How are the new cards included with Hawthorne and Maro incorporated into the game? Do you build the decks using the cards available from both players? Or does each player have a separate deck?

This is not yet defined.

What we have been doing locally is simply to choose whoever's deck has more of the cards. Since I buy everything, it's been easy so far.

Ok, fair enough, just wasn't sure if I was missing something... thanks!

How does Armada handle this? It seems most likely that FFG would just adapt that model.

In Armada, both players bring 3 objective cards as part of their list. During setup, first player chooses from the second player's 3 objective cards.

7 minutes ago, Contrapulator said:

In Armada, both players bring 3 objective cards as part of their list. During setup, first player chooses from the second player's 3 objective cards.

The more I think about it, the more I like this method for Runewars. Some units are going to really want certain deployment options (I'm looking at you, Ravos!), so it would be nice to be able to bid for a lower initiative in order to ensure you can choose the deployment zones for the game.

Throwing everything together and dealing random cards is a ton of fun for casual games, but I think it's too much variance for Organized Play.

I'd rather stay away from the Armada list building as far as this goes. I think the complete randomness of an objective/deployment deck really adds to the variety of gameplay. I wouldnt want to see a situation like at Armada Worlds where practically everyone was running Most Wanted.

part of that being the armada objectives are one-sided for the most part. And the few that arent onesided are dumb/usually ignored even if it is picked.

Armada has a bad habit of giving the 2nd player a heap of benefits, and often not a lick of perks for the first player. Its one of the few major complaints i have about Armada, if you have a list that works amazingly on 3 of your objectives, your opponent has to pick your objectives, and all 3 are outright horrible for his/her list then the game is practically decided right there.

RWM objectives are much more fair. The objectives could be completely random and i wouldnt care, but i agree the totally random deployments could shaft people. Imagine being Uthuk and getting Hawthorne's range1 deployments....

Armada objectives are taken as part of basic list building.

RMG uses a shuffled deck from which options are drawn and chosen.

It seems vastly more likely that objectives and deployment decks for tourneys will be chosen based on a rotation, like Imperial Assault, and simply be open to whatever the players want to use for casual play.

1 hour ago, Vineheart01 said:

part of that being the armada objectives are one-sided for the most part. And the few that arent onesided are dumb/usually ignored even if it is picked.

Armada has a bad habit of giving the 2nd player a heap of benefits, and often not a lick of perks for the first player. Its one of the few major complaints i have about Armada, if you have a list that works amazingly on 3 of your objectives, your opponent has to pick your objectives, and all 3 are outright horrible for his/her list then the game is practically decided right there.

RWM objectives are much more fair. The objectives could be completely random and i wouldnt care, but i agree the totally random deployments could shaft people. Imagine being Uthuk and getting Hawthorne's range1 deployments....

Because p2 in Armada really needs those benefits to stand a chance.

In armada the initiative doesn't change so second player always goes second so a little objective advantage helps a lot.

I imagine they will poach the XWMG approach for terrain. Each player brings 3. We already have two of the rock-and-a-death-place cards in the shuffle now. So it isn't impossible that you could bring three rocks with an army that runs large formations.

vast majority of the time i dont want to have first activation in armada. You can easily work with that with proper ship positioning.

Some of the P2 bonuses in those objectives arent that bad but others are just a massive middle finger to P1. Why would there be objectives that literally do NOTHING for P1?

I'm going be TO for Runewars at our local store.

Until we get a ruling I will state lowest bid on on army provides the terrain, objective, and deployment cards.

It could be like IA where the TO chooses a deployment/objective and all games for that round use it. That's how IA does the map.

I'm thinking on a random select from a common pool made by both players, maybe 3 cards of each player.

23 hours ago, Sirdrasco said:

I'm going be TO for Runewars at our local store.

Until we get a ruling I will state lowest bid on on army provides the terrain, objective, and deployment cards.

Having a clear ruling locally, reiterated during tourneys is good. Though I don't particularly like the one you are choosing.

I see a few options and issues with each.

1) Pre-tournament, the 6 objectives and deployments are announced and people deal with it. Seems good, but there are questions about what happens if a player doesn't have the Daqan deployment. You could limit it to just the starter scenarios and deployments, but nobody wants that.

2) Option 1, but announced day of. Same bonuses, same issues

3) Both player bring 3 objectives, 3 deployments, and 2-3 terrain. Now, nobody is screwed by not having what is needed. But you run into the issue of it getting boring if a specific objective (Most Wanted) becomes so good that it shows up in all lists.

4) TO or an RNG picks 2 (or 4) deployments, objectives, terrain. All of which are in the starter box/essentials box. Those show up in all games and every player should have that much. Players each then bring 2 (or 1) of each. The player cannot bring duplicates of whatever the TO declared all games use. Now there is some stability and players have some capacity to bring in faction-friendly objectives/deployments/terrain. The odds of broken objective saturation is lower. The downside is it is the hardest to explain.

On 6/27/2017 at 11:06 PM, Aurelus said:

I'd rather stay away from the Armada list building as far as this goes. I think the complete randomness of an objective/deployment deck really adds to the variety of gameplay. I wouldnt want to see a situation like at Armada Worlds where practically everyone was running Most Wanted.

To be fair everyone was likely running Most Wanted so that you could put it on the lifeboat flotilla and ignore the objective.