Simple rune changes

littlenuke#9412

An idea for simple rune changes which can greatly increase rune usability and quality of play for the dawi:

- Anvil of doom reduces rune recharge time

- current rune of wrath and ruin renamed to rune of shackles

- new rune of wrath and ruin implemented to be like a Foot of Gork. An idea is an ethereal hammer pounds the ground dealing major magical damage.

These changes can be very beneficial for expanding the dawi's playstyle and are relatively minor changes. They greatly increase rune usability and is a step in a more lore friendly direction.

Thank you

- Karaz A Karak discord

eumaies#1128

I like it. Could also be rune of slowness

AWizard_Lizard

Oh this is the faster/easier implementation section

TheShiroOfDalton

I'm still calling it the Rune of Sloth and Snail.

eumaies#1128

The Rune of Naptime

The_real_FAUST#6885

Runes in the Army books were so plentiful, there are so many varieties.

I can't see why these are taken advantage of, there is so much more to be done which could offer variety to Dwf playstyles

Godefroy_de_Bouillon

so if new runes are implemented those slows could be nerfed further.

mightygloin#2446

The_real_FAUST said:

Runes in the Army books were so plentiful, there are so many varieties.

I can't see why these are taken advantage of, there is so much more to be done which could offer variety to Dwf playstyles

Because the rune system hasn't been implemented. There were various runes for artillery, armor, weapon, trinkets etc. The current ones do seem like a placeholder at best. It'd be probably too big of an update for a free rework though so it's understandable this wasn't done before.

Witchblade

I agree runes are a good way to diversify the dwarf roster a bit and the current rune of slowing is bad for the gameplay experience from the opponent. The point-and-click damage version from previous patches was equally distasteful. However, I don't think anything like foot of gork fits the Dwarf theme and a literal foot of gork equivalent rune would be incredibly OP. Even legendary lords like Mazdamundi and Volkmar on his altar have to pay about 200 gold for a 2-use banishment with high cooldown. Khatep has to settle for a sandstorm. Giving anything close to this to a runelord would be decidedly unfair. Not to mention, it wouldn't help Dwarfs much in areas they struggle, as they already have plenty of gunpowder with AoE damage.

eumaies#1128

I think obviously this is a post with ideas and they’re not finely balanced. The bigger point is the broad strokes types of new spells and abilities an anvil could bring in return for its additional cost, but of course nice to point out the potential of overdoing it.

As for the existence of a rune that slows things for 30s.... all races have magic including slows and nets, this idea that the master rune is a nuclear weapon is getting old fast.

AWizard_Lizard

These are examples. It could be something like Urannon's or whatever.

Disposable Hero

Remember runes are not spells tapping into a shared resource (wom). It's mechanistically items with bound spells and in many cases unlimited charges. So rune lords are crappy melee chars with a large number of items, I can only assume this is why they originally are expensive and short duration compared to spells.

That's just something to remember when discussing runes, not to get carried away.

MTech

Runes are nothing special, every faction has bound spells often even with unlimited uses some factions have bound spells even on units.

I hate it when people try to make 3 runes look like it's already comparable to magic.😒

Runelords/smiths are expensive because they are the only support available for a dwarf army, thus necessary and because of that an obvious outlier in CAs balancing around high pick numbers.
After the change to W&R the runelord could see a price decrease in the next patches, depending on how many people are now picking other lords.

eumaies#1128

Disposable Hero said:

Remember runes are not spells tapping into a shared resource (wom). It's mechanistically items with bound spells and in many cases unlimited charges. So rune lords are crappy melee chars with a large number of items, I can only assume this is why they originally are expensive and short duration compared to spells.

That's just something to remember when discussing runes, not to get carried away.

Absolutely and these abilities perhaps should have charges if needed for balance. Just like wrath and ruin does now.

Disposable Hero

eumaies said:

Disposable Hero said:

Remember runes are not spells tapping into a shared resource (wom). It's mechanistically items with bound spells and in many cases unlimited charges. So rune lords are crappy melee chars with a large number of items, I can only assume this is why they originally are expensive and short duration compared to spells.

That's just something to remember when discussing runes, not to get carried away.

Absolutely and these abilities perhaps should have charges if needed for balance. Just like wrath and ruin does now.

