Hi,

reading the previw about the Undead, I'm not sure what to think of the combat system. When it was announced that it was with cards, I was happy since every system not using dice is good in my eyes. But now that I know how it's supposed to look like, I'm not quite as eager as before. It reminds me very much of Warrior Knights, I game I didn't particularily liked. Still very chance-based, but you have to fuzz around with many cards instead of simply throwing a hand of dice - the worst of both worlds, so to speak. Am I too frightened?

In my opinion the details presented don't change anything. I'm still drawing a card from a deck and using it to determine results, which is about as much as I expected from a card-based combat engine. It doesn't sound like I need to hold a hand of cards, just draw one off the top. In that respect it's less futzing than Starcraft's card-based engine. If they had made a separate deck for each base shape then I could see your point. Then I'd be dealing with four separate decks and choosing depending on which units I had. Still wouldn't be a dealbreaker in that case but it would be more complicated than dice. As it is it's only one deck of cards that you draw one from and look at it. I don't think that's any harder than throwing a few dice and it has the added benefit of not risking the dice knocking over stuff on the board.

I think the thing a lot of people are forgetting about are the battle cards (as opposed to the fate cards). The fate cards determine the "general" outcome of the battle, and are luck based. The battle cards are what the players can use to influence the combat in a deterministic way. It's also quite likely the battle cards and fate cards will interact in some way.

Feels like the battle cards are like the AC in TI3 or the battle effects on the cards in LotR: War of the Ring. I am excited

Your point is very valid. And I agree 100% for your concern. I try not to trash the devs because I am trying to turn a new leaf.

But the art on the army sheets screams "I just learned about Photoshop filters!". I am glad you bring up the Warrior Knights example. This is what I posted in the article you are refering to.

"On to the second point. Many people on Board Game Geek actually were turned off by the "everything on one card" idea. It added WAY too much randomness for many players' taste. I wasn't bothered by it until I played Dungeon Twister and discovered that it is possible to remove luck from battle.

Let's go with the example above. The archers have a 40% chance to miss. That, I can live with, even though I would rather like to see more combats handled like Chris's Dungeon Twister. In that game you begin with a set amount of combat cards and once you play one it is gone for good. The +1 card I think always goes back to the hand. The issue I have is how specials are also random. My necromancer doesn't reanimate two corpses this turn...because? See what I mean?"

For Warrior knights this system works because special abilities are not activated. In Runewars what good is my necromancer if he stinks at raising the dead?

Until I see a fate card showing two or more symbols in the quadrants, I feel this system won't be anymore luck based than Risk. It is too late now for FFG to redo this game, but I honestly fear that it needs an overhaul on the gameplay and art. Stick to what works. Stop making up new systems. Starcraft had the perfect card combat system and was well received among the public. Warrior Knights wasn't. The resource management is complicated also. Why did they have to break from the norm of Battlemist, Starcraft, Warcraft, Settlers? If it works don't fix it.

I am currently working on my own board game. I will post the final statement I have in its mission statment.

"Barrowing from the best concepts to grace the board game world, __________ is a game of ultimate freedom and choice, with grave consequences for the actions the players make. The game focuses on one’s ability to make use of limited resources and stresses their ability to aid rival players in hopes to further their own quest for world supremacy. The players will wage territorial wars for resources, upgrade their colony, and place broker deals for more resources. At the same time players are forced to work together using a company of colonist to prevent the core of the planet from collapsing. Each player will have their own specific way for contributing in the expedition to save the planet.

If you like Catan's cooperative yet competative resource system, Starcraft: The board game's mapping system, Lord of the Rings: The board game team based gameplay, and Chaos in the Old World back stabbings THEN _______ is for you!

I cannot go into details for this game on this site. I will say I am making it a free to play online game. People will be welcome to donate through paypal account. No hidden payments. FFG has adopted the LCG I plan to make a Living Board Game. Expansions will be free and any issues or imbalances will be solved and fixed as a community.

If the game is popular enough I will start looking for a company to produce a board game version of it. If you are interested in updates, just shoot me an email at [email protected] or send a friend invite.

I have not given up on Runewars. I was just hoping it had elements of Battlemist other than the lore. I need more articles before I make a final descision on the game.

I think the worst from both worlds is a good way to put it:

Using card for the sake of using cards doesn't make any sense, and having all units of a given kind hit or miss on a sinlge card result is much more random than throwing a bunch of dice (as it results in a higher variance).

