There seems to be a general consensus that the Dunwarr Dwarves will be a race in an upcoming expansion. So, what should they look like?

• Alignment
• Starting TAC/INF
• Dial Configuration/Starting Dial Numbers
• Unit names/abilities/Hit Points/Base Shape/Initiative Number/Quantity
• Home Realm Configuration
• Unique Development

I have my thoughts about what this could look like, but I'd love to hear what you think.

Check out the Dunwarr Dwarves homebrew over on BGG (currently on page 2 of the variants forum.) As far as I'm concerned the guy who made that homebrew has totally nailed the dwarves in Terrinoth.

I'm going to necro this thread, but has there been any new rumors concerning this?

Atraangelis said:

The only "rumours" about dwarves being in a future expansion were a bunch of fans talking about how awesome it would be if dwarves (and orcs) were the next two races added to the game.

Many people pointed out how those were the two biggest races from Battlemist not yet represented in Runewars.

Many people mentioned how dwarves and orcs are both relatively civilized races in the Terrinoth universe, each of whom could conceivably have a nation working to gain dominance by joining the struggle for the runes.

I was involved in many of these discussions myself.

FFG never made any comments or promises concerning the idea. They never responded at all. There was never anything more to the idea than fans engaging in wishful thinking. The fact that Banners has been made and not introduced any new races suggests that FFG is not interested in adding new races to the game (especially since this is a Peterson game and thus unlikely to see a long string of continuous expansions.) I still think it's a cool idea, but if you want to actually see it, you're probably best off working on a home brew version to add to your game.

I just wish someone had responded to the original post with their ideas. Perhaps I'm the only one who enjoys trying to anticipate what FFG will do in future expansions.

The Dunwarr Dwarves that exists, and was referenced, was extremely lacking to me.

Psyco said:

Inconceivable! It is a very carefully designed and thematic homebrew.

Terah said:

I agree with Psyco - I didn't care much at all from the BGG version, there's just something about it that seems... I dunno, off. That doesn't mean they don't work, but they just didn't seem to fit the Runewars flavor for me.

sigmazero13 said:

Compared mechanically to the way the other Runewars races play, perhaps. Although that homebrew does incorporate just about every drop of dwarven fluff we know about from the general Terrinoth universe.

Different strokes for different folks, I suppose. That's the beauty of homebrew - if someone doesn't like what's out there, he can always make his own.

Steve-O said:

Is there a website that has all of the Terrinoth fluff that you're aware of?

I don't think there is, but Steve-O compiled a document at one point that had a bunch of stuff gleaned from the various Terrinoth games.

Psyco said:

I've posted the document on Boardgamegeek, under the Descent files section. It's a zip file called Runiverse Fluff.

It's not official from FFG or anything, but I tried as much as possible to stick to what's actually been written in these games, and to cite my sources where possible.

Psyco said:

I am sorry to hear that. I am very interested to hear you thoughts of what a Dunwarr Dwarves faction would look like. You said in your first post you had some ideas... well you've seen mine so perhaps it's time to reveal yours. Maybe I could change my version more to your liking.

Also if you have some concrete issues with my version I would very much like to hear that too. I know it's not perfect but maybe you can help me make it better.

The same goes for you, sigmazero (and every one else for that matter).

Well, I'm reading my comments on that thread, and apparently at one point I was more interested. I don't know what's changed my mind in the intervening time. Maybe not much, but I think my comments were also more speaking mechanically rather than thematically.

Reading it anew, I guess the things I'm not particularly keen on currently:

- The fact that the guards (a rectangle unit) take more hits than the bolters (a hexagon unit). It seems to be different just to be different.

- Initiative 2 hexagon units (weak or not).

- The Tunneler ability - I'm not a fan of things like that that are restricted to just one race just because they can be.

None of this is construed with being bad, but I guess something about the "theme" just doesn't feel right. They seem too "classical dwarf", and while I'm sure the Terrinoth dwarves share some of that, they seem to be focused too much on the mountain dwelling. In Diskwars, the Dwarves were a major faction, and while I'm not an expert, they didn't strike me as being all that subterranean-centric.

