I think this game looks great. I had the first edition, and loved it. I sold it in preparation for adding this third edition to my collection. I intend to get it during the holidays.
However, my favorite game is Descent. I have all of the things, and I play Descent almost every week. I love Terrinoth; the only Terrinoth game I have not owned is Rune Wars. Which I am still thinking about.
My one slight hangup with this new edition of Runebound is the lack of definition of the heroes' archetypes. Having played so much Descent, maybe my opinion on this is skewed, but to me Master Thorn is a mage, Lord Hawthorne is a warrior, etc. I understand the appeal of being able to customize your character into any type you wish. But the possibility of building Lord Hawthorne into a lightning wielding sorcerer kind of bugs me.
If the characters are going to be generalists that can be built into anything you want, then why use already established characters? Why not create some new generic sculpts, call them generic archetype names, and include enough generic minis that players can determine their archetype at the beginning of the game (4 warriors, 4 mages, 4 scouts, etc). I know why. To get use out of already manufactured molds, to tie in more with Descent, etc.
I am not saying that I want these more generic sculpts, etc. I just think that a little more specialization in the characters abilities would make them more thematically interesting. This is a very minor hang up, and I also know the solution. Since the characters can be built anyway the player wants, I am perfectly free to always build Lord Hawthorne into a warrior, etc. Which I probably always will.
So my question is, are the heroes' stats and abilities in this new edition of Runebound too generic? Or does this bug no one but me?
Edited by Madmartigan