S

5 minutes ago, BigKahuna said:

Yes, but consider what you had to work with. <snip>

There is a difference between "invention" and "inspiration".

All well and true. But still. I am pretty **** sure that you can invent your own fluff.

1 minute ago, Elkerlyc said:

S

All well and true. But still. I am pretty **** sure that you can invent your own fluff.

I'm sure we could, but is that really a point to make? The idea behind creating lore for a world is to inspire people to play the game and find creative ways to use the lore (as you did in your Nurgle example) to create armies, campaigns etc... Its the same thing with RPG's. Rarely does someone put out a system without a campaign setting for it, because while we could all just create our own worlds, much of the hobby is really about exploring, reading.. getting inspired by the work.

Its no coincidence that the Warhammer Fantasy book was 600+ pages. Gamesworkshop understood that the overwhelming majority of players would be spending the majority of their time with their game assembling and painting minaitures as well as thinking about the game, not actually playing. They gave them a mountain of written material to entertain them to support that.

Its going to be the same with Runewars. You might play once or even twice a week if you are an extremely active player, most people will probably do considerably less than that. Not having that big book and army books to learn and read about the game world means it will be in your consciousness less.

I attribute GW's success over the last 30 years largely to these rulebooks, army books and magazines for the game. Because lets be frank and honest here. GW's miniature games (mechanically speaking) really sucked hard. I mean, these are very poorly designed game mechanics. They aren't the most successful miniature game producers because they write good rules.

5 minutes ago, BigKahuna said:

I'm sure we could, but is that really a point to make? <snip>

Overall i feel we agree more than we disagree really.

My point is that rules > fluff. I can make my own fluff. Rules are a lot harder to convince people with.

Plus I feverishly hope that Runewars MG will be a tournament game. Supported by FFG I mean.

I have an example of a system with really unique and interesting lore but had crappy game mechanics: Wrath of Kings . Five incredibly unique houses with fantastic minis. But what sold me on buying two starter factions (I missed the KS) was the free novella that you can download (under the download button of their website). Very well written and engrossing story. But because of an incredibly clunky and complicated rule-set that is placed in really small font on cards rather than a rule-book, the minis sit in my case after only three tries at the game. (Go HERE for an in-depth review and comparison to Song of Blades and Heroes)

Do I wish RWM had more interesting lore and more fluff? Sure, but I'm actually playing RWM and having a lot of fun doing it whereas my two armies of Wrath of Kings is just sitting in my case, unused.

I know you are saying, "Why can't we have both a great system and great lore?" That's like asking, "Why can't I have a spouse that is both hot and emotionally stable?" It's possible but most of us have to choose one or the other considering our own lack in either/both areas.

No disagreement from me, Rules > Lore

There is no question in my mind that no amount of lore can save a game, I think most mini hobbyist are gamers first. My hope is that they follow in the footsteps of Android and produce a proper hard cover, art/lore book for this setting. I don't expect that will happen any time soon however. I do believe that they will construct the universe one faction at a time, until they are happy with it and then produce the lore stuff in a complete set later so in the end, I think we are going to be waiting quite a while before we get that big fat lore book for this game.

Don't get your hopes too high about a lore book. It will have to cover all their Runebound games, so may not have the focus on the runewars that we are hoping for. I'm sure there will be a lot of information about heroes, villains, and locations that have absolutely nothing to do with the 4 armies at war.

7 minutes ago, Budgernaut said:

Don't get your hopes too high about a lore book. It will have to cover all their Runebound games, so may not have the focus on the runewars that we are hoping for. I'm sure there will be a lot of information about heroes, villains, and locations that have absolutely nothing to do with the 4 armies at war.

Or they could just retcon the lore around runewars, or use this as a starting point for all lore from this point on, and eventually do some stuff to cover the other times...

4 hours ago, Budgernaut said:

Don't get your hopes too high about a lore book. It will have to cover all their Runebound games, so may not have the focus on the runewars that we are hoping for. I'm sure there will be a lot of information about heroes, villains, and locations that have absolutely nothing to do with the 4 armies at war.

You have a point, but you're talking about

Runebound & Descent vs. Runewars, Rune Age, BattleLore, and Runewars Miniatures Game.

I think it's clear that the majority of that book will be focused on the warring factions and world-building, including key locations and a smattering of notable heroes/villains.

