Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Taki

Flaws?

Recommended Posts

Almost everything I've seen about this game has me very excited, but nothing is without its warts.  For me there are 2 things that I think are flaws.

 

First and more importantly I don't like the doubling results mechanics, I'd rather just roll more dice, so it's a let down

Second, I think that the damage I'm seeing in the demos is quite a lot, especially when you get such few figures (one attack from the archer nearly wiped out the cavalry for example)

 

I recognize these are more personal preference than anything else, but what are everyone else's thoughts?  Anything you dislike or have concerns about?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FFG are really pushing for tournament friendliness with their minis games. You can probably expect very little in the way of cards or abilities that are geared towards wholly defensive play styles. At least for the foreseeable future. Everything will be geared to keep games within the 40-60 minute range for the most part, I suspect.

 

If I have a concern it's got to be those trays. Seeing the demo videos, they seem really fiddly and ripe for abuse. If I have to pick up an entire group to remove one tray, I suddenly have a fair bit of wiggle room when I place the group again. Maybe they've come up with a better interlocking system since they've gone to the printer? One can hope.

 

I'm also curious to know if they've considered defensive structures and rules for cover and concealment. It would be nice to have battles that aren't all lines of troops in an open plain. Or asymmetric battles between forces of varying sizes. Obviously you can homebrew that stuff, but it'd be nice to not have to put in the time and testing to figure out my own system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for doubling results, I like it. It gives a unique feel to the game and helps with that trade-off feeling of building out vs. building back. Plus, it means we have to purchase and carry less dice, and means FFG gets to include fewer dice in the box, ostensibly keeping the core in the $100 price range.

FFG are really pushing for tournament friendliness with their minis games. You can probably expect very little in the way of cards or abilities that are geared towards wholly defensive play styles. At least for the foreseeable future. Everything will be geared to keep games within the 40-60 minute range for the most part, I suspect.

I think this is a good bet. Keeping tournament games short is a good reason to keep damage high.

 

I'm also curious to know if they've considered defensive structures and rules for cover and concealment. It would be nice to have battles that aren't all lines of troops in an open plain. 

I agree, but at the same time, it is a rank-and-file miniatures game; it's not a skirmish game. There should be some terrain effects, but I don't think there needs to be too many. But we definitely know there are terrain rules in the box, though, so it's not going to be open plains for every game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe there are rules for terrain and for diminishing returns on ranged attacks, rules which weren't used in the demos for the sake of simplicity.

I like doubling the results - it keeps percentages exactly intact from a balance standpoint. Also keeps having rerolls from having multiple ranks of depth super relevant (I don't think there will be that many other ways of rerolling, making it super important on dice with roughly 25% chance of failure). Rolling lots of dice is cathartic though. I feel there may be an element of catharticism from rolling really "powerful" dice as well though, time will tell haha.

The trays may be fiddly but I don't think it will be a huge issue.

Movement is where I have my concerns, with it being relatively restricted due to the templates and trays, and "reform" not being able to be combined with charge there may be ways to box out powerful units with cheap speed bumps/roadblock units.

But that's pure speculation without knowing how elegant the movement rules are (if theyre as elegant as the rest of the system then it won't be an issue!)

Edited by Leowulf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Almost everything I've seen about this game has me very excited, but nothing is without its warts.  For me there are 2 things that I think are flaws.

 

First and more importantly I don't like the doubling results mechanics, I'd rather just roll more dice, so it's a let down

Second, I think that the damage I'm seeing in the demos is quite a lot, especially when you get such few figures (one attack from the archer nearly wiped out the cavalry for example)

 

I recognize these are more personal preference than anything else, but what are everyone else's thoughts?  Anything you dislike or have concerns about?  

It's too earlier to tell, in the demo games, they were using a faster rule set.  The rule of doubling is really genius, I have always hate rolling so much dice in games past.  Just take to much time and energy to count a bucket of dice every roll.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Almost everything I've seen about this game has me very excited, but nothing is without its warts.  For me there are 2 things that I think are flaws.

 

First and more importantly I don't like the doubling results mechanics, I'd rather just roll more dice, so it's a let down

Second, I think that the damage I'm seeing in the demos is quite a lot, especially when you get such few figures (one attack from the archer nearly wiped out the cavalry for example)

 

I recognize these are more personal preference than anything else, but what are everyone else's thoughts?  Anything you dislike or have concerns about?  

It's too earlier to tell, in the demo games, they were using a faster rule set.  The rule of doubling is really genius, I have always hate rolling so much dice in games past.  Just take to much time and energy to count a bucket of dice every roll.  

 

Nah, that's always been the funnest part for me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Almost everything I've seen about this game has me very excited, but nothing is without its warts.  For me there are 2 things that I think are flaws.

 

First and more importantly I don't like the doubling results mechanics, I'd rather just roll more dice, so it's a let down

Second, I think that the damage I'm seeing in the demos is quite a lot, especially when you get such few figures (one attack from the archer nearly wiped out the cavalry for example)

 

I recognize these are more personal preference than anything else, but what are everyone else's thoughts?  Anything you dislike or have concerns about?  

