Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 frozenwastes wrote:


It looks like there's a gap to allow for the protruding puzzle piece but the actual anchor point is the base corner? Am I just not seeing it right?

I think you're seeing it right, the anchor point is the corner and then it indents so either side can accomodate the protruding edge of the puzzle piece. When you get to the end it bumps back out again to meet the edge of the base.

I lold when I read about units receiving panic tokens when they miss each other "Omg, omg, I screwed up. What should I do?"

The fact that units can miss each other is a thorn in the eye from a realistic perspective, but as a "gamey" mechanic I think that it makes the game more interesting. After all locking into combat may be a little harsher than I suspect and the charge may be a bigger deal than it seems. It is a quirk of the system as much as the dials are - I don't see it as a hindrance.

Speaking of the charge rules, since I've not read the leaked rulebook nor read the unit cards, how severe is unit locking? Is it a fight to the death or can a unit retreat or eventually fall back?

 Eilif wrote:

I think you're seeing it right, the anchor point is the corner and then it indents so either side can accomodate the protruding edge of the puzzle piece. When you get to the end it bumps back out again to meet the edge of the base.

So anyone who hates the puzzle piece look could just replace them with laser cut mdf of dimensions based on the corners?

And then keep dials and whatnot on a small side table.

As for my earlier contradictory position on dials, it comes from playing against ships in X-wing where two ships are identical and the person keeps the dials back and then mixes up which one goes with which ship and is like "I didn't want to do that with this guy." The dials are extra clutter, which I don't like, but having them far away can lead to mistakes.

CoreCommander wrote: I lold when I read about units receiving panic tokens when they miss each other "Omg, omg, I screwed up. What should I do?"

The fact that units can miss each other is a thorn in the eye from a realistic perspective, but as a "gamey" mechanic I think that it makes the game more interesting. After all locking into combat may be a little harsher than I suspect and the charge may be a bigger deal than it seems. It is a quirk of the system as much as the dials are - I don't see it as a hindrance.

Speaking of the charge rules, since I've not read the leaked rulebook nor read the unit cards, how severe is unit locking? Is it a fight to the death or can a unit retreat or eventually fall back?

I don't exactly recall I'll check the rulebook and get back to you later this evening. I think there is a penalty for withdrawl, but I'll find out for sure.

frozenwastes wrote:

So anyone who hates the puzzle piece look could just replace them with laser cut mdf of dimensions based on the corners?

And then keep dials and whatnot on a small side table.

As for my earlier contradictory position on dials, it comes from playing against ships in X-wing where two ships are identical and the person keeps the dials back and then mixes up which one goes with which ship and is like "I didn't want to do that with this guy." The dials are extra clutter, which I don't like, but having them far away can lead to mistakes.

Fair point about dial clutter. The game does have pairs of numbered tokens (one for the unit and one for the card) that you can use to differentiate units of the same type but they aren't very big. From across the table you might have to ask your opponent to clarify which is which. Still, as long as the dial is kept by the card it should keep things strait.

If you hate the puzzle piece look you could easily make new turning templates. Just add the thickness of the indent around the curve. You could use the existing trays with the puzzle pieces chopped off and indents filled or make new movement trays.

I see it now how the protruding piece ends up being the stopping point at the end of the movement. Yeah, that would require new or modified templates.

jonboyjon1990 wrote:

 mikhaila wrote:

Mutter wrote:

jonboyjon1990 wrote:

I think the FFG CEO himself said in the GenCon Keynote speech, that this is a game where the rules come first and miniatures come second.

Almost all the people I know bought the X-Wing stuff mainly for the miniatures, rules were only a distant second.
This will not happen with Runewars.

This is very true. Conversations in the game store i own start with "Oooh, those are the Star Wars models i heard about, and i heard there is a game you can play with them".

Players get into xwing because of the models, the background, the love of star wars. They play the game because it's Star Wars and they own the models.

I don't see Rune Wars getting this huge boost of players. RW will live or die based on how people like the models and rules. Judged without the benefit of a huge franchise.

Well you kind of agree with my point then. X-wing draws people in with the minis and IP, and keeps them with the fantastic rules.

RW will draw people in with FFG's well built reputation for successful games, successful minis games, great OP, some people's needs for a 'better' rank and file game, and keep them with the fantastic rules.

That's one way to look at it.

Most happen to think their original IPS are ridiculously sub par creatively, their rules are bloated without need, and with so many already solid choices out there for designs, their inclusion into the market is redundant and many have already remarked on the rules being less than fantastic.

I'm definitely not interested in yet another attempt by a company to be drug into their lifestyle game with an IP that has all the creativity of wet cardboard.

Add another vote to the "no, thanks" pile that's accumulating.