That doesn't mean they aren't balanced or play well. But I think the one thing that would keep me from really playing with them in a live game is the lack of minis. The tokens you made are nice, but when you have tokens and real minis on the board together... well, that kills some of the visual appeal of the game for me. I'd be more likely to maybe use them online, if someone added a module the VASSAL module I made. But considering I have barely found time to use the VASSAL module as it is, I'm not sure I would even then.

In games like this, though, I tend to be kind of indifferent about fan-made races anyway. Sometimes they are fun to talk about, but using them in a real game just doesn't tend to be my thing.

Thanks for you input!

The way I see it, the faction I created is less like the "mainstream" factions, Uthuk, Daqan and Waiqar, and more like the "odd" Elf faction (but maybe too odd?).

Your observation is correct - it is an attempt to be different. Whether it's a good decision or not is a matter of opinion. I will contemplate this for a while, maybe I will change this in favour of more "conventional" units.

(and it is an initiative 3 hexagon unit, not 2 )

I agree with you about the the Tunneler ability. It is gone in my latest version -- after revisiting my work after a couple of months absence I didn't like it either. Good point.

Concerning the theme I have no first hand sources of the dwarves in the Runebound universe. The materials about the dwarves from FFG I have is the one I got from Steve-O's compilation. Even thought he has made a great job, there isn't much information to work with. The rest is classical fantasy dwarves.

So here is my list of what I know:

*There are underground fortresses in Dunwarr, the homeland of the dwarves.

*They prefer to live isolated from the "chaos" in the rest of the world.

*Young dwarves are sent out from the underground fortresses of Dunwarr to rove the land and gather information and riches from all over. This is a rite of passage for many dwarves.

*A dwarven fortress city named Forge is renowned for its smiths and warriors. Forge has been known to take in refugees from other cities during times of war.

Sounds pretty generic fantasy to me, even though I would like it to be otherwise too.

I admit they say nothing about mountains, but there are references to underground fortresses so I assumed they are mainly an subterrainian race.

All help to get the Dwarves more in the spirit of runebound universe is appreciated. Maybe I should change the picture of the capital to another picture?

I agree with you about the miniatures -- all other components can be created with the help of downloadable material, but miniatures can't. Maybe when 3-d printers become generally available this can be solved (or when FFG decides to do the true version of the Dunwarr Dwarves).

Yay discussion!

@Hinnyboy: I really appreciate and commend you for all you've done so far. I know how much time it takes to pour into something like this. Also, thank you for still being open to hear outside opinions. Finally, I'm basing any information for your Dunwarr on the updated sheet from page 3 of the discussion on BGG.

Here's my first couple of thoughts (and I apologize if some of them are nitpicky, but it's what turned me off).

1) Conceptually, when I personally think of adding the Dwarves I think that they literally must go hand-in-hand with the Orcs. As such, I think creating the two together as a concept is a must.

2) I think you did the absolute right thing by making them Neutral. The Orcs, IMO, should follow suit as well. As such, instead of coming up with more rules I would try to come up with new "Neutral Objectives" and make any/all starting heroes for these guys be neutral. It would also give them no "opposite alignment", thus any/all neutral factions would not be as impacted by that wording in the game. It could also mean coming up with a "neutral" development (INF = Good, Tactics = Evil). Off the top of my head, perhaps being able to recruit 2 TRI neutral units could work.

3) I think you had the complete right idea of going away from a 5 TAC/0 INF start. But, I don't think there's any reason they should start off with more of either than any other faction (6 total instead of 5). Also, I think it should be just as easy to look at another player's faction sheet and immediately tell who has a higher initial influence. So, that would make the Dwarves & Orcs be something like 2 TAC/3.5 INF & 3 TAC/2.5 INF respectively. The only asterick would be that you round those half numbers as the beginning.

