The latest runebound article is on the website.

While I appreciate the designer explaining the reasoning behind some of his design choices to me the whole article read like a list of ways it won't be as good as the previous edition.

I get what he was trying to do by replacing the 4 levels of difficulty with 3 types of encounter (combat, social and quest) and his example of a pacifist elf player, but the more you think about his explanations the more the holes appear.

There has been no indication that the social deck has mechanics nearly as interesting as the combat, no indication that it's anything more than a bunch of fetch quests. How much fun would the pacifist have compared to the other players and how would he be prepared to battle the final boss (pacifism won't work there)

Mentioning that the combat deck levels up during act 2 just highlights the fact that the other 2 adventure decks have no levelling. 2/3 of the adventures not levelling and all monsters getting the same generic (bland) token is really poor. The comment about the ogre you fight at the beginning of the game being the same ogre you fight at the end sums it all up.

I'm not going to mention the claim that r3e has only one level of difficulty less than r2e, that deserves a rant all of its own.

This was the most disappointing article yet.

I'm waiting and waiting for an objective play through review to be posted. All we've seen is these articles and FF controlled interviews at Essen. I understand what you're saying and it reads as such and I'm still holding my cup of Kool-Aid in hope it turns out to be more rich than we might imagine. Hoping, hoping, hoping...

There has been no indication that the social deck has mechanics nearly as interesting as the combat, no indication that it's anything more than a bunch of fetch quests. How much fun would the pacifist have compared to the other players and how would he be prepared to battle the final boss (pacifism won't work there)

Preparation for final battle has nothing to do with the type of encounters you resolve. Each encounter type allows you to gain some specific rewards in terms of trophies, gold, and other benefits. These rewards are used to build engines allowing you to take off the final boss. You can go for a skill card based engine, or for an equipment-based engine, and have similar odds at victory.

Also, I think it's very important for a game to allow different paths to victory: some players would prefer a combat-driven development of their characters, while others could enjoy more the idea of actually exploring the world and discovering other places / resolving social encounters. This allows the designers also a wider range of options when creating characters: some of them will be brutal fighters, some others will be great wizards, some others will be burglars or thieves, but all of them now have a chance to actually have fun in many and different ways.

Plurality always leave space for everyone's likenings, while a single road ahead makes some happy and some sad.

Just my two cents on the matter; no probs with anyone having different opinions, of course

I don't know about you, but I found the grind-fest that was Runebound 2nd edition to be boring at times.

To me the terrain was the most interesting part about Runebound 2nd ed. The actual encounters were all fights, with combat that you played by yourself for a couple of minutes while people checked their phones.

The so-called different "paths to victory" consisted of figuring out which combat stats you wanted to upgrade. Everyone was some sort of fighter.

At least 3rd ed. is trying to make the heroes actually have different "roles."

With Descent 2nd ed., I assumed from the previews it would be better than 1st ed. I have to admit it's a better game than 1st ed. for most people, and I would pretty much only recommend 2nd ed. to most people, but I just personally prefer the 1st ed because I like the long game sessions and exploration and more complex rules. It took me a long time of actually playing both editions to realize what is my personal taste and what is actually evolved game design.

I feel the same about Runebound 3rd ed. It seems like it is going to be a more evolved form of the 2nd ed, and I'm eager to try it out to see which version I like more.

Preparation for final battle has nothing to do with the type of encounters you resolve. Each encounter type allows you to gain some specific rewards in terms of trophies, gold, and other benefits. These rewards are used to build engines allowing you to take off the final boss. You can go for a skill card based engine, or for an equipment-based engine, and have similar odds at victory.

This is a provocative thought I hadn't considered; 2e Runebound was all about item acquisition to defeat the big bad. I had naturally assumed the same would be at play here, but you're right that there is potential for skills to fill the void of an alternative choice. That said, I'm not 100% sure this has been borne out by any preview or reveal -- none of the skills currently spoiled seem particularly strong in regards to taking down the end game villain.

I don't know about you, but I found the grind-fest that was Runebound 2nd edition to be boring at times.

To me the terrain was the most interesting part about Runebound 2nd ed. The actual encounters were all fights, with combat that you played by yourself for a couple of minutes while people checked their phones.

The so-called different "paths to victory" consisted of figuring out which combat stats you wanted to upgrade. Everyone was some sort of fighter.

At least 3rd ed. is trying to make the heroes actually have different "roles."

With Descent 2nd ed., I assumed from the previews it would be better than 1st ed. I have to admit it's a better game than 1st ed. for most people, and I would pretty much only recommend 2nd ed. to most people, but I just personally prefer the 1st ed because I like the long game sessions and exploration and more complex rules. It took me a long time of actually playing both editions to realize what is my personal taste and what is actually evolved game design.

I feel the same about Runebound 3rd ed. It seems like it is going to be a more evolved form of the 2nd ed, and I'm eager to try it out to see which version I like more.

No real reason to quote this, save my admiration for the maturity exemplified in this perspective. Kudos.

Descent was a good example to use of an evolving game system.

I also prefer d1e over d2e but when comparing core sets only d2e wins hands down, because so much d1e expansion content made it into the d2e core set.

I don't get the same feeling from r3e, it seems that they've reimplemented the r2e core set but ignored the improvements from the expansions.

The frozen wastes was my favourite expansion, for many reasons, but partly because there was questing and an optional non-violent resolution. The hero's each gained map tiles during the game and when they collected enough to make a map tile and all surrounding tiles they could match them against the game board to find the location of the lost princess. Once a hero had rescued the lost princess they could peacefully "defeat" one of the 2 final bosses.

Descent was a good example to use of an evolving game system.

I also prefer d1e over d2e but when comparing core sets only d2e wins hands down, because so much d1e expansion content made it into the d2e core set.

I don't get the same feeling from r3e, it seems that they've reimplemented the r2e core set but ignored the improvements from the expansions.

The frozen wastes was my favourite expansion, for many reasons, but partly because there was questing and an optional non-violent resolution. The hero's each gained map tiles during the game and when they collected enough to make a map tile and all surrounding tiles they could match them against the game board to find the location of the lost princess. Once a hero had rescued the lost princess they could peacefully "defeat" one of the 2 final bosses.

It would have been a smart move to allow some non-combat boss resolution mechanics, I agree, but I can't fault them for leaving out the environmental tweaks or ideas I loved from the expansions (notably Sands of Al-Kalim, my personal fav). I suspect stuff like that will come in expansions, but you can't say they didn't push innovation in the design (and one could argue the build in round counter was a nod to Midnight).

Incidentally, by building in a timer, expansion developers can take for granted its inclusion, making cooperative content a higher possibility. I really look forward to seeing the vision FFG has for how to expand this.