The other stupid part is that your opponent(or someone on the other side of the board) hitting with HIS triangle archers make yours less likely to succeed . It doesn't make any sense, and doesn't limit randomness at all.

Using special several different 10 sided dice probably would have worked better.

I don't understand why they haven't gone for a Starcraft like combat system when it was much better than the one used in Warrior Knights.

Galdred said:

So is using dice just for the sake of using dice. If you are going to use cards or dice, have a specific reason for choosing that one - don't just default to dice just because you want to use dice. That doesn't make sense, either.

Galdred said:

Considering we don't know the details of how combat works as a whole, this statement may or may not have any merit in terms of being a valid point Once we have the rules, then we can begin making contextually valid statements as to what is or isn't "better".

Galdred said:

All we have is a TINY bit of info on the Runewars combat system. Until we know more, your complaints don't have much foundation other than it sounds like you'd rather have dice just for the sake of having dice.

sigmazero13 said:

You missed the part where I said I loved Starcraft combat system. I was very excited at first, as I hoped it would be similar, but lately, I find it looking more like Warrior Knights which no one enjoyed in my group.

I know card based combat can be done well, as it was the case in Game of Thrones or Starcraft. It does make sense to use dice when the cards seem to be only there to mimick dice (granted, it is not quite sure, as the combat system could be deeper). Withdrawing results that have already been rolled from the pool doesn't seem to make any sense there.

If we were to roll a 13 sided dice and then a 4 sided one, to get a result between 1 and 52, rerolling the numbers that have already been rolled, and comparing them to a chart to get a result ranging from 2 to Ace and a color, I would advocate drawing a card.

sigmazero13 said:

Once the rules are printed, it would be way too late for it to be relevant (although it probably already is).

Galdred said:
I don't understand why they haven't gone for a Starcraft like combat system when it was much better than the one used in Warrior Knights.

All we have is a TINY bit of info on the Runewars combat system. Until we know more, your complaints don't have much foundation other than it sounds like you'd rather have dice just for the sake of having dice.

As I said, from the limited bits of info we've had, it seems to be similar to warrior knights, which I regret having bought, so It is a solid foundation for concern to me... If the cards are just drawn without any decision taking place (we don't know that yet, though, we might be able to chose from several cards, but the preview seemd to imply the reverse), I'd rather just have dice indeed, it is faster, and doesn't favor the same kind of counting metagame.

To be more specific, what I don't like is not being able to get a given result(or being less likely to) because the needed cards have already been drawn for unrelated actions (or the other way around, having a good chance to get this needed special effect result, because the other result have already been used).

If you have 4 different outcomes for any given unit's attack, how do you replicate that with dice in a way that is better than cards? You would have to have a special die for each unit type, and special dice are always a pain in the ass. Instead you can just have one pile of cards, everyone knows where it is, and you don't have to deal with cocked dice, dice on the floor, losing dice on the floor, etc. If you are really worried about someone counting cards, cut the deck a few times, though I don't see anything wrong with adding another facet to strategies. Certainly you can count cards in Starcraft too, can't you?

Have you ever read my strategy guide? ^^

I'd take special dice over cards, if the number of outcomes is that limited.

You can count cards in Starcraft too indeed, but it is not the same at all, as the cards really serve a purpose, and they "represent" something:

You are left with crappy cards because the units in use have seen too much fights, and are not in shape to keep battling. That and your deck is only depleted by your own battles, not by someone doing something unrelated on the other side of the world.

Concerning reshuffling, it is the main reason why I prefer dice:

I've seen many dominion games be decided by bad shuffling (combo cards, victory point cards, and money cards usually end up together, so bad shuffling prevents any of your combos to start). I find shuffling cumbersome (even more so than looking for a particular special die, but heh, maybe it's jut that I'm not too good at it).

broken said:

Sometimes, but all you have to do is buy a tech that goes in your deck and you get an instant re-shuffle.

I wouldn't be too surprised if there are things in the game that force re-shuffles on occasion. Probably not before each and every card draw, but it's possible that there will be something to give that happy balance between "card counting"-ness and randomness; enough to let you build strategies around the odds, but enough luck to keep it from being predictable.

Another question: Does the number of the Fate Cards you draw correspond to the number of the units in your army? As far as I understood the rules ("When any number of Skeleton Archers attacks, the player controlling them draws a Fate Card from the appropriate deck.") you only draw one card and the number of your surviving units determines the outcome of the battle...meaning that a horde of archers would never be able to kill a higher class creature.