And in my opinion, locations are key for this game. If Descent takes you deep inside a cave, why not have a great Runewars battle in the dell where the mouth of the cave is located? What do the trees of Nerekhall look like? Were there historic battles across rivers and fjords (I'm looking at you, Hernfar)? I think learning about the style and setting of locations can be a huge inspiration for terrain building, and even for scenario selection/creation.

How much of a stickler do you think FFG would be if people decided to use alternative models for this game? My mind has been turning about ideas for customization, and briefly landed on Lion cavalry using GW models (lions from chariots, mounted by white lion infantry to represent Leonx riders for example). I'd need 3rd party trays though, probably bases as well. Obviously most people who play home games would probably be fine, but FLGS events, especially FFG sanctioned events, I could see they might require you use FFG models... I don't know much about their requirements.

4 minutes ago, wisetiger7 said:

How much of a stickler do you think FFG would be if people decided to use alternative models for this game? My mind has been turning about ideas for customization, and briefly landed on Lion cavalry using GW models (lions from chariots, mounted by white lion infantry to represent Leonx riders for example). I'd need 3rd party trays though, probably bases as well. Obviously most people who play home games would probably be fine, but FLGS events, especially FFG sanctioned events, I could see they might require you use FFG models... I don't know much about their requirements.

As always, you can do literally anything you want with the game outside of an official tournament setting.

Inside of a tournament, they're absolutely going to require you use the correct components, modified at most.

Changing an entire model introduces confusion as people won't know what they're looking at, which matters in a timed game.

29 minutes ago, Tvayumat said:

As always, you can do literally anything you want with the game outside of an official tournament setting.

Inside of a tournament, they're absolutely going to require you use the correct components, modified at most.

Changing an entire model introduces confusion as people won't know what they're looking at, which matters in a timed game.

Dang it. So now I will have to wait for Latari to come out before I start playing... It's gonna (seemingly) be a loooong wait...

Hi

Im very interested in the game but i have a problem:

Is Runewars more similar to x-wing or armada?

Because i buyed various ship for ST: armada (1 core and all the wave 1 ship) but , after playing the game , i disliked it alot.

saluti

2 hours ago, Darth Visari said:

Hi

Im very interested in the game but i have a problem:

Is Runewars more similar to x-wing or armada?

Because i buyed various ship for ST: armada (1 core and all the wave 1 ship) but , after playing the game , i disliked it alot.

saluti

Well Runewars has more in common with X-Wing than with Armada, but I think its more appropriate to say that Runewars is based on a similiar system as X-Wing, but the two games overall play very differently. You'll find familiar elements like Movement Templates and Action dials, but that's about where the similarities stop.

I think in terms of Armada, there aren't any direct mechanics from that game in Runewars, at least not ones you wouldn't also find in X-Wing.

That said, I think if you didn't like Armada, while mechanically different in a lot of ways its clear a lot of design, ingenuity and experience drawn from Armada inspired elements of Runewars. As a player of both X-Wing and Armada (and a fan of both), in my eyes it really took the experiences of both games as well as 30+ years of miniature game design and kind of collaborated into a single game removing problematic elements of all of them and adding some of its own flavor.

I wouldn't immediately rule out like Runewars if you didn't like X-Wing or Armada, but the souls of both are in this game so its fair to say that you might find issue with this game as well.

Was there anything specific about Armada that you liked and anything that you did like? Might help to guide you if you explain what your issue was with Armada.

Right now, when I (tried to) play a all Rune Golem army (except for one tray to hold a Geomancer) I use my Ogres from WFB.

What I do in the privacy of my own home (or FLGS) with my friends... but when I play at a sanctioned FFG event, I bring official ffg figs. So right now my friend uses his wood elf models for Latari.

The similarities I see woth Armada are 1) 6x3 playing area, 2) different attack dice with different probabilities, 3) no defense dice, and 4) objectives used during every game (not just cinnematic/scenario play). Granted, I only ever ayed a starter game of Armada, so I could be missing other things.

4 hours ago, BigKahuna said:

Well Runewars has more in common with X-Wing than with Armada, but I think its more appropriate to say that Runewars is based on a similiar system as X-Wing, but the two games overall play very differently. You'll find familiar elements like Movement Templates and Action dials, but that's about where the similarities stop.