It's too earlier to tell, in the demo games, they were using a faster rule set.  The rule of doubling is really genius, I have always hate rolling so much dice in games past.  Just take to much time and energy to count a bucket of dice every roll.  

 

Nah, that's always been the funnest part for me

 

To each his own, I just don't think its a flaw more a different road to get to the same place. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that it's too early to know, but I do see an automatic opportunity for after-market trays. They really look awful. And in a game where movement and millimeters count, you can't be jostling your minis so much as it takes to get those trays out. I also have concerns about moving those trays over 3D terrain such as hills.

 

Another potential concern I have is using the template to move on a crowded battlefield. It works in X-Wing pretty well when you only have about 7-10, small based minis on the table. But even then, we do an awful lot of marking of ships, and then removing them so that another ship can be moved. To some degree this will be mitigated in RW because it's not 3-dimensional space so I don't expect units will be moving through one another. Nonetheless, still a potential problem... especilly since those bases look so difficult to pick up if you have to mark a unit and remove it in order to move a different one.

 

Another concern is that while FFG has produced some awesome games and tends to improve them over time, I found two games to be disappointingly imbalanced at the time of their release: Armada and Imperial Assault. After the Armada Wave II release me and my primary game pal shelved it because we just couldn't get the rebels to work, no matter which one of us played them. Given the number of releases and local popularity, I'm guessing Armada is better now, but it took too long to come around for me. Imperial Assault could balance factions against one another, but it seemed like there were some units that just never got used. I guess the same is true in X-Wing (I'm looking at you, Lambda Shuttle and any Tie-Interceptor who's pilot isn't Soontir). And I guess that's bad but manageable when an expansion pack costs $12. But I can tell you from my long Warhammer experience it's no fun to watch a unit that you spent $100 on and dozens of hours painting get the nerf bat, or never be that great from the start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(and rolling buckets of dice is for the birds!  I like a reasonable fistful.  My one time playing 40K, I assaulted with a full unit of orks, and rolled something like 130 dice.  that was just silly and decidedly annoying.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I play a lot of games but in the interest of transparency, this will be my first rank and file game, as it appears to revise a lot of the issues I have with other rank and file games.  IE, if a game is not played on a grid, I am 100% in favor of included movement tools and measurement tools as opposed to a tape measure.  If I'm watching someone play a game and they pull out a tape measure, I'm out before I try it, but that's just me.  Also, the dice system is appealing to me.  Just a few dice to roll.  Really bugs me to throw a fistful or cupful or D6's.  It's also mechanically very interesting, and as a long time X-wing player, the demos seem interesting, with a lot of cool new ideas and a lot of familiar ones.  And short games.  As others have said, it looks like the aim is to be for games to be in the ballpark of an hour to 90 minutes.  I like games that play fast. Rarely has a game that takes several hours to complete kept my attention.

 

Now these are all personal opinions, and a lot of these preferences have directed me away from other Rank and File type games.  Not even 100% sold on Rune Wars, but I am going to give it a fair chance and play it a few times before I make a decision.  Based on the previews, I am extremely excited!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just don't see this game making it, you can't do a miniatures game with just two factions from the get go. Only having the starter at launch is a pretty big shot in the foot also, but the lack of factions is what will kill this game before it even gets going. 

Edited by NeverTellMeTheOdds

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just don't see this game making it, you can't do a miniatures game with just two factions from the get go. Just having the starter at launch is a pretty big shot in the foot, but the lack of factions is what will kill this game before it even gets going. 

 

AAAGHH! A Nay-sayer! Silence him!

Also I'd like to point out the smashing success of Armada, Imperial Assault and X-wing: TMG which all started out with 2 factions and have grown by just one. Although the Star Wars franchise is a force to be reckoned with, the Runewars world looks and feels fresh, inviting and promising. To me atleast. I bet on success. Also there is promise for at least the Latari Elves faction (look at Kari, the hero) and some 2-3 extra factions.

Edited by King Cheesecake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I just don't see this game making it, you can't do a miniatures game with just two factions from the get go. Just having the starter at launch is a pretty big shot in the foot, but the lack of factions is what will kill this game before it even gets going. 

 

AAAGHH! A Nay-sayer! Silence him!

Also I'd like to point out the smashing success of Armada, Imperial Assault and X-wing: TMG which all started out with 2 factions and have grown by just one. Although the Star Wars franchise is a force to be reckoned with, the Runewars world looks and feels fresh, inviting and promising. To me atleast. I bet on success. Also there is promise for at least the Latari Elves faction (look at Kari, the hero) and some 2-3 extra factions.

