So, you’ve now been crown World Champion and designed a new card. They were so happy that you got the PR job. Now that you impressed them by writing factually correct articles and demonstrating rules knowledge, you got an offer to be a game designer. They want to know what rules you would tweak for the first FAQqening.

So what is it? What rules change would you make for fluff or balance or just because?

Just to prime that well, I’d like to reduce the emphasis score-wise on killing your opponent and go for objectives. Points killed are now only for tiebreaker. Your tourney score is now dependent purely on objective points. This would mean all non-scoring objectives would not be usable for tourneys.

These isn't a really crunchy rules change necessarily and aren't things that relate necessarily to competitive play and how it relies upon a strict set of terrain pieces, its more for the casual players, but I would like to see rules that cover a broader range of terrain types (rivers, hills, cliffs, one-off immovable objects, like massive trees)

I'd also like to see rules to allow for terrain that one doesn't "collide" with and enter, but just confer some sort of effect for being in (or overlapping), such as, a marsh or hill that covers a sizeable portion of the battlefield, not just the size of a cardboard template.

In other words, I'd like for this game to be playable on any kind of beautiful tabletop you can conjure, regardless of what type of scenery you put on it (without depending on house rules, e.g. "this building here isn't enterable, so we'll count it as a large rocky outcrop" etc).

I think the visual appeal this adds would really help draw players to the game.

If they gave me free reign errata/alter whatever I wanted... change the reanimate ability to:

Quote

Regenerate [natural] When this unit uses the regenerate ability, if it would gain more figures than it has empty spaces and if it has fewer trays than it started with, add 1 tray to this unit, filling any partial rank first, or adding a new rank to the back of unit if there are no partial ranks.

(I hope that would all fit on the card. With space for the steadfast [doubt], as well, but I would be willing to sacrifice the steadfast for the increased regeneration if needed.

Then I would probably bump the cost of the 3x2 configurations and larger up a small amount. The small units won't benefit as much from this ability (and are on the wimpy side, anyway), but the 3x2 configuration can get a necromancer, and the larger configurations will last long enough that this change would make a noticeable difference to them. But the bump would only be a small amount because reanimates are on the weaker side currently.

Then there is one upgrade that would also need a tweak to work with the changes to the Reanimates, and that's Lingering Dead. Which would change to:

Quote

While there are figures in your unit, do not remove empty trays from your unit until the end of the End Phase. When this unit uses the Regenerate ability, it may gain [stable] figures instead of what it would normally get.

55 minutes ago, Xelto said:

If they gave me free reign errata/alter whatever I wanted... change the reanimate ability to:

(I hope that would all fit on the card. With space for the steadfast [doubt], as well, but I would be willing to sacrifice the steadfast for the increased regeneration if needed.

Then I would probably bump the cost of the 3x2 configurations and larger up a small amount. The small units won't benefit as much from this ability (and are on the wimpy side, anyway), but the 3x2 configuration can get a necromancer, and the larger configurations will last long enough that this change would make a noticeable difference to them. But the bump would only be a small amount because reanimates are on the weaker side currently.

Then there is one upgrade that would also need a tweak to work with the changes to the Reanimates, and that's Lingering Dead. Which would change to:

How about regenerate on figures killed as well as natural runes. Skelly armies are supposed to get bigger when they kill others right?

2 minutes ago, Aetheriac said:

How about regenerate on figures killed as well as natural runes. Skelly armies are supposed to get bigger when they kill others right? 

What if it's a Waiqar vs Waiqar match? ?

1 minute ago, joopahtroopah said:

What if it's a Waiqar vs Waiqar match? ?

Then both sides just grow and grow consuming the field!!

This is a no brainer for me. If I could change one rule it would be that you square up BEFORE ending your movement. This would allow you to charge through your own units and engage an opponent. I hate the fact that currently a single unit, heck, even a hero tray, can block an entire army from attacking a unit because of angles. I could just see a battlefield "sorry general, once you are done attacking this army of some 30 odd spearmen, then we'll begin to attack, but currently there just isn't any room"

If I had a second choice, Ravos has an ability to deal an instant wound to a unit within range 1, friendly or not, but for some reason when Ankaur reanimates... he can only deal the wound to himself or his unit. That should be changed to "deal (stable rune) wounds to a friendly unit within range 1-3 to add (stable rune) trays. You may not deal wounds to the unit you are adding trays to.