I think in terms of Armada, there aren't any direct mechanics from that game in Runewars, at least not ones you wouldn't also find in X-Wing.

That said, I think if you didn't like Armada, while mechanically different in a lot of ways its clear a lot of design, ingenuity and experience drawn from Armada inspired elements of Runewars. As a player of both X-Wing and Armada (and a fan of both), in my eyes it really took the experiences of both games as well as 30+ years of miniature game design and kind of collaborated into a single game removing problematic elements of all of them and adding some of its own flavor.

I wouldn't immediately rule out like Runewars if you didn't like X-Wing or Armada, but the souls of both are in this game so its fair to say that you might find issue with this game as well.

Was there anything specific about Armada that you liked and anything that you did like? Might help to guide you if you explain what your issue was with Armada.

Hi

I find armada clunky and unispiring , i don't know why.

Nice the manuver system , the command dials , but i disliked the objective cards and the defense token mechanic.

saluti

14 hours ago, Darth Visari said:

Hi

I find armada clunky and unispiring , i don't know why.

Nice the manuver system , the command dials , but i disliked the objective cards and the defense token mechanic.

saluti

Well there is no accounting for personal preference but I think I understand what you mean by clunky. You have these big ships, slowly lumbering towards each other, its kind of a longer game and its very much a strategic more than a tactical game. Its not uncommon for the move you make in round 1 to be a mistake that doesn't bite you in the ass until round 5. So I get that.

Not sure what you mean by uninspiring unless your not a Star Wars, having epic capital ship battles in the Star Wars universe with big fat models is pretty much what I would call a Star Wars fans wet dream.

Given your brief assessment I certainly can't say with certainty wether or not Runewars would agree with you but some of the things you pointed out might be a problem.

For one, that "big lumbering" and more "strategic" then "tactical" is definitely a part of Runewars. This is a rank a file game, the vast majority of units are not very mobile. There is kind of this deploy and big clash effect where the bulk of your forces meet in battle followed up by various flanking maneuvers, ranged attacks and special powers that all ultimately decide how that big fight pans out. Then towards the end what is left fights it out in much smaller almost skirmish level battles that often decide the outcome of the the whole thing. It could be described as"clunky". Its really a very strategic game where decisions you make during deployment and opening moves will usually echo through the rest of the rounds in the game.

Its also worth pointing out that Runewars is very much about the objectives, they really define the circumstances of the battle very much like Armada so if you didn't like it there you probobly won't like it here. There are no straight "lets just fight" battles although I don't see a big problem with playing without objectives if you didn't want to, its not embedded into the game anymore than it was in Armada (you could play without objectives there too).

I would venture to say you might want to test play it before buying, based on how you describe Armada I think you will find many of the same issues here. While mechanically the game is very different, its clear to me that the experiances from Armada have been injected into Runewars by the designers.

On 27/4/2017 at 0:13 AM, wisetiger7 said:

but FLGS events, especially FFG sanctioned events, I could see they might require you use FFG models... I don't know much about their requirements.

These are uncharted waters for FFG but it's pretty safe to assume that any FLGS tournament will require you to have the original minis, cards, etc. (preferably bought at said store), and that FFG organised play will be strictly FFG models though they will probably allow conversions using FFG parts.

The number of models is pretty low, and the starter boxes, despite their high price tag, are actually a really good deal for the amount of stuff you get.
Add to that how easily 2 boxes can be split between two people to get full(ish) armies, and I feel like it's not really asking too much to expect players to play with official models in official events. A hundred bucks to get started, plus maybe a couple expansions, is actually really cheap in this hobby.

Also, I agree totally that rules > lore. I LOVE lore, but a game needs a solid ruleset to have longevity.
Fortunately, I feel the ruleset for this game is VERY solid with a lot of room for new additions in the future.

This game is an almost perfect blend of Kings of War and X-wing for me.
(Everything D&D Attack Wing should have been, but Wizkids couldn't deliver on)

On 4/26/2017 at 6:09 AM, bumyong said:

I have an example of a system with really unique and interesting lore but had crappy game mechanics: Wrath of Kings . Five incredibly unique houses with fantastic minis. But what sold me on buying two starter factions (I missed the KS) was the free novella that you can download (under the download button of their website). Very well written and engrossing story. But because of an incredibly clunky and complicated rule-set that is placed in really small font on cards rather than a rule-book, the minis sit in my case after only three tries at the game. (Go HERE for an in-depth review and comparison to Song of Blades and Heroes)

I'm glad to hear that Wrath of Kings isn't much fun. It makes me feel better about giving it a pass. I thought it looked pretty cool and wanted to pick it up but decided not to after seeing the female model sculpts.