Of course, as long as the rules aren't out, this is only speculation, but it really concerns me^^

broken said:

Maybe you mean something different when you say "counting cards" but the technique I'm familiar with relies on tracking which cards have come out in order to predict how many good cards are left in the deck. It doesn't rely on knowing exactly which cards are coming up next, so cutting the deck doesn't matter to a card counter.

You can count cards in SC to an extent, but as Sigma points out, when you add a tech you reshuffle (including reshuffling your discards into the draw pile.) This not only resets the count on the deck but it adds a new set of cards which changes the weighting on the deck as well. You also have multiple opponents who each have their own deck, so you have several counts to keep track of all at once. It's not impossible to count cards in SC, but it's a whole heck of a lot harder than counting cards in blackjack

This is all theoretical, of course. Even if I had the mental acuity to count cards in any board game, I wouldn't bother. I'm just here to have fun. I also wouldn't play with people who I suspected were counting cards anyway, so the issue is moot.

I meant with the discard added in.

Okay, here is my gripe with this WHOLE game.
Where, other than the lore, is the Battlemist?

Why does Corey make everything complicated? We don't need all these dials that look like garbage on an army sheet. We don't need all of these cards. I understand the idea is that cards make it easier for special abilities. I guess I need to point out a nice little game called Warhammer, Warmachine, and Heroclix. All work with just plain old 6-sided dice and a reference sheet (which after a few games you won't need) showing the powers. I guess you can say "if a game is fun enough to result in multiple plays, then the specials will become second thought and the reference cards won't be needed" Take MTG its been around for years, and now the serious gamers and casual gamers have grow to learn the key cards too where they can proxy them. FFG could do they same thing with this game too. Abandon the dials taking up all the space on the sheet and replace them with a unique power and the conditions required to use it for each unit.

I am making my own board game and it is coming along quite nicely, because I made it simple, strategic, choice heavy, and fast. I was asking my local retail store owner about some critiques. He told me to lose the 4 sided dice. Stick with 6 because people are comfortable with 6. I brought up Starcraft's card battle system and he politely pointed out that is why it won an award, being a very rare exception.

I would like to point out that Settlers of Catan, Warhammer, any Hasbro game, Heroclix and other board games most likely keep the above advice in mind. Battlemist used 10 sided dice. BUT like Twilight, it works for the game. Warrior Knights, Citadels and Arkham use a ton of cards but it fits with the type of gameplay. Even one of my favorite RPGs made by FFG abandoned all the other dice for 6 sided system.

I hate to sound like a WFRP 2nd edition player, but this is not the game I remember. When I play a war game I want to know exactly what my options are. NOT "hrmm...well they COULD activate a special."

I guess I should point out that I am pretty upset that I was turned away from this project when I wanted to help design it. I started with Battlemist. recreated the terrain tiles. Made new armies based off ones from Diskwars. Added new unit types (siege, special, and heroes). When I discovered that Battlemist was actually 3 years old and that an expansion came out, I flipped. I must have it!. Alas, I wasn't able to find it anywhere. So I learned German, downloaded the German rules, translated them and made my own map and tokens for Sails of War.

Now THAT is dedication. So after very politely being turned down with an email pretty much saying "don't worry Battlemist is in good hands" I sat and waited for the first article. The first article wasn't bad, but the 2nd and following went south for me. THIS is not Battlemist 2.0! This is another stupid ploy. Like Arkham minis, WHFP 3.0, changing failed CCG's into LCGs...ect. Fantasy Flight Games must realize by now that their best reworks are the ones they altered very little from the original game. Twilight 3rd, Talisman, Runebound, Arkham Horror, Cosmic Encounters...I think those should suffice.

Must I repeat the phrase we all grow up hearing? Why fix that which is fine and ignore what is broken?

I will say this, concerning the fate card system, a unit MUST have a way to gurantee its special goes off in order for me to reconsider buying this game. I like to know that LUCK can't win my battles. Some people are different and I respect that. If you like games with luck having a huge impact on the game then Warrior Knights, Talisman, Arkham, Lord of the Rings Co op board game, Ghost Hunters, Settlers of Catan are the games for you. But for a game with WAR and Battles I like to know that Sun Tzu could walk away not feeling like he just lost to lady luck.

