Rune smiths/lords bad?

[RhyoliTe]

When they first came out I thought they were an awesome idea, and although not all of their abilities were great at least they had a damage dealing ability that made up for the cost. But since last patch they changed Rune of Wrath & Ruin to be yet another utility ability which really makes me question their usefulness (in campaign, at least).

Forgefire: An ok passive, but I see this as a magic lore's passive ability aka not something you would want the lord/hero for by itself. Especially since its got a short range.

Rune of Heart & Home: Another ok passive, useful against undead and monsters but with the Dwarves' natural high leadership I find this close to being useless.

Master Rune of Oath & Steel: The way I understand how armor works is that armor has a chance to negate non-AP damage relative to how high the armor is (and high the weapon strength is). With 80 base armor for the vast majority of Dwarven units I don't see how adding another 60 is going to meaningfully impact your units when most infantry only has ~30-40 weapon strength. The way I see it an infantry unit clashing with yours is either going to chew through them with their AP (black orcs, greatswords etc.) or they won't because they lack the AP (orc boyz, swordsmen etc.).

In neither of these instances would adding more armor help your infantry out, the only instances where it would help is by using it near less armored units which in the Dwarven roster are either slayers or rangers, the first of which is supposed to go after monsters who usually have high AP damage (vargheists, trolls etc.), or cavalry which may or may not lack high AP damage but is fast moving and operates on your flanks or your backline, neither places where you would want to or can position your rune lord/smith's in time for an engagement. And the other one is not supposed to get in to melee at all, making it a highly niche and optional ability overall.

Master Rune of Wrath & Ruin (post patch): I'll admit its nice to pretty much negate devastating charges in theory but pretty much all Dwarf infantry already has charge defense against large by default, so its only useful to limit the impact of sneaky cavalry tryna wreak havoc in your backline. Or to prevent a fast unit from running away from your slayers, which in my book makes it an inbetween forgefire and Oath&Steel where its an ok thing to have but not something I would think is worth getting the unit type for.

Master Rune of Negation: Now this is a great ability to use where ever the enemy's elite infantry clashes with yours. Also great for helping your characters survive/win duels.

Anvil of Doom mount: The added magic resist is nice against spell heavy armies (winds of death, vortex's etc.), it also makes your characters more resilient against characters with magical attacks. In addition it makes the Runelord even tankier with a hefty 25% physical resistance buff.

So in summary for the Runelord you get a nice battle mount and a single great ability with the rest hanging between ok and useless. This doesn't sound great to me, the Runelord is supposed to provide useful abilities to support other units to make up for its lack of combat stats (which are worse than a thane). But it without the damage dealing Wrath&Ruin it just doesn't seem to provide that.

And the Runesmith just gets less & inferior abilities than the Runelord, making the hero version a complete waste of an army slot and upkeep. And I can't justify recruiting either character for an army, I could just get a regular lord/thane which will pay for themselves with kills, reinforcing a losing unit to keep the enemy from breaking through, killing characters/monsters. All for the exact same cost!

Who else thinks CA made another random and dumb change (*cough* port nerf *cough*) here? Or am I missing something?

[Sn3z]

Fendelphi původně napsal:

If a Unit ends up with 140 armor(80+60), it means that non-ap damage will be reduced between 70%(half of 140) and 100%, which is better than if you only had 80 armor(40%-80%). If a unit got 200 armor, it would be nearly immune to non-AP damage(will still take that 1 damage though).

So Armor is a very important defensive stat, as it is a % reduction. The more you have, the less damage you will take, no matter if it is weak attacks or heavy hitters.

I did a test with miner vs Orc Boyz the +60 does basically nothing, in one test the miner got down orc boyz to 50 models with the +60 and they got them to 56 without it. I never use Rune Lords anyway and only Runesmith in early comes only from the quest so I well out of miners by the time I have access runesmiths.

[RhyoliTe]

funkmonster7 původně napsal:

https://totalwarwarhammer.gamepedia.com/Combat

This literally confirms the way I thought armor negation works. Further emphasizing my points. And yet you keep pretending as if I don't know them at all. The ♥♥♥♥ is wrong with you? Did you even read that page before you posted it?

funkmonster7 původně napsal:

T1 Orc Boyz cannot hope to fight in a straight-up battle against T1 Dwarf Warriors, that's why I told you to go test with DW vs DW.