4) I love your artwork. Visually, however, it goes against the basics of the game. If you were to follow it all the way through, the Dwarf pieces would be gray, which obviously doesn't work, I think that you should make everything themed in a bold color similar to the rest. Perhaps yellow for the Dwarves and brown for the Orcs? In any event, please don't change the artwork or the graphics; just make them run through a yellow lens.

5) I'm glad you ditched Tunneler as an ability. I would suggest making some version of that the faction Development.

6) I agree with Sigma that the 3 health REC and 2 health HEX rub me the wrong way. Also, I think the Bolt Thrower ability is WAAAAY too powerful at Initiative 3. When I think Dwarves I think 1 unit of each type, plus two more REC units and have almost all of them have 2 health except for the Bolt Thrower. Perhaps that's entirely personal taste, but that's what I think.

7) I personally, for naming the units, would have used more from the Diskwars game. Instead of Guard I would use Defender. And instead of Stone Scribe I would have used War Priest or Pyromancer. If you want any version of the Dunwarr to stay current, coming up with other new units is a must. I would personally suggest Battlemaidens and/or a Crossbow unit (and keep the Ranger ability more about exploration).

8) I totally agree with the 3 starting Ore. I think if you do that though, you shouldn't have both of the Bolt Throwers on the same dial. Like Humans, split them up with one on wood.

9) Have you worked out two units to round them out with the expansion? Have you thought up Developments at all? Remember that each faction needs a "Fast" unit, one of each base type (which you already have), and one for each Initiative number. Leaving the RAW Dwarves without a Initiative 1 is great IMO.

That's all I've got for now. Like I said, there are a lot of things I really like and fit with the theme/existing Runewars stuff, but some of the above I can't get past. I'm sure I've thought of and forgotten other things, but I think this is a good place to start. I also have a lot of ideas for Orcs too. If others do as I well, we can start an "Orc" ideas thread.

Thanks for your input too, Psyco!

I will try to address all your issues (sorry for the long post).

1) Why is it a must? I agree that having the Orcs as a faction as well is appealing. I even started making such a faction (we can talk about that in another thread...), but when I realised how much time it took to create all the components for a faction, I put it on the shelf. It's not like they are impossible to do afterwards. But I will leave that for others to create (for the time being at least).

2) Thank you! I agree that any Orcs faction should be neutral as well (all the Orc heroes are neutral, and it's thematic etc.).

I actually started creating Neutral Objective cards as you suggested but they felt somewhat "forced" so I decided to go with the random Good/Evil card draw instead. I think I will leave this to others as well to create. If they turn out to possess the same standard as the official objective cards I will absolutely support them!

I don't know if I have published the rules for that but they will start with a random Neutral hero, and they have no opposite alignment (this have changed a few times in the making process but this is where it landed -- so here we are on the same frequency).

I decided to give them one of each of the tactics and influence development to further emphasise that they are somewhere in between Good and Evil, I think that is enough. I don't want to disturb this concept too much. Good idea though!

3) I may not have been very clear in this regard, but the asterisk will remind you that they loose to every other faction if it comes to comparing starting influence, even to the Uthuk faction. So it's not equal to rounding down or anything like that.

Runewars seem to give a value of 2 influence for each tactics cards (see fall secondary ability, development tokens and exploration tokens) so why give equal weight to the starting influence and starting tactics cards? My hypotheses is that as starting influence gives more than just starting influence -- they are also used for tie-breaking -- making each starting influence worth equal to not 1 but 2 influence that is acquired during play (or equal to 1 tactics card if you will). So by giving the Dwarves the lowest possible rank in tie-breaks will make their starting influence actually be worth less than the other factions' starting influence.

So that's the rationale behind giving them a total of 6 influence/tactics cards.

4) I was thinking of making them dark grey, but perhaps yellow is better -- it might be too much work for me to change now (almost done with the "high definition" version of the faction sheet...). I will give it some serious thought, though.

5) I have actually already considered that. In fact the first draft is already done (see below).

6) Great to here your thoughts!

