Front Page

Content

Authors

Game Index

Forums

Site Tools

Submissions

About

AL
Andi Lennon
October 21, 2020
193 0
W
WadeMonnig
October 21, 2020
257 1
W
whowhatwhycast
October 21, 2020
108 0

When Theme Meets Emotion

Podcasts & Videos
O
oliverkinne
October 19, 2020
296 0
T
thegiantbrain
October 18, 2020
140 0
U
ubarose
October 16, 2020
998 0
O
oliverkinne
October 16, 2020
640 0

Azul Review

Board Game Reviews
O
oliverkinne
October 16, 2020
260 0
MB
Michael Barnes
October 15, 2020
658 0
B
boardgameinquisition
October 15, 2020
458 0
T
thegiantbrain
October 15, 2020
496 0

Influences

Essays
AL
Andi Lennon
October 14, 2020
824 0
W
whowhatwhycast
October 14, 2020
436 0
W
WadeMonnig
October 13, 2020
1435 1
T
thegiantbrain
October 13, 2020
270 0

Episode 56 - Two's Company

Podcasts & Videos
O
oliverkinne
October 13, 2020
365 0
×
Short Cut to Remote Gaming Forum (29 Aug 2020)

Since remote gaming has now become a significant part of how we play board games, we have added a short cut to this forum in the menu on the left.

Top Ten FFG Games - PART TWO

More
01 Jun 2016 12:24 #228462 by Msample

Egg Shen wrote: I'm looking forward to what surprises they announce at Gen Con. Supposedly there is Arkham Horror: The Living Card Game that is going to take the place of Call of Cthulhu and be a co-op game similar to LotR LCG.


On the one hand, AH is a pretty proven IP for them. On the other, I do wonder if a co-op format for an LCG makes sense. I would think a PvP would be more suited towards OP.

On a related note, I note that most of these lists omit any of the Game of Thrones games. Too bad, given how popular the property is. Anyone comment on the diff between first and second edition of the AGoT LCG ? From what I understand the reboot simplified a lot things.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Colorcrayons

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
01 Jun 2016 21:36 #228495 by Egg Shen

wkover wrote: Runebound 3rd edition is a partial improvement over 2nd edition, but it also screws some things up.


I'm curious what your thoughts are about Runebound 3rd Edition. I've been playing it again recently and I think they actually did a good job updating it. It's got a few flaws and it simply can't compete with all the content of 2nd Edition, but I think it's a pretty damn good fantasy adventure game. I will say that I HATED it the first two or three times I tried it. It's gotten better though each time I've tried it.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
01 Jun 2016 21:55 #228496 by bigmop
Replied by bigmop on topic Top Ten FFG Games - PART TWO
We demand an explanation of why runewars was left off both lists!
The following user(s) said Thank You: Msample, Sevej

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
02 Jun 2016 11:40 #228512 by wkover
Replied by wkover on topic Top Ten FFG Games - PART TWO

Egg Shen wrote:

wkover wrote: Runebound 3rd edition is a partial improvement over 2nd edition, but it also screws some things up.


I'm curious what your thoughts are about Runebound 3rd Edition. It's got a few flaws and it simply can't compete with all the content of 2nd Edition, but I think it's a pretty damn good fantasy adventure game.


I've played 3rd edition four times (all 3-player games), and they were fun. At least for me. Might not have been worth a purchase, though - without more content, anyway.

Stuff I like:

+ Token-based combat
+ An increase in the number of actions per player turn (which, along with a smaller map, facilitates long-distance travel)
+ A satisfying skills menu

A "near plus" is the game's time limit. The brevity is good, but it creates balance/fun issues (see below).

Problematic stuff:

- Only good with 2-3 players due to downtime issues (same exact problem as the original)

- The time limit is a welcome addition, but it can make the game exceptionally tough to win. Some examples: Players are dependent on the right asset(s) becoming available for purchase at the right time in the right location; combat defeats, particularly in the early game, can cause negative swings in momentum that are potentially insurmountable. Not only does the losing player forego the money reward and the trophy, but s/he also has to waste precious time recovering health. "Rich get richer" has always been a strike against race-to-kill games, and time limits only exacerbate the problem.

- Late game quests are often pointless, as there isn't enough time to complete them. (Possible fix: Draw 2, keep 1 in the last 1/4 of the game?)

- Generally speaking, it's not clear that players can win without synergistic items/abilities that generate an overpowered damage effect. In the games that I won, I don't think anyone else had a shot at winning (not even close), which I find troubling.

- Money scarcity is brutal, particularly in combination with the time limit. (I like the suggested fix of giving everyone 2 more gold at the start.)

- A player defeated by the villain is permanently eliminated, and a player can get royally massacred if they flip poorly on the first round.

- There are only two scenarios, and one of them seems underdeveloped. The zombie scenario is a mess in terms of being unplayable (without variants) with lower player counts. Fewer players = fewer player actions to track down and eliminate zombies (particularly those in hard-to-reach places), which means that the boss is harder to kill for no good reason. Also, dispatching zombies is an unrelenting grind that isn't particularly entertaining. (Fix: For story events, the # of spawned zombies isn't set, but is instead based on the number of players.) Finally, players can spend an inordinate number of actions to obtain a companion, only to have it arbitrarily disappear on a later turn due to a bad die roll.

I'm always the Negative Nellie on F:AT, though, so YMMV. It's not a bad reworking at all, and the variants do plug up some of the more egregious holes.
The following user(s) said Thank You: ChristopherMD, Columbob, Egg Shen

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
02 Jun 2016 14:39 #228515 by Egg Shen
I don't think you're being overly negative about the game. You pretty much have the same flaws that I do with it. I've played it 10 times now and have a good feel of it's strengths and weaknesses. The first big thing right off the bat is that I don't even compare the game to Runebound 2nd Edition. That's the first thing most people want to know about. They're so different from one another that Runebound 3rd Edition could have been named something completely different.