And I did, I was very descriptive with how I did the fight and laid out the outcome of the fight which clearly supports my view that runelords are subpar. And yet nowhere in your wall of text do I see you address this.

You for the 10th time or so have not done anything to address my arguments, in fact. You just keep going on rants and talk past me. Like how I specifically mentioned that the no mana cost of runes doesn't make up for the fact that they are borderline useless, and yet here you are yet again trying to make the argument that runes are good because they don't have any cost. I've also already laid out before that a thane does a better job at making dwarf lines hold by throwing him in to combat where needed, and yet here you are pretending a runelord does a better job without providing any valid argument as to why.

Despite the physical ressistance of the Anvil of Doom, the runelord still has ♥♥♥♥♥♥ stats. Not to mention you're being hypocritical by pretending the runelord is a great tank whilst also trying to argue that hes a supporting character not a duelist (meaning that any physical resistances or ward saves on himself are pointless).

[RhyoliTe]

Fendelphi původně napsal:

Overall, I still think Runelords and Runepriests are better than Dwarf Lords and Thanes(especially after the Lords and Thanes have had their number of targets hit by their AoE attacks reduced). They give you more flexibility due to abilities and allows your actual killing units work more efficiently.

Can you explain how they are better?

And when did this change to AoE attack happen, I don't remember this at all and I've read alot of patch notes. Do you know if it was because the lords and thanes max AoE hit was higher than those of the rune lords/smiths so with the nerf they brought it on par?

[Fendelphi]

Sn3z původně napsal:

Fendelphi původně napsal:

If a Unit ends up with 140 armor(80+60), it means that non-ap damage will be reduced between 70%(half of 140) and 100%, which is better than if you only had 80 armor(40%-80%). If a unit got 200 armor, it would be nearly immune to non-AP damage(will still take that 1 damage though).

So Armor is a very important defensive stat, as it is a % reduction. The more you have, the less damage you will take, no matter if it is weak attacks or heavy hitters.

I did a test with miner vs Orc Boyz the +60 does basically nothing, in one test the miner got down orc boyz to 50 models with the +60 and they got them to 56 without it. I never use Rune Lords anyway and only Runesmith in early comes only from the quest so I well out of miners by the time I have access runesmiths.

"a test".
Remember, this is % chance to hit first. If the orcs were lucky with the rolls in one test, or unlucky in the other, it will greatly impact how much damage the armor needs to protect against.
For instance, if we say that the Orcs in 1 test lands 20 hits more than the other test, that is 20xtheir AP damage extra, that no armor can protect from. Even more so, if they are part of the charge(as they will deal more damage).

You would have to do maybe a hundred tests of both types(with and without the armor buff), to get a half decent picture of the effect.

Even then, if we look at what you are saying, the buff saved 6 miners. That is roughly 450 less damage taken then. And since the buff is an AoE, that means multiple units would have taken less damage. It quickly adds up.

[Fendelphi]

RhyoliTe původně napsal:

Fendelphi původně napsal:

Overall, I still think Runelords and Runepriests are better than Dwarf Lords and Thanes(especially after the Lords and Thanes have had their number of targets hit by their AoE attacks reduced). They give you more flexibility due to abilities and allows your actual killing units work more efficiently.

Can you explain how they are better?

And when did this change to AoE attack happen, I don't remember this at all and I've read alot of patch notes. Do you know if it was because the lords and thanes max AoE hit was higher than those of the rune lords/smiths so with the nerf they brought it on par?

Same patch they changed Rune of Wrath and Ruin.

patchnotes[www.totalwar.com]

Dwarves
"Lord: +5 hit reaction ignore chance, +15 knock interrupt ignore chance, +200 mass, +5 melee attack, -100 cost, -2 splash attack max targets, +10 ap melee damage, -10 base melee damage"

"Thane: +5 hit reaction ignore chance, +15 knock interrupt ignore chance, +200 mass, +5 melee attack, +1 melee defence, -100 cost, -2 splash attack max targets, +15 ap melee damage, +10 base melee damage"

I dont know if it was higher than other faction's lord and heroes(I would assume so, due to the -2 target nerf).


