11 minutes ago, tkundnobody said:

Btw: do you think we will get other bases the. The 3 types we have so far? Maybe a double sized tray?

I think the overwhelming consensus is: heck yeah!

2 hours ago, tkundnobody said:

WE will need the return of dragon kin. They are very popular in the runebound lore. And I doubt they are dead... would be funny if we get an army with almost only big models like the giants in warhammer. Les miniatures but bigger ones.

Btw: do you think we will get other bases the. The 3 types we have so far? Maybe a double sized tray?

I want a 4-6 tray big dragon, that'd be awesome.

I hope multi tray monsters show up at some point. 2 Tray Giants, 4 tray Elephants, a 6 tray Dragon.

When all 4 current factions have their extra unit, I want Dwarves! Infantry = 2 armour, Special = Thunderers with range 3 but extra damage and siege = cannons with all board range, elevated but low damage (not low chance to hit and high damage sinve that brings to much luck).

Edit: Maybe high damage (brutal) but lower chance to hit (few dice) would work since it just forces the opponent to advance even quicker. And the extra unit should be scary Slayers or something (no cav!).

And of course there needs to be a bit of retheming to avoid copying WHFB (although they copied Tolkien in many respects). Maybe Thunderers could be replaced with grenade throwers and cannons with catapults?

8 hours ago, Maktorius said:

When all 4 current factions have their extra unit, I want Dwarves! Infantry = 2 armour, Special = Thunderers with range 3 but extra damage and siege = cannons with all board range, elevated but low damage (not low chance to hit and high damage sinve that brings to much luck).

Edit: Maybe high damage (brutal) but lower chance to hit (few dice) would work since it just forces the opponent to advance even quicker. And the extra unit should be scary Slayers or something (no cav!).

And of course there needs to be a bit of retheming to avoid copying WHFB (although they copied Tolkien in many respects). Maybe Thunderers could be replaced with grenade throwers and cannons with catapults?

I think dwarves in Runewars are more fantasy than steam punk.

1 hour ago, TallGiraffe said:

I think dwarves in Runewars are more fantasy than steam punk.

Well in Runeage they're kinda half and half. They have steam drills and also axe and shield warriors.

58 minutes ago, Willange said:

Well in Runeage they're kinda half and half. They have steam drills and also axe and shield warriors.

Well, they had them for sure. With how FFG have tweaked the Uthuk, there's no telling what the Dunwar Dwarves will be like. Can't wait to find out!

16 minutes ago, Parakitor said:

Well, they had them for sure. With how FFG have tweaked the Uthuk, there's no telling what the Dunwar Dwarves will be like. Can't wait to find out!

Mountain goat mounted archers?

In my ideal RW world I'd see another 2 different unit options for all 4 announced/current races.
After that; Orcs & Darves. Hell yes!

But it might be clever to announce them a long time before.

Please no tech dwarves, or goat mounted dwarves, or any of the other abominations that have come about. Just some good old fashioned Tolkien dwarves if at all.

2 minutes ago, Darthain said:

Please no tech dwarves, or goat mounted dwarves, or any of the lther abominations that have come about. Just some good old fashioned Tolkien dwarves if at all.

I'd not mind the kind of dwarves as seen in the 'battle of the five armies' movie.

If that is an abomination then I am happy with abominations!

2 minutes ago, Elkerlyc said:

I'd not mind the kind of dwarves as seen in the 'battle of the five armies' movie.

If that is an abomination then I am happy with abominations!

We don't talk about how bad Peter Jackson is here .

1 minute ago, Darthain said:

We don't talk about how bad Peter Jackson is here .

You just did.

27 minutes ago, Darthain said:

Please no tech dwarves, or goat mounted dwarves, or any of the lther abominations that have come about. Just some good old fashioned Tolkien dwarves if at all.

I would agree with this, though except Gyrocopters I think that WHFB still had a good feel about them.

Then maybe (to change my previous post in this thread) these would be nice:

Infantry unit = extra defence

Siege unit = Ballista with all-board range but limited damage (one white dice?)

Special = Axe throwers with range 3 but brutal 1.

Extra = Some sort of berzerking two handed axe weilding low armor dwarves

(*if* there ever will be Dwarves in RW)

Personally I hope there will be some sort of mobility/(cavalry of sorts) in a Dwarf army list.

Because immobile stand-and-shoot-armies are boring as [censored] .

In my not-so-humble opinion anyhow.

Dwarves are mentioned as having chariots in the lore book and that sounds great to me.

Am I the only one not terribly excited by the idea of multi tray figures?

The lawn ornament sized figures in other games are such a bother. Transport and storage are a pain.

But x-wing has epic so I'm sure we will see huge units in this. Dragons, chariots, horse monster elf mounts and giant Demons will all probably be previewed at gencon.

2 hours ago, Elkerlyc said:

(*if* there ever will be Dwarves in RW)

Personally I hope there will be some sort of mobility/(cavalry of sorts) in a Dwarf army list.

Because immobile stand-and-shoot-armies are boring as [censored] .

In my not-so-humble opinion anyhow.

