom mats and sizes!
  3. The thing is, in that example you technically collide with the allied unit before you collide with the enemy. The charging unit never reached the enemy unit and thus did not collide with it and cannot square up. Rules can never make sense in every possible situations but we need them to make a game functional and manageable. In this case, I think it does make perfect sense to make sure a unit can complete its move before squaring up and works with the rules as written. Squaring up is the result of troops tumbling about fighting each other, the back rows pushing forward, filling in the gaps of fallen and so on. Imagine squaring up as part of the actual combat, not part of the movement!
  4. The unit that is moving can overlap with all its trays, its only the unit being overlapped that is of concern. For instance, a unit of any size can without any concerns move through an allied unit of only a single tray (like a hero) as long as it does not end its movement overlapping it. It doesn't matter of all the trays on the moving unit overlaps, as long as only the same tray is being overlapped by all of them.
  5. Ive not removed my pegs but if i will i think a pair of nail clippers should work well. i have one that is not curved inward but outward so it would get a cut angle flush against the base.
  6. Where is "touching" defined?
  7. Clearly in the diagram, corner to corner after a tray is removed is not considered engaged. But according to RR34 even corner to corner WOULD be engaged. How is this not a contradiction? Look, I'm not debating how the game should be played, I would of course refer to the diagram as its how I've interpreted the rules and played the game, but the wording on RR34 is likely a slight oversight.
  8. The rules are in fact contradicting itself. The rules clearly states that two units can be engaged in any way as long as trays are touching. Yet the diagram does show that corner to corner would not count. It doesnt matter in the end since close-in means a unit is never left corner to corner but still its a rule contradiction.
  9. Yeah but in my example I wasn't intending any of the cards to be randomly drawn. Each player simply places 3 of each card on the table and that is the cards available for selection during the setup. As opposed to the core rules, there would be a selection 6 cards not 3 but otherwise everything is the same. So you can mark or sleeve your cards in any way you like
  10. Ill give it a shot! 1. Im unsure if a situation like this could even occur. Since if ever a tray is removed that would cause engaged units to become unengaged, the unit that did not lose any trays is allowed to "close-in". If this is caused by the removal of a single tray, the following close-in will always be successful even if it would seem otherwise. So in the case that a close-in could only take a unit corner-to-corner with the enemy unit, it would still count and that unit would be allowed to square up as normal. This is stated in RR17 and accounts for the margin of error caused by players when moving and bumping units. In other words, a corner to corner situation won't happen since one or the other will always be allowed to close-in and square up. Unless the player CHOOSES to not close in, in which case the units would no longer be engaged. 1.5 See above, I think... 2. Overlapping in Runewars is accounted for during the entire movement of a unit, not only its final position. Otherwise, units would be able to move at high speed across terrain without colliding with it. So I would say that if the unit overlaps the objective at any point during its movement, it counts as overlapping it. I hope I helped somewhat! And if anyone thinks I'm wrong somewhere, please correct me!
  11. Remember that a tray is counted at full effect until its removed, the actual amount of figures on the tray does not matter when calculating threat or counting ranks. A partial rank is a rank with at least one tray less then the front rank of the unit. So if a 3x3 unit has lost one tray at its back right corner and it being flanked from the right side it would only have a threat of 2 when attacking. If the same unit with the same lost tray was flanked from the left however it would count its full threat of 3.
  12. Hmm...Thats possible. But if new objectives, terrain and deployment are included with expansions this becomes awkward. Either they will stick to only the core set components or it will be some form of supply from both players. Perhaps each player supplies 3 of each for the pool, giving a total of 6 options for each category.
  13. Unless the tournament rules specify that a single instance of the terrain deck is to be shared I would recommend using two sets when playing games at home since it will represent all the possible outcomes you may face in a tournament. But yeah, Ive also thought about it with two cores but I guess the rules for organised play will tell us all we need to know about it. If you don't care at all for the organised play rules, then just use whatever and how many you want! Your game, your rules!
  14. Yes threat is based on the full length of the contact edge, not only the trays actually in contact
  15. Simultaneous collision will be very rare but it will occur, most likely if units who have t moved from their deployment is charged. I would say that if both players agree that the collision is simultaneous, the charger is forced to square up so it engages both units and if that isnt possible flip a coin to decide which unit it engages.