With the number of FREE copies FFG has given out of this game to promote it, For their sakes it really needs to takes off. I'm not so sure it will, but FFG has been pushing this hard. Like they want to keep something out of Disney's thumb by not having it be Star Wars and it Being a success. If you look at their history with miniatures games, only the Star Wars ones have been a success. Anima Tactics? Failed and dropped! Dust Tactics? Failed and dropped!

They really need Rune Wars to take off.

I would actually say the commentary on the game and rules (from those who have actually played it) is rather more positive than negative, going on the past few pages of comment.

Of course, there is the possibility that those that weren't enamoured wouldnt bother posting about it

Meh. I live at FFG central. Their games plague the twin cities. This newest game being no exception.

It is anecdotal, but I'm not hearing rave reviews from the locals. More along the line of "competent, but why bother?"

My own experience with this is the same. I'm not seeing why I should pursue this. I don't have "brand loyalty", so I couldn't care less what bloated pap FFG produce this time. The background is craptastic terrinoth, a long standing struggle by FFG to make it relevant has produced nothing other than force feeding their consumers an attempt to brand genericism that made gw profitable, yet failing.
The models have a couple neat bits, but largely unremarkable. So no draw there either.

Its the acme of mediocrity, except its "the newnizz" and has fans of ffgs bloat as their main defenders.

Conversely, there's tons of people from the tabletop/board gaming community who LOVE and have been playing Descent (the dungeon crawler set in FFG's Terrinoth universe) - they may migrate to Runewars. Then there's the Battlelore people too.

And I'm not sure where this reputation of FFG's minis games being "bloated" comes from? My experience of tabletop miniatures games is:

Games Workshop:
- New editions every few years
- Massive, complicated, obtuse, tombs of rules, with each army needing it's own rulebook
- Frequent reference to the rules during gameplay
- A core rulebook that costs £50 and army codexes that cost £35

FFG:
- Simple, phase based play,
- Dynamic, you-go, I-go systems
- Short (around 20 pages or less) rulebooks
- After learning games, incredibly rare and infrequent reference to the rules
- Rules that are free!

So, is there an official release date yet? I think I read early april, doesn't seem to be out yet.. seems like people are playing, but are they just playtesters and reviewers?

thinking about picking up the starter set

I think most people who've already got theirs received it as part of the Adepticon swag-bag ...

Mutter wrote:
I think most people who've already got theirs received it as part of the Adepticon swag-bag ...

Yep, if you weren't an early tester of some sort, I think most came from Adepticon.

The relese date according to an asmodee rep is mid April, but I haven't heard anything repeated anywhere else.
https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1747021/release-date-early-april

Don't know if folks have seen these yet. I am still leaning towards no for the figures, but these videos made me like them a bit more than I did initially.







For anyone into these sorts of things the same gentleman has many awesome videos on his channel, including ones for Descent, Zombicide, Z:Black Plague, and Imperial Assault

~Eric

The default color scheme for the humans doesn't really do the game any favors.

jonboyjon1990 wrote:
Conversely, there's tons of people from the tabletop/board gaming community who LOVE and have been playing Descent (the dungeon crawler set in FFG's Terrinoth universe) - they may migrate to Runewars. Then there's the Battlelore people too.

Battlelore players want to play battlelore, and most are pretty salty at FFG right now anyway

Haven't seen any RW threads on the BGG Descent forums, or crossover posts of any Terrinoth game among the BGG forums, for that matter. Terrinoth is a generic fantasy setting that hasn't been developed by FFG (same for their Android universe, I think). It's certainly not like GW, where, as soon as they announce a game, all the GW gamers start posting about it (same for Glorantha, I suppose!).

jonboyjon1990 wrote:
Conversely, there's tons of people from the tabletop/board gaming community who LOVE and have been playing Descent (the dungeon crawler set in FFG's Terrinoth universe) - they may migrate to Runewars. Then there's the Battlelore people too.

I really don't think they're going to get a lot of BattleLore people, because BattleLore has been left to die an anonymous and unannounced death with only three factions playable. The player base is feeling really, really burned with how FFG handled it.

With the exception of X-Wing that totally proves the rule, FFG has a miserable track record with actual miniatures games (as opposed to board games that happen to have miniatures). Others have listed some of their past failures, but everyone seems to have forgotten how awful their Mutant Chronicles attempt was in the pre-painted space.

I'm really just not entirely clear who this is pitched at, and what advantage it has over competing minis games.

The fact that it's a better game maybe?

(I realise that seemingly comes as a lower priority in some cases, compared to which company's logo is on the side of the box)

The problem about "better" is the cost of this utility. This cost is the hundreds of dollars the miniatures are expected to cost, the time it takes to paint them, and whatever work is needed to build the community.