Regarding the Guard/Bolt thrower relation I find it very appealing as it is now (obviously!), it is one of the things I am most proud of. It's regrettable you don't share this opinion. I don't think I will change this though. I hope you can live with it. If not, maybe I can create an alternative version of the faction when everything is finished.

The bolt thrower's ability is certainly very powerful, but only against powerful enemies like hexagon units and such. Against light troops they are much less effective (compare this to the Roc, Dragon or Dark Knight for instance). As the ability's name suggests it's a monster slayer.

In total the Bolt Thrower is one of the most destructive units on the field. After several plays and some "battle simulation", I have not found it OP though (and I have not received any feedback at all on actual game play from other player groups, as of yet). I will certainly keep an eye on this one.

On a side note, the Bolt Thrower is at an equal initiative level as the upgraded Roc (in banners of wars expansion).

Maybe I can change place on the Bolt Thrower and the Stone Scribe, initiative wise, making it less powerful at the expense of some of the uniqueness of the unit (making them equal to the Roc, Obseen and Dragon in initiative). But then again, I wanted the Stone Scribes to be slower than Warlocks (what a mess). What do you think?

7) Great! Defender it is! This is great information. Never thought of taking unit theme from discwars before (never knew there where named units in diskwars). Diskwars and Runewars supposedly share the same universe (at some degree, at least), don't they?

Can you list all units for the dwarves in diskwars and give a brief description on what roles and powers they have? It would be much appreciated!

Are you talking about the Banners of War expansion when you say I should come up with new units? Any suggestion on a powerful level 5 hexagon unit (to follow the pattern with the other factions)?

8) Like this:
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/815353/hinnyboy

I have already been down that road and it doesn't end with a pretty sight. It's almost scary how much time I have given to think about the distribution of the units in the resource dials.

I have tried to change the places so that they have the same distribution as the siege towers (because I agree with you), but then it will mess up the rest of the units' placement.

9) Yes, I have a first draft but the new units are totally made up by me, but game mechanically wise they represent the direction I want the Dunwarr Dwarves to take.

Though I don't agree with that they must have an initiative 1 unit and fast units. The whole theme of the dwarves are that they are slow.

Please comment!

Have a look:

New Units

Shape-shifter (Recruited instead of Stone Scribes)
1 hp Rectangle. Init 3. Orb: Bear Form - All Shape-shifters have a health of 2 until the end of the battle. In addition deal <damage>. If this defeats a unit, deal additional <damage>.

Mountain Guardian (Recruited instead of Bolt Throwers)
4 HP Hexagon. Init 5. Orb: deal <damage> for each Ore in the area of the battle.

Development Cards

Crow Form
Cost: Food Wood
Shape-shifters are now Fast, Flying and initiative 2.

Ancients of the Mountain
Cost Ore
Mountain Guardians have now a health of 5.

Veteran Rangers
Cost: Wood Food
When target of a hero or unit ability your Ranger units counts as [square] units.

The Ranger Gather Information ability is now: Gain 1 Influence and deal 1 [rout].

Advanced Windlass
Cost: Ore
Bolt Throwers are now initiative 2.

Rune Striker
Cost: Ore Food
The Stone Scribe Rune of War ability is now: Deal [rout] then deal [damage]. Then you may stand 1 unit or remove all damage token on 1 unit.

Resilience
Cost: Food
Instead of taking damage or rout with a Guard you may take 1 Influence from your supply and place it next to the unit. You may not place more than one Influence on each Guard. Discard all Influence placed in this way at the end of the battle, or when the unit is defeated.

Tunnel System
Cost: Food Ore Wood
Your [triangle], [circle] and [rectangle] units may freely move through red mountain borders.

Capital Stronghold
Cost: Ore Ore
Replace a stronghold in your home realm with your capital stronghold. This capital has a strength of 7 and can have 2 development tokens attached to it.

The costs of the development cards are almost completely arbitrary (but the tunnel system should cost 3 resources at least).

I just realize now that I have been mixing up Disk Wars with Battlemist. Are both those in the same universe as Runewars or what? Is there Dunwarr Dwarves in both those games?

