Hey guys, didn't know what topic to wake up from its awaken sleep, so I made a new one. Will die quickly or not, doesn't matter.

So I've watched, thanks to you the videos from gencon and re-read the article about attacks and damage deals. And well. I know it has been discussed somewhere here but still, at that time I wasn't aware of nearly nothing about this promising game and now... Why the hell having an armor if destroying makes you suffer one loss ? I mean, in the article " Battle is joined " FFG tells us that a unit of spearmen with three ranks front line that obtains a result of 9 damages to deal to those poor Reanimates will kill 9 minis who have only 1 in armor and 1 health threshold... And this unit had a +1 in armor the losses would only rise up to 4 figs... Man this is tough... sorry to wake up so late, but... Why the hell having an armor then ? I mean... In my conception of armor, the thing is supposed to stop one hit. For me a guy with an armor of 1 that receives an attack of 1 will withstand the shock and suffer nothing. Here you are dealt 1 damage, if your undead's armor is only of one and health one, you're dead before you have a chance to say "Ouch...my head has gone away again...Sh*t, I wasted two days to find it back after the last battle we fought...and the thing is I could hear my voice insulting me while I was blindly trying to get it and replace it...." (Oh well no comment Elrad, no comment).

I don't know what you do really think about it but it can quickly become a "Maximum Carnage" (for those who remember that excellent comic)... Is it that brutal in other minis games ?

While the game is meant to be quicker than other miniature games I do not believe it will result into a complete slaughter. The base units are indeed weak in terms of defense one must concider upgrades like shield wall which reward big blocks of units with more defence effectively reducing casualties in half by simple exhausting one card. combine that with some +defence modifiers and you can run some really survivable groups of units.

but ones again I think this isn't the point of Runewars, everything was designed with a quick gaming session in mind with the potential for multiple games on a single day for tournements. Same with the rolling of attack dice in that they are multiplied instead of having to roll more dice like traditional wargames.

So yeah while a big unit of Reanimates can roll up to 4 damage multiplied by 4 treath for a total of 16 damage, spearmen can have an effective defense of 3 for a total loss of 5 figures which is nothing in the scale of things.

Got your point. Watching those videos online is still motivating. Can't wait to have the game in hands.

the roll of dice doesn't bother me and in fact it does please me as, like you mention, we won't have to bring a bucket to the table and give some good value to bigger formations (with the re-roll rule)

I can't wait either.

Hell hopefully I'll see you at a tournament sometime as like you i am from belgium.

Oh, where are you from exactly ?

I have send you a pm with more information.

I like the way the damage system captures real world combat. The only flaw I see is that the attacker decides which models take the damage.

19 minutes ago, Orcdruid said:

I like the way the damage system captures real world combat. The only flaw I see is that the attacker decides which models take the damage.

I don't think the attacker gets to choose unless they roll an accuracy symbol and then only unit upgrades.

16 minutes ago, Kubernes said:

I don't think the attacker gets to choose unless they roll an accuracy symbol and then only unit upgrades.

They do for figures destroyed.

Hmmm, not too sure about just picking and choosing right now. I haven't read the rules since the game isn't out so I only have the combat preview and the gencon video to go by. I'd imagine that casualties from the backmost rank and always from a tray that has already suffered a casualty.

Just so it clear: they choose where the models are removed from. This is important for flanking as they can reduce your threat bonus on the side they are attacking from relatively easily making the prospect of a flank attack compounding in that in not only increases damage dealt tremendously; it also reduces damage received. You can not target individual characters, not how wound allocation will work specifically in instances where there is a kari model and a front line rune golem left in a daqan spearmen formation is still up in the air from what I have gathered.

I think the damage system is pretty good. I like rolling die, but I've never enjoyed rolling 30+ die in a succession to try and figure if my charging squad of hormagaunts killed a space marine squad. The scaling increase in threat mixes up the age old mantra of min/maxing along with the decreasing cost of wound per point; I think all come together to really refresh list building in this game compared to some other systems. The one thing to consider is that a guy with 2 armor is literally twice as impervious to harm as a guy with 1 armor. Where as a guy with more health is less susceptible to grievous injury, whether through mass or will power or what have you. Which I think also comes together pretty well thematically.

Don't forget that accuracy from blue dice allows you to target specific models.