Lastly, I'd bump the cost of Carion Lancers to 17-18 to give them either Brutal or Precise. Once engaged, unless someone close by is supporting them by throwing blight, they're useless unless they are grouped up.

I would change closing in. Right now, if Kari kills a Carrion Lancer in my 2x1, she can shift sideways to remain engaged* and keep her rerolls. To me, that's not closing in - that's closing sideways. I think the rules for closing in should state that "the attacking unit must occupy the space previously occupied by the trays that were just removed. If this is not possible, the attacking unit cannot close in." It just feels too gamy for the attacking unit to attack forward, then shift sideways just to preserve rerolls. That is great for elves, either an ability or upgrade, but not for typical units. I mean, if the Oathsworn Cavalry attack, that shouldn't be able to shift sideways at all, let alone when "closing in" after an attack.

*In this situation, Kari wouldn't even bother closing in; she'd just become disengaged and range attack next round, but I use it for illustrative purposes.

2 hours ago, Aetheriac said:

How about regenerate on figures killed as well as natural runes. Skelly armies are supposed to get bigger when they kill others right?

I wanted to keep it simple enough to stay on a single card. I also wanted to not change the play balance to much.

I think that adding to the unit as it kills others would work better in a totally new unit. Rawheads, the way they're portrayed in most stories, would fit.

1 hour ago, Parakitor said:

I would change closing in.

*In this situation, Kari wouldn't even bother closing in; she'd just become disengaged and range attack next round, but I use it for illustrative purposes.

I think the closing in rules are pretty frustrating honestly. Whoever has initiative when a tray might die has a HUGE advantage of attacking their way out of engagement. As a player you have to guess if they will kill your unit and stay engaged or if they will choose to cancel your attack. If you choose a charge as your action, and either they a. don't kill off enough trays to disengage, or b. decide to stay engaged, then you lose your action, if you choose to melee attack and they do break engagement then you lose your attack. It's just too gamey of a mechanism.

I don't agree with your assessment that they should close in forcing themselves into a flank, but I don't think they should be allowed to disengage by means of killing a single tray. I think that both players should have the option of closing in, so the attacked can choose where to close in, but they can't choose to become disengaged without the defender getting to respond.

I’d tweak a few units.

Ardus- give him a white reform modifier and a speed 1 init 3 march

Ravos- word insatiable hunger to trigger before his end of round free move. Change his unique surge to wound to surge add damage or lethal.

Reanimates-figure- Necromancer-unique surge, if your opponent lost a tray this attack you can add 1 tray of reanimates if able.

4 hours ago, backupsidekick said:

I think the closing in rules are pretty frustrating honestly. Whoever has initiative when a tray might die has a HUGE advantage of attacking their way out of engagement. As a player you have to guess if they will kill your unit and stay engaged or if they will choose to cancel your attack. If you choose a charge as your action, and either they a. don't kill off enough trays to disengage, or b. decide to stay engaged, then you lose your action, if you choose to melee attack and they do break engagement then you lose your attack. It's just too gamey of a mechanism.

Incidentally, this is a major reason I am so in love with Lingering Dead - problem solved! Still, any non Lingering unit can be taken advantage of. It's not something that has frustrated me that much because when you are head-to-head it doesn't come up much; but if you are flanked, you are in serious peril of getting played, but I usually tell myself it's my own fault for getting flanked.

10 hours ago, joopahtroopah said:

These isn't a really crunchy rules change necessarily and aren't things that relate necessarily to competitive play and how it relies upon a strict set of terrain pieces, its more for the casual players, but I would like to see rules that cover a broader range of terrain types (rivers, hills, cliffs, one-off immovable objects, like massive trees)

I'd also like to see rules to allow for terrain that one doesn't "collide" with and enter, but just confer some sort of effect for being in (or overlapping), such as, a marsh or hill that covers a sizeable portion of the battlefield, not just the size of a cardboard template.

In other words, I'd like for this game to be playable on any kind of beautiful tabletop you can conjure, regardless of what type of scenery you put on it (without depending on house rules, e.g. "this building here isn't enterable, so we'll count it as a large rocky outcrop" etc).

I think the visual appeal this adds would really help draw players to the game.