Hinnyboy said:

Yes and no.

Diskwars and Battlemist ostensibly shared the same universe, back in the day. Battlemist was upgraded into Runewars, bringing a lot of its own mythology into the Terrinoth setting. This would arguably also bring Diskwars into the Terrinoth setting, although I would be inclined to give the newer Terrinoth games priority in cases where the fluff conflicts with anything that might be said in Diskwars.

Having never played Diskwars myself, I didn't include anything from it in my fluff compilation. If someone has a handy source for whatever fluff might exist in Diskwars (I'm guessing it's all in the rulebooks since I don't see the idea of flavour text on die faces working out well =P) I'd be interested to take a look see, at the very least.

Sorry for the delay in my response.

1) You're right in that it isn't a must. I don't think it should be done any other way. The original 4 factions were not created individually and then thrown together. From where I sit I think of "what would an expansion look like?" not merely, "what would a fan made version of Dwarves look like?" The tie in between Orcs & Dwarves seems inevitable, thus that's how I came up with what I did.

2) I think a group of committed players could come up with Objectives on par with the originals.

And you and I will have to agree to disagree on how much the concept is disturbed. I think giving them access to an extra Development imbalances the game more than creating a new one that would apply to any/all Neutral factions.

3) Again, we'll have to agree to disagree. I think that the total value of any starting TAC/INF should be 5. Moreover, from the above I ask, what then do you do with the Orcs? If you plan for only the Dwarves in this way it could foul up any other factions that come down the line.

4) If you'd ever be willing to run the final version through a yellow screen and e-mail it to me, I would greatly appreciate it. Your artwork is very good. I just think grey would be too confusing given the Heroes.

5) Good.

6) I'm not saying it's a bad ability, nor do I disagree with much of what you said. But by having an Initiative 3 unit with this ability, and it hits, you effectively take out every other hex unit. The fact that the Roc deals 4 damage is mitigated by the fact that the Humans were arguably the weakest race prior to the expansion. Every other Hex unit (except the very situational Obscene) is a base initiative 5 because they are so powerful. To say that's it's ineffective against weaker units means, what exactly? I should only try attacking any Dwarf army with at least one bolt thrower with only my weakest units? It just seems that a unit that eliminates the effectiveness of another unit type (aka, any Hex) will be at least hated by those that don't have it and at the worst very imbalanced. I

f nothing else is changed, making it Initiative 4 would take out the imbalance I perceive. Then again, if you like it and the people you know that play with it don't have a problem, leave it. I think we're thinking so differently that changing to please me wouldn't be very fruitful.

7) I only suggested Diskwars because there are already existing units. Battlemist is obviously what Runewars is based in, but there are definitely units within Diskwars that are idenitifed as the Dunwarr _______ unit for the Dwarves. As such, instead of reinventing the wheel, I figured it would be easier/possibly more fun to use what already exists. On the Diskwars page of BGG there is an Excel spreadsheet listed under "Files. http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/397/disk-wars

8) This just comes down to taste. i don't like how your final version (at least on BGG) breaks up your most abundant unit onto two dials (every other faction follows this course). And, if you were truly following the "different like the Elves" your most abundant unit should be on the Ore. That being said, It does seem really weird that the "Stone Scribe" isn't on Ore. It could look like...

2 Food: Guard, TAC, Guard, BLANK, Scribe, BLANK, BLANK, Guard

2 Wood: Scribe, INF, TAC, Bolt, INF, Bolt, TAC, INF

3 Ore: Ranger, INF, Ranger, TAC, Ranger, INF, Ranger, TAC

I only think the Bolt Throwers should be on different dials if you start them with 3 Ore. I don't think they should be able to take over one tile and have access to both Bolt Throwers.

9) I can only point out that every group now has a unit at every initiative number, even the thematically "fast" Elves with the Forest Guardian. Also, every faction needs a "Fast" unit otherwise the "Flanking Charge" Commander card will be useless.