Reviews have said the game is, indeed, better, but that the reviewer would not have picked up the game if they had to pay for it. Considering that the starter set MSRP is something like $100, that means this "better" isn't worth the cost of the game.

 Pacific wrote:
The fact that it's a better game maybe?

(I realise that seemingly comes as a lower priority in some cases, compared to which company's logo is on the side of the box)

Define better. Then realise it's a meaningless effort. Just a question, do you eat five moderately light meals a day, do exercise regularly etc. etc.? That list of things, if done, would be better for your health. But people don't just do something that is good, otherwise Mcdonalds and company would have gone bankrupt ages ago. People do what they like and while rulesets can be a nice factor they aren't the end all. Even leaving outside things like companies.

 Pacific wrote:
The fact that it's a better game maybe?

(I realise that seemingly comes as a lower priority in some cases, compared to which company's logo is on the side of the box)

Oh, are we resorting to "if you prefer something else, you have objectively gak taste" already? Stellar argument.

ced1106 wrote:The problem about "better" is the cost of this utility. This cost is the hundreds of dollars the miniatures are expected to cost, the time it takes to paint them, and whatever work is needed to build the community.

Reviews have said the game is, indeed, better, but that the reviewer would not have picked up the game if they had to pay for it. Considering that the starter set MSRP is something like $100, that means this "better" isn't worth the cost of the game.

I was that reviewer. It's true I wouldn't have picked up the game if it hadn't been given to me, but that has much more to do with my love of indie wargaming and my satisfaction with the games I've been playing, (in some cases for years) rather than the cost of this set. My experience with GW games, and observing Warmachine leads me to believe that if I were looking for a "Big Name" fantasy wargame this would be an excellent choice and certainly the one I'd choose over those two.

rmeister0 wrote:
I really don't think they're going to get a lot of BattleLore people, because BattleLore has been left to die an anonymous and unannounced death with only three factions playable. The player base is feeling really, really burned with how FFG handled it.

With the exception of X-Wing that totally proves the rule, FFG has a miserable track record with actual miniatures games (as opposed to board games that happen to have miniatures). Others have listed some of their past failures, but everyone seems to have forgotten how awful their Mutant Chronicles attempt was in the pre-painted space.

I'm really just not entirely clear who this is pitched at, and what advantage it has over competing minis games.

Battlelore does seem to have died an unfortuante death. I recently bought everything but the one-offs at clearance just to be sure I had the whole package for future play with my son. FFG doesn't have the best track record, but the truth is that most games don't last more than a few years. If the biggest and most reliable rulesets don't appeal to you, you buy the games you want to play and you take your chances.

Eilif, that is some damn faint praise. "the market for this game is the same market that almost kept these other unknown games afloat."

 Eilif wrote:

ced1106 wrote:The problem about "better" is the cost of this utility. This cost is the hundreds of dollars the miniatures are expected to cost, the time it takes to paint them, and whatever work is needed to build the community.

Reviews have said the game is, indeed, better, but that the reviewer would not have picked up the game if they had to pay for it. Considering that the starter set MSRP is something like $100, that means this "better" isn't worth the cost of the game.

I was that reviewer. It's true I wouldn't have picked up the game if it hadn't been given to me, but that has much more to do with my love of indie wargaming and my satisfaction with the games I've been playing, (in some cases for years) rather than the cost of this set. My experience with GW games, and observing Warmachine leads me to believe that if I were looking for a "Big Name" fantasy wargame this would be an excellent choice and certainly the one I'd choose over those two.

rmeister0 wrote:
I really don't think they're going to get a lot of BattleLore people, because BattleLore has been left to die an anonymous and unannounced death with only three factions playable. The player base is feeling really, really burned with how FFG handled it.

With the exception of X-Wing that totally proves the rule, FFG has a miserable track record with actual miniatures games (as opposed to board games that happen to have miniatures). Others have listed some of their past failures, but everyone seems to have forgotten how awful their Mutant Chronicles attempt was in the pre-painted space.

I'm really just not entirely clear who this is pitched at, and what advantage it has over competing minis games.

Battlelore does seem to have died an unfortuante death. I recently bought everything but the one-offs at clearance just to be sure I had the whole package for future play with my son. FFG doesn't have the best track record, but the truth is that most games don't last more than a few years. If the biggest and most reliable rulesets don't appeal to you, you buy the games you want to play and you take your chances.

These last few lines ... so true, so sad. I've invested in countless small systems and they usually don't end well. Still play some, but it's not as much fun as a supported game.
Why we are doing Age of Sigmar at the moment. Fun and manageable, but active and current as well.

Regardless I am putting together and painting Rune Wars. Worth my chances... I hope.