A somewhat mobile unit would be fine (to me), but I prefer when there is a different feel between the armies and I think it would loose theme and replayability if they all had pretty much the same. I would definitely play slow-and-shoot dwarves because I like to play a defencive style, but I know that all have different preferences.

This is an interesting thread, for my group, because some potential players are a bit concerned about the lack of unit variety. Speaking for myself, I'm cool with where we are at the moment. I somewhat enjoy that there isn't 65+ units to choose from like other game systems. I do hope, however, that they keep the enticement flowing with some of the ideas mentioned by all of you above. A few basics for each army, even with the cool cards and spells, abilities, etc. may only go so far.

I wager that with the investment FFG has made in the game that we have lots of surprises ahead.

Do any of you hear concerns or experience hesitation due to a relatively basic army structure thus far?

27 minutes ago, Blutsteigen said:

This is an interesting thread, for my group, because some potential players are a bit concerned about the lack of unit variety. Speaking for myself, I'm cool with where we are at the moment. I somewhat enjoy that there isn't 65+ units to choose from like other game systems. I do hope, however, that they keep the enticement flowing with some of the ideas mentioned by all of you above. A few basics for each army, even with the cool cards and spells, abilities, etc. may only go so far.

I wager that with the investment FFG has made in the game that we have lots of surprises ahead.

Do any of you hear concerns or experience hesitation due to a relatively basic army structure thus far?

I'm not sure I like that each faction has exactly equivalent units so far. I'm sure it helps with balancing, but I like the idea of one faction having more archery options, or cavalry options, etc, than the other factions.

1 hour ago, Hepitude said:

I'm not sure I like that each faction has exactly equivalent units so far. I'm sure it helps with balancing, but I like the idea of one faction having more archery options, or cavalry options, etc, than the other factions.

Give it some time and I'm sure each faction will have very different units that make each feel unique on top of how each unit functions. However, I don't expect anything outside of the infantry/cavalry/siege/hero paradigm.

Rangers that pass through 'overgrown ' terrain like suggested banshees.

tomorrow I'm kayaking in Canadian Shield through 'tunnels' bringing my ninja sword, and in my mind, an one of said rangers! Haha fish for food all weekend

5 hours ago, Hepitude said:

I'm not sure I like that each faction has exactly equivalent units so far. I'm sure it helps with balancing, but I like the idea of one faction having more archery options, or cavalry options, etc, than the other factions.

The four units each faction has are all very basic types that should be covered by every army. Specialization can come through when we get a second choice for some of them. But you want to make sure that every army has a basic cavalry option, a basic ranged option, a basic block infantry option, etc.

It's worth pointing out that even within those, we see some strong differentiation -- for example, elves' cavalry leans towards the very light side, very mobile and not astoundingly damaging, while death knights are much heavier cavalry, durable and geared to take on hard targets. This already differentiates the factions, despite them sharing the same 4 unit types.

Once you have all the bases covered, you can make them specialize more strongly with their additional options that either take a unit to greater extremes, plug gaps created by having a base unit somewhat outside the norm for its type (I'm thinking a more straightforwardly damaging, say brutal, Waiqar siege unit, for instance), or combining roles in interesting ways (I feel like eventually somebody's going to get horse archers -- I wonder if that might be pegasus riders)...

Ultimately, I feel like the game will get too unapproachably difficult if we see more than 6 or so non-unique unit types per faction. That's a lot of command dials to memorize, and even playing casually, knowledge of your opponent's unit initiatives and options is so key in this game. Character upgrades and heroes can add to more to that comfortably to fill in new ways to modify army-building and sprinkle in some new abilities periodically to keep the meta dynamic within an army and respond to new threats from additional factions.

6 hours ago, kaffis said:

Ultimately, I feel like the game will get too unapproachably difficult if we see more than 6 or so non-unique unit types per faction. That's a lot of command dials to memorize, and even playing casually, knowledge of your opponent's unit initiatives and options is so key in this game. Character upgrades and heroes can add to more to that comfortably to fill in new ways to modify army-building and sprinkle in some new abilities periodically to keep the meta dynamic within an army and respond to new threats from additional factions.

My group are enamored with the game, but most don't feel that studying and memorizing dials is a fun (although thematic) skill mechanic since most are boardgamers and not Warhammer or Magic players. And the game, as it probably should, really favors the one who knows the enemy's dials versus the one who don't. So we have printed out all dials as reference (available on bgg files section for the game). It removes a strategic element but makes the tactical elements more fun for more people (in my group), and thus a variant for introducing new players and playing casual games.

Reference of the base game dials are included in the base game rulebook for a good reason.

I expect dial reference will be allowed at turnoments.

i would love to only have one page of reference for each faction and then just keep a small book of them w it's my FAQ.

1 hour ago, TylerTT said:

Reference of the base game dials are included in the base game rulebook for a good reason.

I expect dial reference will be allowed at turnoments.

i would love to only have one page of reference for each faction and then just keep a small book of them w it's my FAQ.

I had forgotten about that! Sorry. Though our reference sheets includes Death knights, crossbowmen, the new heroed and all units abilities