Thanks again for your input! Even if our opinions might differ in some ways this is extremely valuable to me (or maybe it is because they differ).

1) All right, now I understand what you mean.

2) Well they are not getting an extra, they have one less resource development, but I see what you mean.

3) But giving them a total of 5 would either put them at a slight advantage or at a slight disadvantage depending on if you round up or down. And it would create a further gap between the original faction. E.g. if you were to give them a starting influence of 2.5 the Waiqar faction would have 3 factions with better starting influence in the event of a tie and the Daqan Lords would have only 1.

Maybe them being neutral already gives them an advantage (no opposite alignment for instance) so a slight disadvantage wouldn't be that bad. But still, you can't write 2.5 or 3.5 on the faction sheet can you (is it 2 or 3 influence, new players may ask)? But that is maybe a minor issue.

Give the orcs 3 tactics and 1 influence (or 2 tactics and 2 influence) and they always win a tie with starting influence.

6) By not effective against weak units I mean that if you don't bring a hexagon unit into the battle, the bolt thrower will not be quite as potent a unit. Against 4 reanimates, 2 necromancers and 2 skeleton archers, or 2 knights, 4 footmen and 2 bowmen for instance, they are less effective than a Dark Knight, a Dragon or a Roc for instance. But against 4 reanimates and 2 Dark knights, or 4 footmen and 2 siege towers they would be much more effective. So yes they are nasty against Hex units specifically. And it's only 1/5 chance they get their orb, so they are no way a auto-win unit.

I will create two version (initiative 3 vs 4) and test which is better received by my group. Maybe it's only me...

7) Completely agree. Thanks for the link. But holy crap that's a lot of units With no pictures or further information it may be hard for me to make use of it. I will certainly use defender though. Now I know what sigmazero's suggestion "Arrow Cannon" comes from (see the first page on Dunwarr Dwarves on BBG). It's worth reconsidering. Would it be suitable?

8) Yes, I think you are beginning to see the complexity of choosing ore as the abundant resource. A big problem is that food and wood have 4 unit slots and ore have 3 "heavy" unit slots (furthermore, wood and ore also have very "fixed" slots -- no faction sheet differs in this regard). I don't want to change this. Another is that ore is more difficult to acquire (more difficult neutral units etc.). Thematically I really want ore to be the abundant resource but mechanically it introduces a lot of problems.

Maybe I should just use food as the abundant resource. Sigmazero pointed out that he thought that they are too mountain oriented anyway.

9) True. I see what I can do (about the FAST trait at least).

And thank you for yours!

2) I missed that and I understand your perspective.

3) Every faction is at an advantage or disadvantage...that's the point of it not being equal. Once again, if the Dwarves were the only possible faction I understand your point. As I think there is room for more than one faction, I think the total of 5 makes all the more sense.

And if it was me, I would definitely write down the ".5" numbers on the faction sheet. I say this because for new players they only need to reference the rulebook once to find out that all ".5" numbers are rounded down, versus referencing the rulebook every time they were trying to remember the tiebreaker scenario. It's a matter of how many times it's done and looking over it's obvious to everyone that 3.5 is bigger than 3 and smaller than 4. I would have the Orcs be 3 TAC/2.5 INF.

6) I guess it's just too much of a swing for me. Either it's very ineffective or it's ridiculously powerful at Initiative 3.

7) You're welcome. I agree that it shouldn't be the end all to deciding potential units, but I think it's a good place to start. I'd have to see the picture of the Arrow Cannon before I decided which term I preferred.

8) I'm not beginning to see necessarily. I've collaborated with another person and come up with 5 new factions (in total including Banners material) and one of them is an ore abundant group (one that we felt was "more" mountain oriented than the Dwarves). Moreover, it is known that ore is generally harder to obtain, but that would give an edge to any faction with their weakest unit in ore, if only because their stronger units would be in food & wood. If this is taken into consideration when building the factions, I don't think it's an issue.

9) Please keep me informed as I'd like to hear your thoughts.

I'll be posting my version of the Dwarves soon.