 

You defeated your own argument, the reason those games are successful is the IP, and with IA it's really a board game first. I actually almost mentioned that it seems FFG thinks they can just use the same format as the star wars IP and get away with it in a strictly table top miniatures game. I don't see it happening. I know the Rune setting has a following, but not a star wars level following. Miniatures games have short attention span (I'll be the first to admit I do) and FFG isn't the best at release schedules. Miniatures games need a much more steady release schedule, and I don't see that happening here. I myself have not played any of the other Rune games, but when I saw this at GenCon I became very interested, but now seeing the lack of factions and only starter launch, I can see the writing on the wall. I just don't see this being played at my LGS, and my LGS is pretty good sized and have very active xwing and armada communities. I know my point of view wont be popular here, but it's just my two pennies.

Edited by NeverTellMeTheOdds

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just don't see this game making it, you can't do a miniatures game with just two factions from the get go. Only having the starter at launch is a pretty big shot in the foot also, but the lack of factions is what will kill this game before it even gets going.

I disagree. FFG is being fairly smart by testing the waters with limited factions, rather than releasing a ton of material to overwhelm people or just shelf-warm. GW started small, so this makes sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

My guess is you will see the "expansion" factions announced in some form before the core set is even released.  Elves first.

It's not a matter of when they're announced though, it's when FFG can get them into people's hands.

 

 

I'm quite sure we will see a new faction this year, either very soon after release or around chrsitmas would make sense.

And the starter has undead, what more do you need ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I just don't see this game making it, you can't do a miniatures game with just two factions from the get go. Only having the starter at launch is a pretty big shot in the foot also, but the lack of factions is what will kill this game before it even gets going.

I disagree. FFG is being fairly smart by testing the waters with limited factions, rather than releasing a ton of material to overwhelm people or just shelf-warm. GW started small, so this makes sense.

 

Can you name me an actual TT miniatures game that was successful with a launch of just two factions? There aren't a ton of successful TT games in the first place. A few recent that I can think of are warmachine (4 factions, and bimonthly releases after the starters) guild ball, infinity, malifaux, all of which had at least 4 factions at launch, and I can't think of any GW games that launched with just two factions. I can think of a whole lot of games that tried to do just two factions at launch, it's hard enough to be successful without the additional hurdle. I mean, there isn't even anything else previewed in the pipes and this game is a month from launch? Even Armada had expansions after a couple months, and the player base was freaking out over the lack of content, if they wait 3 or 4 months for additional content the game will already be dead before it's off the boat. I won't continue the clog up the thread with my opinion, but I think some people might need to take off the rose colored glasses. Like I said before, I knew my opinion wouldn't be popular, but if you really think lack of content early is a good strategy then I'd really have to question your knowledge of the style of game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

My guess is you will see the "expansion" factions announced in some form before the core set is even released.  Elves first.

It's not a matter of when they're announced though, it's when FFG can get them into people's hands.

 

 

I'm quite sure we will see a new faction this year, either very soon after release or around chrsitmas would make sense.

And the starter has undead, what more do you need ;)

 

If they try and wait a year for another faction, good night.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You said that miniature war gamers have "a short attention span" or at least, you did. The short attention span isn't remotely accurate at all. Miniature war gamers keep interest in a game regardless of "New" content. Look at Daemon/Chaos players for 40k. They went how many years before they got a new rule book? Their first rule book was in 4th. They didn't get anything new until 7th edition. However, people still played with Chaos Daemon armies, and tried to make them work. Just about every faction in that game goes a minimum of 4-5 years before they get revamped rules and the like. And longer than that before they actually get new units, or see existing ones removed from play. Sisters of Battle is still using pewter figurines, which GW moved away from a while ago, and they are no plans for long term plastic models in that factions' future. People still play the Sisters of Battle. 

Battletech was one faction (The Inner Sphere) for years, and while you had the 5 great houses, for the most part you didn't have much variety in what mechs were on the field regardless of faction. Then the Clans came years down the road with new models and rules and someone other than the Inner Sphere to fight. Flames of War is technically two factions, any WW 2 Mini game is two factions, and few ever see a Western Front Russian faction, Africa Campaign, or Pacific Theater for years in either factions, rules, or models. So your "You need multiple factions otherwise people will lose interest and move on" is wrong on many levels. Just because you might lose interest, it does not mean that anyone else will. 

 

You are correct that Runewars Minis needs a robust release schedule to stay alive, but given that there is an increasing probability that the game won't be out until after Adepticon, and the presence there will be from FFG owned and controlled kits, rather than players bringing their own, announcing the Elves before they even have the core sets available is a poor mistake, because it will alienate people who will view it as greed, and attempting to fund something that might not see support, because of the issues with GW IPs getting support. 

My guess is that when this is On the Boat or about to start Shipping is when we will see the individual blisters and the known expansion models announced, and after that, the next faction or two. The Latari Elves and maybe a fourth faction are probably a Q4 release date, given that people more in the know of the Runewars setting seem to think that the Elves all but guaranteed and the Chaos equivalent is the most likely culprit for a 4th faction. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...