Greetings everyone,

While this topic may look like UFO at a garden party (but nowadays nothing does surprise anyone so...), I wanted to known, from descent players, what they did think about the other games in the runebound range. FFG developed some but none seems, to me, to have the same success as Descent II. And yes I checked their dates of release and yes some of them are young. but still. I am more interested in what you think about Runebound and Runewars.

Thanks in advance,

Elrad. :-)

Rune Wars is a conquest game with some ressources management. Quiet long but it introduces you well tot the whole universe.
Runebound is a character development game, far more easy to play and to put on the table than Runewars or Descent.

The 2 games are very nice.

You missed out battlelore, rune age and dungeonquest.

Battlelore, rune wars and descent are all excellent games.

Rune age is an acquired taste, but many people are very happy with it.

I don't like talking about runebound.

@mulletcheese why not talking about runebound ?

Battlelore is known to me in its ancient version from Days of Wonders when Richard >Borgs was working for them with Memoir 44 and Battlelore.

I've played the second edition of Runebound a few times, and I really enjoy it. However, it's quite out of print. I have not yet played the new third edition.

Runewars is absolutely wonderful. It's a long game (it usually takes our group significantly longer than the advertised play time) but it's really fun, and has never disappointed. The revised edition is well worth it- the faction sheets are a bit more flimsy, but if you're careful with the components they will not fall apart on you and they're sturdy enough. I do not miss the 3D mountains or mind the few puzzle-piece map tiles. The banners of war expansion is perfect. It augments the game to make it more interesting and a little more complicated, but is in no way required to play if you just want the base game (especially with the revised edition, which incorporates some rules that debuted originally with Banners of War.)

I really want both Runebound and Runewars, especially the former, but I'm so engrossed in Descent right now I couldn't possibly afford it. Makes me a sad panda.

I really enjoy Battlelore. It is a nice, relatively quick, light skirmish game with interesting tactics built into the different units. I really like the style of the art and minis, as many are similar to troops in Descent. Highly recommend it.

Thanks to all for your answers so far.

I had seen a long preview/play trough of Runewars and never gave up the idea of acquiring it someday. but all in all, amidst all the games in the runebound universe, Descent seems to be the most played one, am I wrong ?

for Battlelore I don't know I have to have a look at it but since I have the complete collection, of Memoir 44 which was the successor of Command and Colors and the mentor of all the battlelores, I'm less attracted by it.

My question would be the following : is the world of every game the same each time ? I mean when we read about Arrhyn in the Shadow Rune campaign in D2, do we find it back in another game from the same universe or not ?

There are some references in Battlelore flavor text to different cities and Barons and such. The feel of the minis and cards is the same, but there really isn't much story present in Battlelore. Can't speak for the other games though.

Battlelore is a very enjoyable two player game with deep tactics and a high production value. Every faction uses different tactics and the balancing is nice too.

Thanks to all for your answers so far.

I had seen a long preview/play trough of Runewars and never gave up the idea of acquiring it someday. but all in all, amidst all the games in the runebound universe, Descent seems to be the most played one, am I wrong ?

for Battlelore I don't know I have to have a look at it but since I have the complete collection, of Memoir 44 which was the successor of Command and Colors and the mentor of all the battlelores, I'm less attracted by it.

My question would be the following : is the world of every game the same each time ? I mean when we read about Arrhyn in the Shadow Rune campaign in D2, do we find it back in another game from the same universe or not ?

You hawe to see it that way.

Rune wars sets the background of the whole universe. What the different factions are, what is the history of Mennara, introduces the heroes and what may drive them and so on. For instance it is Rune Wars that explains what are the origins of the Mistlands (MoB, CtR expansions in Descent).

Rune Age will focus on the different factions (undead,...) and will bring more details for each faction history. Cities as Tamalir appear in the game.

(for global lore of the universe it is an interesting game)

Battlelore is the game that will bring the best description of units in each faction but nothing new about the whole universe so far.

Descent and Runebound will focus on heroes of menarra in different perspectives. In RuneBound heroes visit towns (similar to Road to Legend) travel accross Menarra whereas in Descent you don't really know exactly where the action take place (a val somewhere in a barony of terrinoth). As Rune bound is a Landcrawler you may think that you are more immerse in Mennara history.

In the Runebound univers, here is a list of the game

- Descent

- Runebound

- Runewars

- Runeage

- Battlelore

- DungeonQuest

None of thoses games has the depth of Descent.