It's true that FFG discontinuing games has become a running joke (which will be the next one?), but it is also true that they produce content for their games (atleast those I used to and still play) at such a rate that most gamers find it difficult to squeeze the most out of the current expansion before the next one hits the shelves. One can buy FFG stuff, knowing that eventually it will be discontinued, but finding inner peace in the fact that he can play with the amassed expansions for a long time.

As someone living in an area that had a huge WFB following during 8th I know exactly the type of person this game is targeting, and I'm hopeful it will work.

When Age of Sigmar came out, the general feeling in this area was that it was a steaming pile of garbage. Playing that wasn't even a consideration. I hear they've made big improvements since then, but it still isn't the kind of game that someone who really enjoys WFB is going to be thrilled about. WFB was about tactical movement, getting the right units to charge in the right places, etc.

Those players tried Kings of War, but found it lacking. It's more tactical than Sigmar, for sure, but still doesn't have the level of complexity they're looking for. Some are playing 9th Age, but it's a difficult game to get going since it doesn't have a rulebook you can buy.

Based on my observations, the community that actually grew the most after 8th died was X-Wing. It was really surprising to me (the games look nothing alike) but made sense after I thought about it some. The games test a similar skillset; they're both all about movement and trying to outsmart your opponent by dictating the engagement better. I made this observation before Runewars was announced.

When Runewars was announced, I was certain that someone at FFG had made the same observation. The Runewars rules everything that WFB 8th Edition fans are looking for, in terms of playstyle. It also has more OP support than they're used to. It should be a home run with that crowd.

The downsides are the lack of model quality (they're fine, but they're not up to GW standards) and an unfamiliar business model. For a community that has become very used to using models from any miniatures line they'd like and customizing them as they see fit, the inflexible tournament guidelines that are most likely coming will be a bit of a rude awakening. The cards, especially, I see as a huge sticking point for some people; they've warmed up to it a bit with X-Wing, but many WFB players really didn't like the idea of "you can't have this upgrade unless you have the official card" and that will certainly be the case here, too. Some will be put off by the dials, the movement templates, etc. But overall, I think this game is going to be really great for a very significant percentage of that community. I know a few of us are going in heavily here.

BobtheInquisitor wrote:Eilif, that is some damn faint praise. "the market for this game is the same market that almost kept these other unknown games afloat."

I don't pretend to praise the market. If you read my review linked above my praise is mostly for the rules which I found really refreshing.

I've been gaming for 25 years and one constant is that most games die after a few years. I thinks folks need to take a bit of perspective here. Maybe in 3- 4 years Runewars will be dead, but in the meantime players will have regular releases, tournament support, and very likely a farily active local fan presence. Can you say the same for Wrath of Kings, Clan War, Chronopia, AVP, etc, etc...

Shrapnelsmile wrote:
These last few lines ... so true, so sad. I've invested in countless small systems and they usually don't end well. Still play some, but it's not as much fun as a supported game.
Why we are doing Age of Sigmar at the moment. Fun and manageable, but active and current as well.

Regardless I am putting together and painting Rune Wars. Worth my chances... I hope.

AoS hasn't gotten my interest yet, but it seems to be a better and less clunky ruleset than WHFB and with GW you are guaranteed presence, players and some measure of longevity (at least until they Sigmar your game...). Anytime you venture outside the big games there's always a risk, but folks just have to set their expectations accordingly and decide if it's worth it.

 Eilif wrote:

Battlelore does seem to have died an unfortuante death. I recently bought everything but the one-offs at clearance just to be sure I had the whole package for future play with my son. FFG doesn't have the best track record, but the truth is that most games don't last more than a few years. If the biggest and most reliable rulesets don't appeal to you, you buy the games you want to play and you take your chances.

Some have managed to last quite well, particularly WM/H and Malifaux. But beyond that, yea, the market is crowded with failed attempts. For a while I think I bought all of them

I think what's slowly becoming more and more common, which was always true in historicals, is that people are willing to play rule sets that don't come with predefined models. Song of Blades and Heroes, Dragon Rampant, Frostgrave, One Page Rules, etc., gives the actual models you buy a life longer than the game they were made for. Heck, I've played more games of SoBaH with my Malifaux figures than I have ever played Malifaux itself.

 Shrapnelsmile wrote:
These last few lines ... so true, so sad. I've invested in countless small systems and they usually don't end well. Still play some, but it's not as much fun as a supported game.
Why we are doing Age of Sigmar at the moment. Fun and manageable, but active and current as well.

That's pretty much why I stick to "flagship" games, such as Songs of Blade and Heroes. These are the best-selling and primary products of their companies, so these companies are less likely to stop supporting them than a company which has other, better selling, product lines. This is also why I'm skipping CMON's Game of Thrones and Wrath of Kings, as well as various Mantic and FFG games. Of course, if a game doesn't need support, by all means pick it up!