As for being better. Runelords have the same army upgrades as a regular lord(bonus to infantry, ranged, arty etc). They are obviously worse in actual melee, especially against enemy lords and heroes, but against most units, you dont really feel any difference. With their Runes, they can negate a lot of damage in high pressure zones by increasing armor or giving everyone a ward save for a fairly long duration.
Similar deal for Runepriests.

[RhyoliTe]

Fendelphi původně napsal:

Same patch they changed Rune of Wrath and Ruin.

patchnotes[www.totalwar.com]

Thanks, must've forgotten about those. But I wouldn't exactly call this a nerf overall its a major buff that makes them more viable in combat than they already were.

Fendelphi původně napsal:

With their Runes, they can negate a lot of damage in high pressure zones by increasing armor or giving everyone a ward save for a fairly long duration.
Similar deal for Runepriests.

You don't seem to realize that, despite having explained perfectly clear how damage negation works, that adding 60 armor on an 80+ armor unit doesn't do anything meaningful.
I've had this argument with someone else in this thread several times now, dwarven infantry wins without buffs against virtually any non-AP unit. Meaning that adding an armor buff in to the equation is pointless, and against AP units even more so.

And whilst the ward wave can most certainly help, I would argue that throwing a lord / thane in to combat does more to mitigate damage to your unit than popping a ~30 second AoE wardsave.

This is the problem I have, I can't think of anything that a rune character can do that a regular one can't do just as well, if not better, in more situations.

[Lampros]

Fendelphi původně napsal:

As for Rune of Wrath and Ruin, I feel the change was kind of bad as well. Dwarves do not have a whole lot of magic damage sources(no spell casters), so it was a useful tool against enemies with very high Physical Resistance(as physical resist works against both AP and non-AP).

Also, it used to have a slow of 48%, which basically meant that a unit took twice as long to get to you. Combined with the fairly high damage of the ability(about 500 for the regular, about 1000 for the master), it was a great tool for assisting your dwarves with enemies that require a lot of effort to kill, or to slow down fast flankers to allow you to react in time. You could even stack a Master Rune and a regular one for great effect. It was very flexible and powerful in a lot of situations.

Now, it is simply a 72% slow ability and stacking them is definately not worth it(the slow already makes them move at roughly 1/4 of their normal speed). To capitalize on the slow, you need to focus fire the enemy as well(which you could also do before, but it had it's own damage as well). You can no longer use it as a "fire and forget" ability.

My sentiments exactly - but better expressed by you.

I wish someone made a mod to revert this Rune ;(

[Sn3z]

Fendelphi původně napsal:

Sn3z původně napsal:

I did a test with miner vs Orc Boyz the +60 does basically nothing, in one test the miner got down orc boyz to 50 models with the +60 and they got them to 56 without it. I never use Rune Lords anyway and only Runesmith in early comes only from the quest so I well out of miners by the time I have access runesmiths.

"a test".
Remember, this is % chance to hit first. If the orcs were lucky with the rolls in one test, or unlucky in the other, it will greatly impact how much damage the armor needs to protect against.
For instance, if we say that the Orcs in 1 test lands 20 hits more than the other test, that is 20xtheir AP damage extra, that no armor can protect from. Even more so, if they are part of the charge(as they will deal more damage).

You would have to do maybe a hundred tests of both types(with and without the armor buff), to get a half decent picture of the effect.

Even then, if we look at what you are saying, the buff saved 6 miners. That is roughly 450 less damage taken then. And since the buff is an AoE, that means multiple units would have taken less damage. It quickly adds up.

Miners lose to Orc Boyz 1v1 but what I was saying is the miners only killed off another 6 models with the +60 armor buff before getting routed which was 50 models remaining, that might not be so bad its just under half the Orc boy unit. But this confirms to me that yes Rune Lords are bad starting lords to use unless you can recruit them at certain ranks to kick start them.

[Fendelphi]

Sn3z původně napsal:

Fendelphi původně napsal:

"a test".
Remember, this is % chance to hit first. If the orcs were lucky with the rolls in one test, or unlucky in the other, it will greatly impact how much damage the armor needs to protect against.
For instance, if we say that the Orcs in 1 test lands 20 hits more than the other test, that is 20xtheir AP damage extra, that no armor can protect from. Even more so, if they are part of the charge(as they will deal more damage).

You would have to do maybe a hundred tests of both types(with and without the armor buff), to get a half decent picture of the effect.