I am unsure myself, I just reckon its because of spamability with 3 on Lord and 4 on each smith, but then on the other hand we have warrior priests with comparable amount of activatables... That can ride with cav. Maybe it's more for historical reasons by now...

eumaies#1128

Disposable Hero said:

eumaies said:

Disposable Hero said:

Remember runes are not spells tapping into a shared resource (wom). It's mechanistically items with bound spells and in many cases unlimited charges. So rune lords are crappy melee chars with a large number of items, I can only assume this is why they originally are expensive and short duration compared to spells.

That's just something to remember when discussing runes, not to get carried away.

Absolutely and these abilities perhaps should have charges if needed for balance. Just like wrath and ruin does now.

I am unsure myself, I just reckon its because of spamability with 3 on Lord and 4 on each smith, but then on the other hand we have warrior priests with comparable amount of activatables... That can ride with cav. Maybe it's more for historical reasons by now...

well there's also runes you can put on an anvil of which there can only be 1.

Disposable Hero

Well, most of all I think it's a missed opportunity to do a unique mechanic and flavor with runes.

mightygloin#2446

Disposable Hero said:

eumaies said:

Disposable Hero said:

Remember runes are not spells tapping into a shared resource (wom). It's mechanistically items with bound spells and in many cases unlimited charges. So rune lords are crappy melee chars with a large number of items, I can only assume this is why they originally are expensive and short duration compared to spells.

That's just something to remember when discussing runes, not to get carried away.

Absolutely and these abilities perhaps should have charges if needed for balance. Just like wrath and ruin does now.

I am unsure myself, I just reckon its because of spamability with 3 on Lord and 4 on each smith, but then on the other hand we have warrior priests with comparable amount of activatables... That can ride with cav. Maybe it's more for historical reasons by now...

Yeah it's no big deal. Warrior Priests and Lectors have similar abilities that can also be combined with any school of magic. On top of that, they are mounted and can utilise them way better.

Aerocrastic

Only if we rename Sniktch's net the Rune of Rat and Ruin

Witchblade

How about we change the Master Rune of Wrath to inflict Rampage? I think then it will serve its purpose in terms of anti-chariot play and it'll be even better at drawing large units into slayers without the boring 'net and trollhammer' killbutton effect (which isn't OP IMO, just distasteful and boring). Seems more thematic too than a slow, which to me really doesn't make any sense mechanistically.
It should be short duration though to avoid it forcing a caster lord or missile unit into instant death in melee.

Then make a separate Rune of Ruin: functions like one of Mazdamundi's Ruination of Cities beams emanating straight out from the rune caster in a chosen direction.

Rune of Fortification: gives a unit charge defence vs. all and 100% knockback resistance.

Rune of Wind: functions like a larger windblast emanating from the caster that deals no damage but knocks over all infantry and staggers all larger units.

I think these are much more fun and dynamic ways to address the dwarf mobility/chariot issue than nets and slows.

eumaies#1128

Witchblade said:

How about we change the Master Rune of Wrath to inflict Rampage? I think then it will serve its purpose in terms of anti-chariot play and it'll be even better at drawing large units into slayers without the boring 'net and trollhammer' killbutton effect (which isn't OP IMO, just distasteful and boring). Seems more thematic too than a slow, which to me really doesn't make any sense mechanistically.
It should be short duration though to avoid it forcing a caster lord or missile unit into instant death in melee.

Then make a separate Rune of Ruin: functions like one of Mazdamundi's Ruination of Cities beams emanating straight out from the rune caster in a chosen direction.

Rune of Fortification: gives a unit charge defence vs. all and 100% knockback resistance.

Rune of Wind: functions like a larger windblast emanating from the caster that deals no damage but knocks over all infantry and staggers all larger units.

I think these are much more fun and dynamic ways to address the dwarf mobility/chariot issue than nets and slows.

I like all your creative ideas.

but do you really really think the ranged killer units of dwarfs and Skaven are so different in power that one faction is fine with tons of nets and slows and the other somehow merits this constant withering complaining about one 30s slow? Honestly a unit of miners is also a 30s slow and often a more useful one.

The double standards just blow my mind. Constantly.

Meteor18

eumaies said:

I like all your creative ideas.

but do you really really think the ranged killer units of dwarfs and Skaven are so different in power that one faction is fine with tons of nets and slows and the other somehow merits this constant withering complaining about one 30s slow? Honestly a unit of miners is also a 30s slow and often a more useful one.

The double standards just blow my mind. Constantly.

No, it's not fine. Most people have objections about Skaven's current power level, but their arguments are brushed aside with allegations of favoritism for other factions. Aside from that with Skaven everything happens fast, you either silence their range and break them quick or they shoot you in pieces, so there is a sense of trill. With Dwarves everything is grindy. Anything that slows the pace of the game further adds to tedium.