Here's my version of the Dunwarr Dwarves. Through collaberation I thought it best to create some new Traits and some new components. Here they are first:

Stalwart = Units with the Stalwart attribute may not become routed or be forced to retreat by an opponent during a battle.

Taunt = When placing damage to your units in battle, standing units with the Taunt attribute must be assigned damage first. Assigning damage to already damaged units still applies.

Protection Token = A Protection token may be used at any point during a battle to absorb one damage or to remove one damage from any unit. Unused tokens are discarded after the battle.

Entangle Token = When a unit has an Entangle token assigned to it, the unit may not draw Fate cards for the remainder of the battle. In addition, during any battle the unit may not become routed until all other available units have been routed first and the unit cannot be forced to retreat.

Dunwarr Dwarves (Neutral, 2 TAC/3.5 INF)

2 Food – Ranger, Ranger, INF, Blank, Ranger, Blank, Ranger, Blank
2 Wood – Battle, INF, TAC, Defender, INF, Catapult, INF, TAC
3 Ore – TAC, Defender, INF, Catapult, TAC, Battle, TAC, Defender

Name, Initiative/Shape/Health/Number

[DEF] Watchman (Taunt), 1/REC/2/8

Flank: Until the end of the battle, when an enemy unit is damaged, you may deal 1 damage to a standing Watchman (which must be applied to one that is already wounded, if possible) to deal 1 additional damage to that enemy unit.

Ranger, 2/TRI/1/16

Aimed Shot: Deal 1 damage. Your opponent must assign this to a unit with Initiative 3 or higher (if able).

Defender (Stalwart), 3/REC/2/8

Guard: Stand 1 of your routed units or add one Protection token to your army.

[CAT] War Priest (Stalwart), 3/CIR/2/4

War Chant: Deal 1 rout and add one Protection token to your army.

Battlemaiden, 4/REC/2/8

Threatening: Choose 1 enemy unit with 1 health remaining. That unit must immediately retreat from the battle.

Catapult, 5/HEX/3/4

Fire Bombs: Deal 2 routs or 3 damage.

Home Realm : Ore, Food/Ore, Wood (Double Mountain at the point)/Ore, Wood, Food (Double Mountain at the point)

Developments :2 Resources, 1 Neutrality Pact (Place 2 Neutral TRI units at the Stronghold), 3 Clan Leader (Immediately before a battle in this area, this token may be discarded to add 3 Protection Tokens to your army. These Protection Tokens remain until used. This token is discarded after use, but may be built again.)

Development Cards :
Reconnaissance – Watchman (1 Food, 1 Ore): Immediately after resolving the secondary ability of a fall Season card, you may rout any number of Watchmen to discard an equal number of Tactics cards and draw that same number from the draw pile. Any cards gained this way may be used in the same season.
Boldness of Youth – Ranger (1 Food): When an opponent plays a Tactics card against you during battle, you may sacrifice up to 2 of your standing Rangers to deal an equal number of damage to your opponent.
Rousing Song – Defender (1 Food, 1 Ore): When calculating final strength, gain an additional +1 strength for every Defender (standing or routed) in the battle.
Axes of Cool Name – Battlemaiden (1 Wood, 1 Ore): When resolving Fate cards for your Battlemaidens during battle, each damage result instead deals routs of the same number.
Staff of Booming Voice – War Priest (1 Wood): The War Chant ability is now: “Deal 2 routs and add 2 Protection Tokens to your army.”
Salvagers – Catapult (1 Wood): When at least one Catapult is destroyed during a battle, instead of placing it into your reinforcements, you may instead place it in any area of your home realm. Then place one of your activation tokens in the area if there is not one there already.
Under the Mountains – Faction (1 Food, 2 Ore): Your units may ignore mountain (red) borders. If the movement of your units passes through a mountain border you may use the Hidden Pass Tactics card to have all of your units gain +1 movement. You may never retreat through a mountain border.

Whoops. In the above, the Battlemaiden is supposed to have the "Fast" trait.