I've seen lots of complaints about the generic nature of the figures. I tend to agree...or at least I did.

Then I started reading the Lore book, and working with the figures more. And thinking about comments like this. What, really, would people have wanted to see? What could FFG have done to make these non-generic? Table Top Fantasy has been around for 30 years or more...longer if you go back to Tolkien. Would RMG have been able to avoid the generic trap if they'd included, say, Orcs instead of Undead? Or their Chaos faction?

Sure, the Daqan forces are just humans in armor...but that's a trope so popular that WFB had 2 factions that were essentially humans in armor. And then 2 factions of Elves in armor. And then a dwarfs in armor faction.

People say they want something new, but then when something new comes along....like Age of Sigmar...they say "where are my dwarfs and elves, and why would I want to play fantasy marines?"

I do think the lore behind RMG is trying to set it apart. There's a world history here that can be used to shape the game, and very intriguing to me, shape OP events. Yes, Waiqar is undead...but they are fueled by the spirits of eternal warriors, cursed into their existence by Waiqar. They aren't shambling, mindless husks, they are trained warriors that are....tissue challenged.

2 hours ago, kingbobb said:

tissue challenged.

Ok, officially the funniest way to describe the undead I have heard in a long time.

My friend and I were discussing the Lore of Runewars today, I'm a bit disappointed, he would largely agree with you.

My main thing with the lore as is, is that they could have had the best of both worlds if they weren't committed to the concept of using their existing fantasy world. I'm not suggesting that it was a bad business decision or anything, but with a bit of creativity they could have simultaneously opened up the game, the lore and left the door wide open and still fit in a very iconic, very unique game world.

A couple of things I would have liked to see is.

1. Don't commit models to a specific army, create a lore book that allows for adaptations of unique cultural identities for the same miniatures with unique game-play elements.

A good example of where we have already seen that is with Space Marines in 40k. Here you have effectively "human soldiers", yet, there are dozens of chapters with unique identities that not only reflect the paint jobs and look of the miniature armies, but also reflect different personalities that players can identify with, not to mention unique bits of lore, all the while managing to effectively do it with a "core army" and a few unique miniatures for each specific chapter.

Now of course its not too late to do this, but we are all currently painting mini's. Its going to be a real bummer if all of the sudden they come out with a new Waiqar faction that uses the same models when I'm already done painting. They should really be doing this right out of the gate.

2. Launch with 4 factions. I realize that this might have delayed them, but the problem they will have is that they have front loaded the game. All players are either waiting for a faction (not fun) or painting what was available, perhaps not what they wanted, but doing it because they want to play the new game.

There really should have been more options at launch. In my group for example we have a person who will be playing Elves... six months from now, until then. Its a bummer.

3. Heavy Game Book. This is the one thing that Gamesworkshop has done and for good reason. Right now there is just not a whole lot to look at. We have received "pamphlets" with brief overviews covering the absolute minimum. They should have produced a nice fat, core game book that covers the lore and hobby aspects in detail.

I realize that the opportunity to do all these things is still there and perhaps we'll see it sometime in the future, but right now there isn't much to hang your hat on.

What kind of material are the models made out of? Is it comparable to GW's plastic?

4 minutes ago, wisetiger7 said:

What kind of material are the models made out of? Is it comparable to GW's plastic?

Quite different. GW's plastic is stiffer. The FFG minis are a bit softer, but hold enough detail for me. The biggest complaint I've seen is that it isn't as convenient to remove mold lines on these figures as it is on the stiffer GW plastic. You need carve a little more on these because scraping doesn't quite work.

How do characters play in units? I see that they use the defense/wound stats on the upgrade card vs. attacks with accuracy. Do they contribute anything to the unit other than some special ability on the upgrade card? Do they get their own attack stats? Would Ankaur Maro be able to use his heal ability or his raise dead ability or any other ability on his individual character card if he was used instead as a unit upgrade?