AWizard_Lizard

Meteor18 said:

eumaies said:

I like all your creative ideas.

but do you really really think the ranged killer units of dwarfs and Skaven are so different in power that one faction is fine with tons of nets and slows and the other somehow merits this constant withering complaining about one 30s slow? Honestly a unit of miners is also a 30s slow and often a more useful one.

The double standards just blow my mind. Constantly.

No, it's not fine. Most people have objections about Skaven's current power level, but their arguments are brushed aside with allegations of favoritism for other factions. Aside from that with Skaven everything happens fast, you either silence their range and break them quick or they shoot you in pieces, so there is a sense of trill. With Dwarves everything is grindy. Anything that slows the pace of the game further adds to tedium.

Sorry but what are you talking about. As if there haven't been a ton of games that have been very grindy vs Skaven. What's the difference to silence Skaven ranged vs Dwarf ranged. You talk as if the rune is a constant effect, not something that has a short duration time and requires excellent timing from both players (baiting etc.) adding, you guessed it, in the sense of THRILL. Why everyone talks about dwarfs as if from several patches before.

Double standards x 1000

Disposable Hero

Short answer is that skaven are indeed not fine, they are a bit op. They have a lot of cheap hp but on the other hand their wide infantry is low armor and low ld and low mass. They have mass but the mass is also vulnerable to non ap ranged. There is magic, monster and chariots too, but no air. The skaven slows are also behind pay walls of not using skrolkster or buying a unit for it with no range attached to the snare.

The factions are quite different so I wouldn't call it double standards.

I think it would be best to try to be a bit more creative than click and delete kind of "solutions" because they are so binary. They either work and are op or they don't work and are pointless. Given the amount of firepower vs large targets a net is likely to "work" inside whatever range such an ability has. Longer range, bigger area denial until ranged is compromised by other means than what they want to kill.

That said, skaven are not fine....

Meteor18

AWizard_Lizard said:

Sorry but what are you talking about. As if there haven't been a ton of games that have been very grindy vs Skaven. What's the difference to silence Skaven ranged vs Dwarf ranged. You talk as if the rune is a constant effect, not something that has a short duration time and requires excellent timing from both players (baiting etc.) adding, you guessed it, in the sense of THRILL. Why everyone talks about dwarfs as if from several patches before.

Double standards x 1000

Games can be grindy against Skaven, but not all games are grindy. That's the main difference. Dwarfs as things currently stands are an extreme faction with many unbalanced match-ups and when some thing isn't balanced most people rather it be underpowered than overpowered. As long as Dwarfs are up it is Dwarfs own problem, if they become op then it's every one else's problem. This is not specific to Dwarfs however, look how heated the discussion about piercing bolt is, while there is tons of useless spells and nobody cares. There was the same case for Markus and Black Lions.

That being said you should not be angry with me, as my whole argument is an admition of design problems in Dwarf faction. I'd love to see changes implemented in Dwarfs that make them more fun and dynamic to play as or against. I'd love to see more build variety available for Dwarfs, and I think most people share the same sentiment. Just doubling down on some design mistake and asking people to like it is not going to be much helpful.

eumaies#1128

Disposable Hero said:

Short answer is that skaven are indeed not fine, they are a bit op. They have a lot of cheap hp but on the other hand their wide infantry is low armor and low ld and low mass. They have mass but the mass is also vulnerable to non ap ranged. There is magic, monster and chariots too, but no air. The skaven slows are also behind pay walls of not using skrolkster or buying a unit for it with no range attached to the snare.

The factions are quite different so I wouldn't call it double standards.

I think it would be best to try to be a bit more creative than click and delete kind of "solutions" because they are so binary. They either work and are op or they don't work and are pointless. Given the amount of firepower vs large targets a net is likely to "work" inside whatever range such an ability has. Longer range, bigger area denial until ranged is compromised by other means than what they want to kill.

That said, skaven are not fine....

30s of slow is NOT CLICK AND DELETE!. There are obviously lots of units involved and it's not even a net, which many factions with strong ranged tools have. Click and delete might be ratling guns, which are like irondrakes with a slow and high mobility.

Yes, skaven don't hold as well but the ability to kite is worth at least as much as the ability for your ranged units to take some hits.