It seems to me it was designed for speed above all. A single roll, when these types of games often require 3 or more separate rolls with many times the amount of dice. i can't say as I've not played it yet, but I am liking the idea of quick games that move at a fast pace. If it means I can play three games in the time it takes me to playa single game of WFB id say the benefits outweigh the negatives.

I like the streamlined damage system, I wrote a long post about how all the miniature games I played (anyone remember dnd chainmail? )have gone on a path of simplifying this but in the end deleted said post because saying I like it seemed like enough lol...

As someone who constantly played IG vs Nids in 40k, I am greatly appreciating the idea of streamlined damage. Keep in mind that there is also the buff/bane system and the morale system, which is just as important as the damage system to defeat units. I think we will see deathstar high damage surge armies and tricksy scare the crap out of you armies. A unit that has max ranks and a hero and tons of rerolls still can run like a chicken with the right skirmishers engaging it on the flanks.

I'm just glad there are no defense dice. Makes for fewer combat steps. That's one of the things I liked about BattleLore.

8 minutes ago, Budgernaut said:

I'm just glad there are no defense dice. Makes for fewer combat steps. That's one of the things I liked about BattleLore.

Defense dice aren't that big of a problem, if used they give the defender soemthing to do (roll dice) and give them hope that he can save some of his guys. More problemat is rolling to hit (and for that consult a chart with your and the opponents skill) rolling to do damage and then the defender rolls his save, that is long and overly complicated. Of course defense dice are not necessary there are quit a number of systems that have only the attacker roll dice but i personally like having the chance to save my guys, that doesn't mean i dislike this system on the contrary it seems quite neat.

I like the use of stances instead of defense dice, it makes defense more strategic rather than rng

I like the damage system, I just wish it was a bit more granular, and that the infantry had better armor than the archers.

Defense Die are arguably the most irritating thing in the world. This is as a trollbloods player in Warmahordes where my entire army can on a 5+ shrug off a mortal wound. It feels like you pay for it for tremendously because it can always foil the enemies best laid plans, and yet never has the effect you need when you need it to foil the enemies attempt.
While I can see the value in defensive mechanics, something that is obtuse as a straight 5+ save is neither fun for defender or the attack the vast majority of the time. I like the concept behind shield wall because it is a strong effect except it's very limited in the number of times it can be used.

@Taki I agree there is a lot of value to be had in a system that starts in higher values, but that also tends to slow the game down considerably so I can understand why it was abstained from in the implementation of mass battle system. The *streamlined* ruleset will actually allow the game to scale to higher point values fairly easily where as games like 40k and Fantasy Battles actually started to self destruct at values above 2000 points and I think played their best at 1000-1500 point ranges.

3 hours ago, Taki said:

I like the damage system, I just wish it was a bit more granular, and that the infantry had better armor than the archers.

Why would infantry have better armor? They are lightly armed peasants. You can upgrade them to have more armor, but there is no real reason why the infantry should be better armored than the archers.

10 minutes ago, Radix2309 said:

Why would infantry have better armor? They are lightly armed peasants. You can upgrade them to have more armor, but there is no real reason why the infantry should be better armored than the archers.

The Daqan Spearmen do not look like "lightly armed peasants"...

maybe because the spearmen look more like warcraftish base soldier in full armor than bretonnian men at war...

42 minutes ago, Radix2309 said:

Why would infantry have better armor? They are lightly armed peasants. You can upgrade them to have more armor, but there is no real reason why the infantry should be better armored than the archers.

You're insane. Infantry are often given the best armor throughout history, but if we just delve into the setting, we know that they're given armor as it's mentioned in the fluff. If we look at the models, guess what, they're wearing plate armor of some kind. In fact, it looks identical to the cavalry armor (who have armor 2), and no, being mounted gives No addition protection to the rider, in fact in all reliable sources, historically in anything but hit and run tactics, advantage goes to the guy on the ground.

So if we ignore what the models Look like, and we ignore History, and we ignore Fluff, then what the hell Do we look at for comparison? How about the game's own unit descriptions

" The Daqan Lords have sounded the call to war, and their finest generals lead armies of warriors and golems to take up defensive positions in the border territory of Roth’s Vale. "

" With polished armor glinting in the sunlight, the armies of the twelve baronies and the Free Cities are a stirring sight. "

They are trained soldiers in good armor and the game doesn't reflect that, that is a pity and breaks immersion. Your supposition that they shouldn't be better armored than archers quite misinformed.