Even then, if we look at what you are saying, the buff saved 6 miners. That is roughly 450 less damage taken then. And since the buff is an AoE, that means multiple units would have taken less damage. It quickly adds up.

Miners lose to Orc Boyz 1v1 but what I was saying is the miners only killed off another 6 models with the +60 armor buff before getting routed which was 50 models remaining, that might not be so bad its just under half the Orc boy unit. But this confirms to me that yes Rune Lords are bad starting lords to use unless you can recruit them at certain ranks to kick start them.

Again, it is a single test. Try running it a few hundred times to compensate for the random dice rolls.

It appears I misunderstood who lived and who died. :)
Anyway, if the buff allowed the terrible MA stat of the Miners to kill off 6 more orcs before getting routed/killed off, that is even more impressive.
Now try run the test with something that is more equal to the Orcs, like Dwarf Warriors. See what happens with and without the buff.
The Dwarf Warriors should win, but I would be interested in hearing how many more survive with the buff running, especially if you activate it as the Orcs Charge.

You should never buy a lord based on what they bring at level 1.
If you want your army as a whole to perform better, bring a Runelord(he is also slightly cheaper). If you want a Lord that can deal with other lords and heroes slightly better, go for the regular lord(I just use ranged firepower for that).

[Fendelphi]

RhyoliTe původně napsal:

Fendelphi původně napsal:

Same patch they changed Rune of Wrath and Ruin.

patchnotes[www.totalwar.com]

Thanks, must've forgotten about those. But I wouldn't exactly call this a nerf overall its a major buff that makes them more viable in combat than they already were.

Fendelphi původně napsal:

With their Runes, they can negate a lot of damage in high pressure zones by increasing armor or giving everyone a ward save for a fairly long duration.
Similar deal for Runepriests.

You don't seem to realize that, despite having explained perfectly clear how damage negation works, that adding 60 armor on an 80+ armor unit doesn't do anything meaningful.
I've had this argument with someone else in this thread several times now, dwarven infantry wins without buffs against virtually any non-AP unit. Meaning that adding an armor buff in to the equation is pointless, and against AP units even more so.

And whilst the ward wave can most certainly help, I would argue that throwing a lord / thane in to combat does more to mitigate damage to your unit than popping a ~30 second AoE wardsave.

This is the problem I have, I can't think of anything that a rune character can do that a regular one can't do just as well, if not better, in more situations.

They got better at dealing with single targets(which most of your ranged firepower already does better).
Yes, they are better duelist, but they need to be better at something afterall. Runelords and priests buffs your army. Lords and Thanes can duel better.


Even if they already win against Orcs, they win even more with the buff. If a model does not die as fast, it can keep attacking. If they take less damage than what they give, it means that they are winning the fight, so the other side takes a morale penalty while you gain a bonus. If fatigue starts to affect units, the extra armor can compensate for some of the penalties.

If I take 5-10 less casualties per unit, per fight, it means I can keep pushing on rather than having to wait for replenishments.
And in fights where you are targeted by a lot of low AP attacks(mass goblin archers, or a unit charged in the back by wolfriders for instance), having that extra armor can negate a lot of damage(70-100% non-AP reduction instead of 40-80% non-AP reduction).

[RhyoliTe]

Fendelphi původně napsal:

If I take 5-10 less casualties per unit, per fight, it means I can keep pushing on rather than having to wait for replenishments.

I think you're really stretching the benefit here, this is like taking 5% less casualties per unit per battle, I don't know about you but I usually don't fight 5 battles in a row without replenishing, which is a situation where it *might* be beneficial. Usually I replenish after each fight which completely negates this benefit, and for this miniscule advantage you lose a duelist character. Do you seriously think this is worth the tradeoff?

Also I can probably save just as much, if not more, models just by throwing the lord in to combat.

Fendelphi původně napsal:

And in fights where you are targeted by a lot of low AP attacks(mass goblin archers, or a unit charged in the back by wolfriders for instance), having that extra armor can negate a lot of damage(70-100% non-AP reduction instead of 40-80% non-AP reduction).

No they don't. I don't get how you don't get this.