I'm not arguing skaven are completely balanced, but we all know there is no iteration of skaven that will not leave them with tons of excellent slows and tons of excellent very deadly ranged. There's also just not a universe in which the ability to have a tight box is better for ranged unit protection than the ability to spread out and just have very fast yet still deadly ranged weapons teams and highly mobile units for defending those teams.

eumaies#1128

Meteor18 said:

eumaies said:

I like all your creative ideas.

but do you really really think the ranged killer units of dwarfs and Skaven are so different in power that one faction is fine with tons of nets and slows and the other somehow merits this constant withering complaining about one 30s slow? Honestly a unit of miners is also a 30s slow and often a more useful one.

The double standards just blow my mind. Constantly.

No, it's not fine. Most people have objections about Skaven's current power level, but their arguments are brushed aside with allegations of favoritism for other factions. Aside from that with Skaven everything happens fast, you either silence their range and break them quick or they shoot you in pieces, so there is a sense of trill. With Dwarves everything is grindy. Anything that slows the pace of the game further adds to tedium.

Grindy has nothing to do with the potency of ranged units. If you're in a grindy match vs dwarfs the ranged units are either dead or being relentlessly hounded, and the 30s slow is synergizing with melee units and not ranged units at that point.

Disposable Hero

eumaies said:

Disposable Hero said:

Short answer is that skaven are indeed not fine, they are a bit op. They have a lot of cheap hp but on the other hand their wide infantry is low armor and low ld and low mass. They have mass but the mass is also vulnerable to non ap ranged. There is magic, monster and chariots too, but no air. The skaven slows are also behind pay walls of not using skrolkster or buying a unit for it with no range attached to the snare.

The factions are quite different so I wouldn't call it double standards.

I think it would be best to try to be a bit more creative than click and delete kind of "solutions" because they are so binary. They either work and are op or they don't work and are pointless. Given the amount of firepower vs large targets a net is likely to "work" inside whatever range such an ability has. Longer range, bigger area denial until ranged is compromised by other means than what they want to kill.

That said, skaven are not fine....

30s of slow is NOT CLICK AND DELETE!. There are obviously lots of units involved and it's not even a net, which many factions with strong ranged tools have. Click and delete might be ratling guns, which are like irondrakes with a slow and high mobility.

Yes, skaven don't hold as well but the ability to kite is worth at least as much as the ability for your ranged units to take some hits.

I'm not arguing skaven are completely balanced, but we all know there is no iteration of skaven that will not leave them with tons of excellent slows and tons of excellent very deadly ranged. There's also just not a universe in which the ability to have a tight box is better for ranged unit protection than the ability to spread out and just have very fast yet still deadly ranged weapons teams and highly mobile units for defending those teams.

I was discussing potential net. Though the master rune was not far off. In some builds it would qualify as hard counter until ranged is compromised though, which was what was discussed.

Meteor18

eumaies said:

Grindy has nothing to do with the potency of ranged units. If you're in a grindy match vs dwarfs the ranged units are either dead or being relentlessly hounded, and the 30s slow is synergizing with melee units and not ranged units at that point.

30 seconds of slow allows that stalwart Dawi ranged unit to escape unscathed, while the Skaven one can break due to lack of leadership, though that is not really the point. You argued that people have double standards regarding Dwarfs and Skaven, after someone suggested some significant buff for Dwarfs, and I responded that there is no double standards when most people aren't fine with Skaven to begin with and not just because of the abundance of slows and nets. The extra reluctance for Dwarfs nets and slows isn't just a matter of balance, but of pace and rhythm too. like I don't have access to must of my roster when playing against Dwarfs, watching my heavy infantry crawl with 8 speed isn't going to cheer me up.

Disposable Hero

If I try to be more clear what I mean, what I mean by click-delete abilities is just one skill that immobilizes a target to the point that they are dead from ranged. The prime example is prey+ww but things like kindlenet, warpgale, net+bowshapti etc can do the same. It's of course not entirely without counterplay but it's not very interesting way to "solve" problems killing a unit type, in any roster.

I think the idea of fortifying a unit is really interesting. That's exactly the kind of creative ideas that add depth to gameplay. The other option I have brought up many times now is to create a good "blocking unit". Large models with mass and a unit size of 9-24 models depending on what it is. We mentioned golems before but it might not be entirely true to TT so I don't know... but something alone these lines would be so much more interesting than additional slows or a new net or whatever.

The same goes for high elves, I wouldn't want say a bound net on Loremasters or whatever you could imagine to help against heavy cav spam/armored monsters. It's not an interesting way to solve such problems. I'd much prefer more available and effective treekin for example to help infantry fight these SEMs than more ways to gank them.