I couldn't agree more with this. While I find Runewars superior to Age of Sigmar in most regards, I am more than a little jealous of how scenic AoS can be. Runewars can look sparse and bland by comparison. I would like to see terrain like the swamp and blighted ground become less of an obstacle to be occupied and more of a zone that can be overlapped and moved through. This would allow more/larger terrain without clogging up the board.

After playing against an army consisting of three 2x1's of Spined Threshers, I'm thinking I would change the point cost of that unit. It is unbelievably efficient for its cost. On top of this it is only one point higher in cost than a 2x1 of Carrion Lancers, and the same cost as a 2x1 of Rune Golems, in spite of being (appropriately) higher cost than either for a single tray.

Looking at all the siege units, the Carrion Lancers and Scions only get a 3 point discount for going to 2 trays. The Golems get a 6 point discount for going to 2 trays. The Spined Threshers get a whopping 8 point discount for going to 2 trays. I'm scratching my head on this one.

A 2x1 of Spined Threshers should be around 32 points by my estimate.

Anyone disagree with this?

1) add the word "MAY" to Cursed signets

2) add an unique upgrade to golems

3) have the spined Thresher attack be a higher initiative?

For #3 I feel like they are too efficient for thier cost a bit? I think a small change so that you can at least attack them first to give you a bit more of a chance to burn them down/get defense up first would help meditate the feel of them being OP. Of course maybe I just haven't fought enough against them.

#2 not sure what I would pick, but perhaps Protection (natural runes) vs ranged attacks? Or perhaps copy dk and ignore the first mortal strike?

4) remove precise from Ravos. Add spend a panic token to reroll one die

This is more thematic for me, but also a bit to address how powerful this unit is. I like the risk/reward of having to spend the panic for the reroll. And paniced/scared units should be easier to hit.

21 minutes ago, Xquer said:

4) remove precise from Ravos. Add spend a panic token to reroll one die

This is more thematic for me, but also a bit to address how powerful this unit is. I like the risk/reward of having to spend the panic for the reroll. And paniced/scared units should be easier to hit.

I love this. Brilliant idea.

-Spined thresher's red modifier is only Panic, not Panic + Hit. Free hit is better than a dice, and they have Brutal and lowest siege unit initiative!

-Ravos' special upgrades are banned. Guaranteed 6 move witha turn, even a chance at initiative 4!? Or pretty much guaranteed 10+ damage without him even rolling a dice!? Come on...

-Ravos' surge ability is Z = leathal X instead of unique splash wound. Could live with that it adds a unique Mortal Strike instead of pure wound to avoid invalidate Death Knights in the U-W matchup.

Given that this topic was intended to be rules changes and not unit changes...

I love the idea that regenerate gets to add trays. I would make it so it adds above and beyond the original tray count. Lingering Dead still serves a purpose for attacking and threat, but now there becomes an impetus to cross the map and engage those reanimate blobs immediately. It allows to build some HP to absorb the two turns (minimum) you will spend closing range to catch ranged units. It makes Necromancer a thing.

I like this a LOT

Anything dealing with terrain. Two or three representative terrain pieces are too little on a 6x3. The rules could use a rework.
Instead of Colliding with and Entering terrain, just make overlapping it a thing and add a climb/traverse option.

Maybe if your maneuver template overlaps the obstacle when you align it with your tray you decrease the speed of the move... I dunno... I'm not a game designer. But the game (which is a wargame after all) could use rules that allow for a move varied terrain and as a result more interesting table design instead of large plains of flat land with 3 pieces of cardboard.

Also I would finally make a unit with the Resilient keyword which last time I checked was part of the rules reference but is nowhere to be found on an actual unit

On 5/11/2018 at 8:13 AM, Church14 said:

 Just to prime that well, I’d like to reduce the emphasis score-wise on killing your opponent and go for objectives. Points killed are now only for tiebreaker. Your tourney score is now dependent purely on objective points  . This would mean all non-scoring objectives would not be usable for tourneys.

Completely agree with this change. The "missions first, points killed as tiebreaker" is one of the key advantages Legion has over RW. My Waiqar list from a few months ago was a toolbox built to deal with a variety of missions. Sadly, it just doesn't matter when faced with lists that merely set out to killdoze with tons of reliable threat three (and some cheap re-rollable threat two).

Missions as the primary win condition would open up listbuilding and rein in some of the Uthuk/Latari power creep.