I have played many times and i find that having just say 5 or more units its way to easy to rout a few Dragons or Giants we have decided as a house rule that you must get 2 routs to actualy rout a Neutral Large hexagonal piece. is this the best way to solove this problem ? any ideas let me know please and Thanks.

Ripley... said:

Hexagon pieces are not meant to be a backbone of your army - they are meant to be protected by your smaller units. I think they are already plenty powerful as is - giving them MORE strength just hurts the Elves (who really don't need to be hurt) and makes these already powerful units even MORE powerful.

I'm More talking about the starting Neutral units there too eassy to rout out of the space

there is a similar topic on BGG boards under "Variants"

add1: there you go fetched the link for you

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/505851/combat-resolution

it suggests to use the current health as unit strength, so that would put the 2 giants tile to a wooping 10strength

I'm completely sure that this wouldn't work but you may try variants for your own games...

I for my part had a similar thought after my last game of the hex units but not that drastic: current unit health / 2 = unitstrength (round up)

I will try this for the coming weekend game and see how it works but Sigmar's arguments (in the bgg forum) made me sceptical

Ripley... said:

I guess it's a matter of taste. I don't mind this, as I think that the Neutrals are hard to recruit is one thing about them that I like - they are very powerful units, and they SHOULD be hard to get. Make them to easy to get, and whoever starts next to them gets a bit of an unfair advantage.

I always see the Neutrals as being somewhat less like wandering monsters full of bloodlust, and more a relatively hermity group of beings that really doesn't want to get involved in the conflict, and is more likely to run away then to join you, even if you start fighting. For me, if you retreat an already routed Neutral (or force them to retreat when they have nowhere to go), I see it more as them leaving for good (especially the bigger units) and going off the map than being overrun.

Ripley... said:

We have a house rule that make neutrals attack if they can't retreat out of an area.

Ugh house rules are sooo terrible.

They are like the fan fiction of board games.

Well if the Developers ( No offence meant ) would spend more time playtesting we wouldn't need to make house rules to try and balance a game house rules are Nessessary and in some cases soo needed that the game would fall apart without them. i won't mention any specific games but almost every one i played save a few needed tweeking .

sigmazero13 said:

I agree with this point of view. Routing a big unit doesn't necessarily mean you scared it off. That's one possible reason, but the main thing is the unit has decided to leave rather than continue dealing with your envoys. I also don't believe that armies will rout just because the battle went on more than a set time limit (5 rounds). Some situations where a Rout occurs might represent units getting scared and breaking ranks, other situations might represent units being tired (so they can't move again) or bored and leaving (like some diplomacy attempts.) The game uses the term "Rout" throughout for the sake of keeping the rules clear and simple. Regardless of the unit's motivation for leaving the active hex, the end result is the same mechanically.

Ripley... said:

The game is balanced perfectly fine as-is. Just because it doesn't suit your tastes, doesn't mean it wasn't playtested or that it's imbalanced. It seems to me that it is INTENTIONAL that the neutrals are hard to get - they are powerful, and SHOULD be hard to get.

I have played this game without house rules from the day I got it, and have not once had a game where I've felt "man, that aspect is so unbalanced we need to fix it". That doesn't mean it satisfies everyone's taste. Some people may want Neutrals to join you much more easily, and make the game more about who can control the most Neutrals. That's fine, if that suits them. It does NOT indicate an underlying problem with the game itself.

The question to ask is - does having the Neutrals retreat cause the game to be unfair for a player? Does it give someone an unfair advantage? If the answer is no, then saying "try and balance a game" is blowing smoke.

I agree with blarknob, though maybe not to that extreme. I find some variants to be beneficial - usually those that add a new feature to a game (like new factions, more cards, etc). I typically find that changing the rules of the game to suit some personal/group preference to often make me like a game "less" because oftentimes, such house rules are poorly thought out, knee-jerk reactions to a specific feature that isn't broken, but is just disliked for whatever reason.

This "hexagon" topic is one such thing. I think some people make an assumption that the Hexagon units are supposed to be these unstoppable gargantuan creatures. They aren't. They may be powerful, and can often take a lot abuse before dying, but that doesn't mean they are more potent in the grand scheme of things than a legion of foot soldiers or a formation of archers. A dragon (or small group of dragons?) could just as easily be disarrayed from battle, or, as Steve-O relates, could have other motives for leaving the battle, that is just represented in the game as "retreating" and "routing".

Personally, I think the rules as written makes the neutrals far more interesting than many of these variants would cause, because it makes gaining them a real commitment, and sometimes it's a perfectly viable strategy to drive them out. Killing them may be hard, but that doesn't mean a small army couldn't drive away a dragon who just wants to live in relative peace!

to add another opinion to the pot:

it's true that we are all stamped by the games we played before runewars and this translates into certain expectations

I for my part find the following (unlikely but possible) situation just wrong:

1 deathknight attacks 4 triangle footmen:

the triangles manage to deal 2 damage then the Dk draws the 3 damage symbol: still the DK would have to retreat

In the games I've played before, combat is resolved by counting the net loss of units, in this case the DK would have won and the remaining footman would have to retreat... and that would also fit with my imagination of a battle where routs are caused by demoralization - the common soldiers are shocked by the dk's unstoppable attack that killed 3 regiments and run for their lives

in runewars (for me) I have to deal with a paradigm shift in combat resolution away from how devastating the attack is, to whoever has more ranks after the battle wins... that needs some time to get used to

sigmazero13 said:

+1 and well said. Sometimes there are differences between how the designers intend a game to work and how the players think it's supposed to work. It can be a fine line sometimes, but just because the game doesn't do what you want doesn't mean it's broken.