The base game scenarios are totally uneven. I really don't think the Necromancer scenario was meant to be played with less than 3 people. I've tried to solo it before and it's a joke. You literally run around the board wasting actions to murder zombies...there isn't enough time to level up. I fought the Necromancer on the last possible turn and he pretty much one shot my ass.

The time limit is something that I initially disliked but I've grown to love. It really ramps up the pressure and tension of the game. You have to have clear goals and agendas for your hero. Otherwise you'll be too under-powered when it comes time to put down the boss monster. I've seen it where a hero gets knocked out early and still recovered to win the game. Though I will agree there are certain games where the player lagging behind must feel like they're trying to scale a mountain...with no help or supplies.

I've found that a big (if not the biggest part) of the game is knowing the strengths and weaknesses of your character. Each one is fairly unique and has some sort of powerful special ability that you need to be getting items/skills to make even better. If you're playing as Lyssa you want to be getting any item that will add movement dice to your pool for her "Stalk Prey" ability. You do mention that sometimes the correct items never show up and that can be problematic, but I've found it's always smart to have a second or third upgrade plan ready to go.

Money is super tight, but one of the best things about the game is that you can always sell your current items at full price in the markets. So it never makes sense to hold onto it. Buy small stuff and then upgrade it later. Gold is basically the most important thing in the entire game and you need to be trying to get some each and every turn no matter what. I hated this when I first played it, but it's something that has grown on me as well.

I'm fine with a player getting eliminated for good if they die on the Dragon or Necromancer. Those fights should be scary and do or die. Also since it's a race you might want to fight sooner than you might be ready because a stronger hero is just a turn or two away from winning. Not a deal breaker.

You're right in that questing feels limited late in the second act of the game. At that point Iv'e found the purple and orange gems are what folks should be going for. Unless you can zip around the map with your character the quests should be gotten early in your adventure and hopefully you complete them at some point during your travels. I found it makes thematic sense as well. If the Dragon or Necromancer is about to destroy the world you probably shouldn't be exploring Mad Man's Pass for some trinkets n gold. It's too late for that lol.

It wasn't until I realized that the game is essentially a pick and delivery game, mixed with a fantasy adventure game that the design really clicked for me. It's much closer to something like Firefly or Merchants and Marauders than say, Runebound 2nd edition. I really love how the skills and items work to upgrade your character. By the end you really feel like you've leveled up. Hunting down skill and item synergies is also really rewarding. Plus if things go right and you get something like the Runic Armor with the Family Heirloom sword it's friggin sweet. You feel like an unstoppable juggernaut.

The biggest complaint for me is still downtime and overall length. It's about an hour per player. So that means you're looking at a four hour game with a full table. Some people won't mind that, but at that length I might as well go play TI3 or Runewars. I'll play the game with 3, but I still think I prefer it at two. Which means the only playable scenario is the Dragon...which kinda sucks.

That being said, I'm ready for new content and hopefully some changes. The best thing about Runebound 2nd Edition was how malleable the system was. With all the expansions there were dozens of different ways to play it. I hope they follow that blueprint with this new edition. This isn't a game where I want merely more of the same.
The following user(s) said Thank You: wkover, Columbob

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
02 Jun 2016 14:54 #228516 by Egg Shen

bigmop wrote: We demand an explanation of why runewars was left off both lists!


I stated in part one that Runewars would have been #11 on that list. I didn't include it on the reprint/reworking list because I didn't include FFG own reworkings.

Reasons why it just missed list part 1?

- I think it's the third best game of it's type that FFG offers. I vastly prefer both TI3 and Forbidden Stars. I like TI3 for it's space opera feel, tech tree, and diplomacy. I think Forbidden Stars trumps it in combat, mechanics (love that order stacking) faction upgrades, and how victory points work. I love that in Forbidden Stars if you get a victory point...it's yours forever. There is no tug of war with it. The other players failed in preventing you from earning it. It's a personal preference.

- FFG has sort of screwed up Runewars with the Revised Edition. I kinda hate that new rule where you have to announce you have the dragon runes to win and then you have to survive for a year. It's OK in a two player game. In a three and four player game I found it doesn't add anything enjoyable. I much prefer the original win conditions.

- I feel like the expansion is necessary to patch the game. It fixes a bunch of things with the base game (heroes, faction specific upgrades etc...)

- The combat is no where near as engaging as Forbidden Stars. I get that the game itself isn't just about fighting, but the battle themselves just lack a little something. I like the cards and how they function. In the end though I just really prefer how battle resolve in FS more.

It's still a great, great, game though. Despite these flaws I very much love it. I just think if you set up three tables with TI3, Forbidden Stars and Runewars...I'm doing whatever it takes to get a seat at those first two tables. I just think those two games slightly outclass Runewars.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
02 Jun 2016 14:55 #228517 by Columbob
I don't know if you're aware of the two upcoming expansions for Runebound. One new scenario, plus a bunch of new cards for every deck, and new heroes.
The following user(s) said Thank You: wkover

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
02 Jun 2016 15:58 #228523 by Egg Shen

Columbob wrote: I don't know if you're aware of the two upcoming expansions for Runebound. One new scenario, plus a bunch of new cards for every deck, and new heroes.


Yup. I'll be buying both of them as soon as they're available. They don't look like they're going to add anything drastic, but anything at this point is good. I really hope that they eventually release big box expansions in the same vein as Sands, Frozen Wastes, and Mists. Those drastically altered the game and provided some really awesome stuff to play with.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Columbob

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Moderators: Gary Sax
Time to create page: 0.142 seconds