Goblin archers have a ranged weapon strength of 16 iirc. Only 1 of which is AP.
This means on a dwarf warrior unit they only deal 2+9 damage per arrow maximum, assuming 40% reduction. Changing this maximum to 2+4,5 (5?), assuming 70% reduction, for half a minute is laughable.

Mass goblin armies get trashed by just about anything in vanilla, not just dwarves. Wolf riders are probably the worst light cavalry in the game, their charge is negligible even from the rear on dwarven infantry. I don't know why you would pick the worst examples to try to make a point lol.

[RCMidas]

And when you're facing an absolute frickton of them, those extra few HP that you don't lose can make the difference, especially on high difficulties. Yes, killing them off before they start to shoot you is the better strategy so that you don't lose any HP at all, but when that is not an option, mitigating what damage you do take is the next best one.

And since Runelords are a slow-burn Lord type, and the Dwarves are all about slow-burn starts that snowball into an unstoppable Blue Tide...well, the argument makes itself, really. If they're not for you, oh well. But they do damn well for others. That doesn't make them bad. That makes them "not for you".

Never use them myself, honestly. Most of my games involve confederating every other faction of my kind and just using the starting lords to kick ass. With Dwarves, nobody has a Runelord initial leader, so...

[RhyoliTe]

RCMidas původně napsal:

If they're not for you, oh well. But they do damn well for others. That doesn't make them bad. That makes them "not for you".

I know how to differentiate between 'bad' and 'I don't like their playstyle'. Hence why I'm making criticisms of their abilities and making the argument that they are in every single way inferior to the other character option.

I can save HP on a unit by sending a regular lord/thane to reinforce them aswell, this isn't a good reason why rune characters are good.

[funkmonster7]

RhyoliTe původně napsal:

funkmonster7 původně napsal:

https://totalwarwarhammer.gamepedia.com/Combat

This literally confirms the way I thought armor negation works. Further emphasizing my points. And yet you keep pretending as if I don't know them at all. The ♥♥♥♥ is wrong with you? Did you even read that page before you posted it?

funkmonster7 původně napsal:

T1 Orc Boyz cannot hope to fight in a straight-up battle against T1 Dwarf Warriors, that's why I told you to go test with DW vs DW.

And I did, I was very descriptive with how I did the fight and laid out the outcome of the fight which clearly supports my view that runelords are subpar. And yet nowhere in your wall of text do I see you address this.

You for the 10th time or so have not done anything to address my arguments, in fact. You just keep going on rants and talk past me. Like how I specifically mentioned that the no mana cost of runes doesn't make up for the fact that they are borderline useless, and yet here you are yet again trying to make the argument that runes are good because they don't have any cost. I've also already laid out before that a thane does a better job at making dwarf lines hold by throwing him in to combat where needed, and yet here you are pretending a runelord does a better job without providing any valid argument as to why.

Despite the physical ressistance of the Anvil of Doom, the runelord still has ♥♥♥♥♥♥ stats. Not to mention you're being hypocritical by pretending the runelord is a great tank whilst also trying to argue that hes a supporting character not a duelist (meaning that any physical resistances or ward saves on himself are pointless).

For the love of...

Let's just make this easier, aye? Let's say, armor strictly reduces 50% to 100% damage of armor value. Forget about MA/MD for now, forget about the actual calculations for now (because it's still early morning here and I can't be arsed to do maths for a smart little prick).

If Dwarf Warriors have 80 armor, no Runesmith buff:
Damage reduction range = 40% to 80%.
Enemy non-AP damage range = 60% to 20%.

If Dwarf Warriors have 110 armor due to Runesmith buff:
Damage reduction range = 55% to 100% (not 110% due to damage reduction cap).
Enemy non-AP damage range = 45% to 0%.

If Dwarf Warriors have 140 armor due to Runelord buff:
Damage reduction range = 70% to 100%.
Enemy non-AP damage range = 30% to 0%.

Still don't get it?

Granted, the buffs are temporary. But the armor buff isn't the only thing Runesmiths have so there you have it. Moreover it is free-to-cast, just like what RCMidas said:

RCMidas původně napsal:

And when you're facing an absolute frickton of them, those extra few HP that you don't lose can make the difference, especially on high difficulties. Yes, killing them off before they start to shoot you is the better strategy so that you don't lose any HP at all, but when that is not an option, mitigating what damage you do take is the next best one.