Personally I don't have any problem with house rules. I avoid them in Descent, but that's a special case. Other games - like TI3 - I absolutely love to mess with. If you and your friends feel the need to change some rules to make the game fun for you, then have at it. It's your game and your fun, but don't go around claiming the game is unbalanced simply because it fails to meet your expectations. Runewars is easily the cleanest written and best-balanced game FFG has produced from among those I have played. I have some ideas for how I might like to tweak it or expand it with homebrew content, although I think I'll wait to see what at least the first expansion gives me before I start actually working on anything. But these are changes I choose to make, not changes that need to be made .

Carcass said:

With this logic, an army with large amounts of weaker units would almost always lose to an army with fewer, stronger units. For example, skaven or orcs would always lose to dwarves and elves, in warhammer, because tons of skaven and orcs die for every dwarf or elf that falls.

But this is not true. vietnam beat the US, even though the US inflicted around from one to 6 million more casualties than the vietcong, with only 50,000 us losses, depending on your numbers. The Soviet Union beat the Germans, even though the germans killed around 20 million russians to about 5 million german losses. And think of how few casualties america took in Somalia before they retreated (less than 50, but seeing those dead US soldiers was enough to destroy morale, despite the thousands of dead enemyies. )

Please dont hold me on the exact numbers... its just the relative scale that matters.

Large, weak armiest can beat small strong armies, and this game, I think, does a good job of reflecting that. The big strong more scarce units can absorb more damage and take fewer casualties, and the large weak armies can overwhelm... Each side has a good chance of winning, depending on the circumstances and strategies.

That single deathknight (one unit) would have defeated 3 footman.. I think thats pretty impressive!

I think the issue with the hex units is that it is anticlimactic once you realize just how easy it is to defeat a dragon or giant. Just one rout, from one wimpy unit. I have played a LOT of games, and I dont think I have ever killed a giant or dragon with wounds... they usually just get routed and eventually run out of places to flee. Even when I send pretty substantual armies, I have continued drawing after routing them, and they usually survive the wounds (and then just die with a little whimper when they are forced to retreat).

I kind of like the idea of a dragon being difficult to root out from his lair... Maybe a game varient where you have a preestablished dragon throne(s) in the middle of the board protected by dragons that will not rout or retreat... you got to kill them fair and square. This is not impossible... if you have 5 or more units to do so!

and you better hope they arent triangles!

It does change gameplay, but I think it makes the game feel a little more thematic. hmmm... the more I think about it... the more I like this idea.

neutral hexes dont rout or retreat... theyou need to defeat them to get their treasures and lands.... hmm.... sounds fun

oops duplicated post

@mateoo

I think you overinterpreted my logic: What I just wanted to say is that fewer strong units are equal to more weaker units

so I never doubted that weaker units can destroy stronger ones but you will need to bring in more of 'em and of course the opposite should also be the case

lets say theoretically a dk equals 3-4 triangles in combat potency a battle between those two should be decided only by a narrow margin

but in runewars reality the dk won't realistically stand a chance against 4 triangles because he just counts as a unit strength of 1 (although he is definitely more potent than a triangle unit of unit strength 1)

I think thats the main problem for some people but I have no doubt that it works for runewars as it is and it's just a getting used to...

mateooo said:

If you allow your dragon to fight on its own without backup then you're asking for it. If not, then you can cover it in most cases.

The dragon has more health and it does more damage. But it's just a single dragon and as such will not be more worth in terms of controlling the area after a battle than a big group of soldiers. The same with the necromancer. It's just a necromancer and you should consider it VERY generous he has the same strenght as a big group of soldiers.

Then you may have some pegasus riders... It's also very generous that a small handful of pegasus riders has the same strenght as 100 archers.

Of course the numbers are just some I made up, but stop thinking that there are 50 archers, 50 necromancers, 50 dragons etc. in a single miniature. It's different and in the end every unit with variable numbers in each unit has the same strenght in terms of deciding who gets to control the area.

But all that doesn't matter, because with the current system the game is balanced and then all kinds of theory about a dragons strenght is irrelevant Also remember that in most cases (and all rout cases I believe) the defender decides what units are affected... so you can PLAN for these kind of things. PLAN your fights so that dragon isn't likely to get routed.

IF a dragon or other creature had more end strenght, then the entire game would have to be rebalanced, because suddenly you would be able to keep more than 8 strenght in total in an area and those 8 strenght + max 7 for a fortress is carefully balanced. If some units had more strenght it would destrou the game unless other units had their strenght reduced. But since you do not pay actual resources for units, there is no price on the elite units... it's not like you have to pay more for them.