Hopefully we get a preview going deeper into the tactic cards and fate cards...I could careless about heroes and how they attempt to fit Runebound into this game.

Ah *****, *****, *****...

darkkami said:

So... you hate the cards, want dice instead but also hate chance, but most importantly you feel slighted because Fantasy Flight didn't want your amateur remake of their game. Well, I'm sorry you don't like it, but you will have to pay a lot more than $100 to have a game custom made to your own specifications (or make it yourself, good for you!). Personally, I think Runewars looks amazing.

darkkami said:

No offense, kami, but it seems like every time I see you post something in these forums, you're always bitching about how it isn't what you want and FFG are fools for not listening to your (I'm guessing here) unsolicited e-mails. Time and again you mention how you are or were working on your own board games that are a thousand times better, so why don't you go play those games and stop harassing those of us who enjoy FFG's products? No one's putting a gun to your head and making you buy FFG games. If you don't like what they're doing "to Battlemist" then don't buy it.

I'm sure there are no small number of us who enjoy making house rules as a way to express our creativity and to fix things we're not so hot on about these games. I know I like those sorts of things just to experiment with what might be. Doesn't mean I'm going to sit around here hating on Corey for the decisions he made that I happen to disagree with. I'll just fix it for my own games if it's that big a deal. Don't like the card combat? Fine, write up a chart that emulates the same probabilities and roll dice instead. Want more choice and less random? Make a house rule where each player holds a hand of combat cards and picks one each time he fights. Better yet, have players draw a hand of cards each battle, that way no one can horde the really good cards. See? It's easy. And that's assuming you go ahead and buy the game which we've already established you don't need to do.

I also seem to recall a post of yours claiming you were done around here and wouldn't be coming back. Right now, I kind of wish that had stuck. The more I hear from you the more I think you're just an angsty, lonely closet gamer who berates anything he didn't make himself out of spite that no one seems to care about his own inventions. If you're really interested in becoming a professional game designer (for any company) you're going to need to learn how to handle rejection better than this. If you're making any serious effort to submit game ideas to FFG as your post suggests, then ranting on their forums and insulting their existing designers isn't helping your chances.

You start by talking about how 10-sided dice are OK, but then go on to say you don't like your battles decided by luck? Rolling dice isn't necessarily any more or less "luck"ful then cards - it depends on how they are done. I've seen a massive fleet in TI3 get unlucky against a smaller defensive force and wiped out because of "luck". I've seen a Zergling force beat back the Protoss in Starcraft because of some lucky card pulls.

You make it sound like there will not be any skill or strategy in the battles, but just a Risk-like lucky draw. From everything I gather, strategy, from army composition to maneuvering, will play just as much a part in winning a battle as the random card pull.

To "guarantee" that you can activate the special every single time just cheapens the specials. It seems like you'll have to plan carefully on how you build your army to best maximize the outcomes to your benefit.

I think people who are rushing in to judge the flaws of the combat system before they even know the details of how it works are jumping the gun quite a bit. Yes, we have some previews discussing it, but really, my guess is they are just scratching the surface, and there will be a lot more to the combat than just "move units, draw a card, done".

I hope that the combat system will be more than just a pool of comparable troups attacking another pool. I hope that there will be the possibility of really tactical decisions in the battle, for example splitting up the troups in battle-formations (for example Starcraft-like front-troops and rear cover / backup-reinforcement).

Going back to the original discussion in this thread, I'm actually kind of looking forward to the card based combat. Yes, it could be bad, but it could be fun - I guess I'm taking a wait and see attitude. I understand all the concerns, but I'm not as worried.

My favorite combat system is the one employed in Hero Quest, Heroscape, and Warcraft: The Adventure game - where you roll a number of attack dice based on your unit's strength and the other person rolls the defense dice. But I don't want to own the same game all the time, so I'm open to this card system.

My hope is the battle lets you draw one fate card per battle and the fate adds up per unit - so a sizeable group of archers with fate on their side could take down a major enemy. I think that makes sense and would make the number of cards manageable. But I also enjoy a bit of luck in my games, too!

please tell me when you find a war game which dosn't include any form of luck will ya?

MeisterH said:

Diplomacy doesn't have any randomized results as far as I know. It may not be a war game on the same scale as Runewars and the like, but it does involve building armies and using them to control territories, which is the basic premise of most war games.

Yes it has when it comes down to neutral units.