And since Runelords are a slow-burn Lord type, and the Dwarves are all about slow-burn starts that snowball into an unstoppable Blue Tide...well, the argument makes itself, really.

Not relying on WoM shows ever more so that Runesmiths and Runelords support their armies by making them last longer in a battle of attrition.

You are the one who clearly didn't read anything before you claim you did. How the ♥♥♥♥ did you not know armor mitigates damage by percentage rather than a direct number-to-number reduction? Let me quote you:

RhyoliTe původně napsal:

funkmonster7 původně napsal:

The same applies with Master Rune of Oath & Steel. Every bit of armor matters.

Can you explain how? In your example the 80 armor should be more than enough to absorb 30 (non-AP) damage from my understanding of how the armor mechanic works. Hence why I mention that I don't see how adding even more armor on top of that matters. Theoretically 30 armor should be enough to block the 30 damage, but the game might calculate AP damage first so the 30 AP would go through 30 armor and then there isn't enough armor for the remaining non-AP damage, in which case 60 armor would be enough to block a 60 weapon strength attack where half of it is AP.

In fact, this is not even how you thought armor worked at first. Let me quote your opening post:

RhyoliTe původně napsal:

Master Rune of Oath & Steel: The way I understand how armor works is that armor has a chance to negate non-AP damage relative to how high the armor is (and high the weapon strength is).

This is not Diablo 2. In D2, that's how armor works. Not here. Or maybe that's how armor works in other TW series but I wouldn't know of that, I don't play other TW games (maybe except Rome 2 which I might get in the next sale, still thinking about it).

Let me quote you again, on your latest reply to me up to this point:

RhyoliTe původně napsal:

funkmonster7 původně napsal:

https://totalwarwarhammer.gamepedia.com/Combat

This literally confirms the way I thought armor negation works. Further emphasizing my points. And yet you keep pretending as if I don't know them at all. The ♥♥♥♥ is wrong with you? Did you even read that page before you posted it?

This literally confirms the way you thought armor negation works? Which way, exactly? The chance to hit? Or the direct reduction?

Let me quote your smartassery again:

RhyoliTe původně napsal:

funkmonster7 původně napsal:

It is clear to me that you don't even understand how damage calculations work. Armor does not directly negate weapon damage. It's dealt in percentages.

I literaly explained in my very first post, and have repeated it in most replies to you, how I think armor negates damage. I also literally asked you before how "every bit of armor matters" and you replied with "I don't know the exact calculations". Only now after multiple back and forths you suddenly explain how damage is actually mitigated? The ♥♥♥♥ dude? Shoulda started off with that.

You INDEED do not know how damage calculations work. Or at least did not. Now stop acting tough like you got it all and I got it wrong.

You keep taking my examples as THE ONLY VALID EXAMPLES. They're NOT. I chose Orc Boyz because they're the most common things you fight at the start of Dwarf campaigns, and their non-AP damage applies most to the armor issues you're stating. I didn't use Big 'Uns because they're T3. T1 Dwarf Warriors are more than a match for Orc Boyz, but might lose to T3 Big 'Uns. T3 Longbeards might hold off against Big 'Uns but as the tiers go higher, AP damage starts stacking as well. So for the sake of easy comparisons, I used T1 units only.

Do your own ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ testing or don't bother replying.

[RhyoliTe]

funkmonster7 původně napsal:

Let me quote you:

I literally accurately described how it works. Either you don't understand how the English language works or you're just genuinely stupid. I said here that armor negates non-AP damage (true) and that the higher your armor is the more non-AP damage you can negate (true). Lastly I made a reference to how there is a random element to it, as in you don't always negate the exact same amount from the same attack (also true).

The only thing that I didn't know was that non-AP damage doesn't gets directly reduced by the armor value. Which barely does anything to debunk my previous arguments, as I've explained several times now. And yet here you are acting as if I didn't knew anything at all about the mechanics.

You're harping so hard on this little thing because you're seemingly afraid to lose an argument. You're embarrassing yourself but are seemingly too dense to acknowledge it.

funkmonster7 původně napsal:

Do your own ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ testing or don't bother replying.

I did do plenty of tests, one to prove you wrong (which it did). Yet again you leave another non-reply post where you don't address any of my arguments and talk past me. Just sit down already, you got nothing. You're not contributing anything here.