This part of the game is balanced and any house rules you make will only ruing the game - but suit yourselves.

no offense but thats completely unreadable gallows

some stuff I could extract from this wischiwaschi:

-first we talked about neutral dragons, so most likely they will be solo (except the one tile that has 2 on it)

- actually you DO pay for your units, you need alot more resources for the hex units than the triangle footsoldiers

just some parts I picked out of this wall

Carcass said:

You only need Ore for the Hexagon units, and to get your first you only need 4 or 5, which isn't really that hard to get.

Steve-O said:

Well without offending you if you have played Descent enough then you should know what im saying about producing a game with many bugs aka not playteted enough in wich i feel i have talked about to death in other forums . How do you think Arata's are created developers read our thoughts and suggestions about bugs or other effects that might alter the games intent in the situation with RuneWars i found 2 problems the game is way to dragonrune oriented and the armies mean didlyskwat meaning you can just create a defensive position just outside your starting zone and use your heroes to win the game making the armies useless might as well be Runebound. Second the routing of large Neutral units these units are too easily killed or pushed away buy routing. So i was just putting it out there that mabe 2 routs are needed to rout a large i say again Neutral unit.

Ripley... said:

That would possibly be true, if the battle system favored the defense. Since the attacker can bring in more units than the Defender, it's definitely an attacker-centric combat system. Sure, Strongholds can make it harder to take, but Conquer orders can take care of that.

I don't agree that armies are useless and Heroes win the game. Heroes only help if you can get the Captain of the Heroes Guild card (which only one player can have at any given time), or if you get lucky and find a Shard. And even in both of those cases, you have to be able to hold the areas - and playing a defensive turtle game isn't going to do that for you. I've found that aggressive, warmongering players tend to do really well in this game, because it's hard to really build a good defense.

Plus, if you are just hunkering down in a few areas near your home, you're likely not going to have much food, which means come Winter, your forces are going to be rather meager, making it that much easier for them to be destroyed.

All in all, I've found armies to be ESSENTIAL to the game. The heroes are a big help in giving the armies purpose, but the Heroes won't win the game for you - your armies must be in control of the board in order to secure the Runes. And there are plenty of ways to cause runes to move around, and many non-Hero ways for Runes to be added.

A Hero-centric strategy CAN be effective, but it's not unstoppable.

Your dislike of this element does not indicate that it is "broken" or "not working". The combat in the game works just fine, is very balanced, and is not unfair.

Have you played Battlemist? Now THAT is a game where the Armies aren't very useful, unless you are trying for a "conquer other players home realms" strategy.

Ripley... said:

Again, this does not indicate a problem with game balance or a "bug" in the game - all it indicates is a feature you happen not to like. If you don't like it, change it. It doesn't NEED to be changed to make the game work. The game isn't about the Neutral units. They can be nice additions to your army, but part of the game is deciding "do I want to get rid of the Neutrals, or really work on acquiring them?" Making them harder to rout doesn't really affect them except to make the Dragons and Giants more speed bump-ish than they already are. It doesn't really add any value to the game FOR ME. (It may allow you to enjoy it more, but again, that is just a personal preference).

I think the point is, the things you claim as bugs are not bugs or problems with the game itself - they merely are a reflection of your personal expectations or preferences not being met by the way the game works.

You'll notice that none of the Errata change the game rules - they are just clarifications or typo-fixes. And the Q&A's are just clarifications. Thus far, there have been no actual CHANGES to the rules, and personally, I don't think there needs to be. The game is balanced, works fine, and is fair for all players. If you want to change things to match your personal tastes, that's fine, but to claim that the game is broken without it is just outright false.

Carcass said:

You mean you can't read it and comprehend it? The old "Oh noes wall of text" comment should be reserved for pre-school children.

With that out of the way. You do NOT pay for your units. They don't cost any resources. Building a fort/development does however. Units never lower your resources. Some of them may require your resources to be higher, but it's not an investment where you have to pay for it by reducing your resources.

But to make it easy on you: The suggestions in this thread concerning some units having more strenght is daft. It will destroy balance.

The core rules are fine as they are. Nothing is broken. In fact I think the rules are perfect.

there is something to be said for the art of communication and the importance of people skills

to get back 2 topic:

if I remember correctly ripley was asking for some more variants to "give more power to the neutral hex units" and not our opinions on houseruling that...

@ripley: apart from the 2-rout-rule you already use in your games what do you think of the unitstrength increase related to current health? (or variants of that)

If I happen to play with players not completely new to the game this weekend ( as in my last 2 games) I will try the variant I described in my first post, thats was also suggested and played in the BGG variants board so it shouldn't be completely off the line

I'll report back as soon as I tried it out

Actually, in his OP his question was "is this the best way to solve the problem", and thus discussion of why the "problem" doesn't need to be solved is perfectly viable. IE, he's asking "does this fix it", and thus if people don't find it broken, it is otherwise hard to answer.