Runebound is a light fun game (but I'm boring playing it)

Runeage is a deck builder game but very light (and i'm boring too)

DungeonQuest is a brainless pure chaotic game (roll dice, draw cards and see what happens)

Battlelore is a fun game for 2 players but a bit repetitive at long

Only Runewars is really good, but needs a full day to be played entierely and can be a bit frustrative

Except univers, none of thoses games share anything more ...

I own Runebound 3rd Ed and Rune Age (+ expansion).

Rune Age is one of my favourites in the Runebound Universe and really really wish it got more love from FFG.

I have my fingers crossed they'll consider a small POD expansion for it in the near future!

In short its a deckbuilder with some of the popular factions in the universe. It comes with a whole host of scenarios, some coop, some PvP, some race for victory etc.

For this reason I love it for the amount of variety you get in the box.

Runebound as it's been said is an adventure game (different from the dungeon delving of Descent).

Less depth to it than Descent, but a play session essentially encompasses the happenings of an entire campaign in Descent. At least that's the way I like to look at it.

Its still new, and FFG missed a few opportunities in the base set, but it's already getting expansion love and some of them look pretty good.

The base set really screamed for expansion, and its clear that that was its sole purpose. At least FFG are delivering.

I like to look at the different games as different scopes to the universe.

RuneAge/Battlelore are the in depth nitty gritty, focus on individual battles.

Descent is moving around the world, but focused on individual quests in detail.

Runebound then has an even larger overlooking scope where you're travelling the world completing an entire story arc in a single sitting.

Waw thanks to all for your comments :-)

I'll now check every game rules and content and eventually maybe choose one of them.

Thanks again :-)

My question would be the following : is the world of every game the same each time ? I mean when we read about Arrhyn in the Shadow Rune campaign in D2, do we find it back in another game from the same universe or not ?

It looks like that. I loved reference to the undead decay of Bilehall in Runewars expansion - which was quite some time before Mists. So things like that create a very consistent feel of the universe.

Runewars introduced me to the Terrinoth universe and it really is a wonderfull thematic game with a plethora of options and hard choices, the possibility to go for very different strategies/tactics, has one of the better resource-management and area control mechanisms out there imo. Battle also gives you quite a number of options, characteristic and thematic special abilities and extremely fast combat resolution, no dice though. It also features bidding and bluffing mechanics and some kind of adventure phase, in which your heroes try to gather the precious rune shards or end up with powerfull equipment, they can use to duel other heroes who might posess these rune-shards. All in all it's dynamic is driven by it's goal: Control the most areas with runes in it (while you can move the runes to another area you control); meaning you never fight for the sake of fighting, but because you want the areas.

Runewars is one of my favorite games I liked so much, it got me into Descent. However there is one logical downside to all these meaningfull options decisions and mechanisms: the game is hard to learn/play without mistakes and it's an epic, long game (with a very exciting gamedynamic and game-arc) that is ultimatly quite exhausting to play.

This game heavily thrives on knowing the capabilities of your enemies, the likelyhood of certain events happening and so on. In short this game comes with a lot of content and I never thought: this game would really improve if I can get X in an expansion and that's why I think there is only one expansion for this game (which I don't own yet).

Runebound 3rd edition is imo a very good adventure game that imo masters a few downfalls of adventure games while still has a few drawbacks of this genre. While it's still kind of long, it's really the most relaxed and the least demanding game out of Runewars, Descent and Runebound.

I really enjoy Runebound 3rd edition's innovative combat system that not only gives you quite a few choices and action in combat, but also because it beautifully reflects your character development, since every item comes with it's own custom die or rather token in this case.

Levelling skills is also done very elegantly, since you don't level your attributes, but individual skills that correspond to an attribute (if your hero has 3 strength, you can "buy" 3 strength-skills) and come with a fitting cost in quests (for example you have to pay 1 combat quest and one quest of choice for a skill).

The downside is that there is very little player interaction. Of course someone always have to fight in place of a monster, but your characters seldomly interact with eachother.

Still it's a great relaxing thematic game and 4 mini-expansions are supposed to hit stores in Q3 2016.

Then there is Descent, which is imo the game format that profits the most from expansions, because it really shines as long as you play on maps, you never played before and have a large pool of heroes/monsters to form different tactics and strategies each campaign. Also I would say it also has this theme of: fighting is just a mean to a more important end; that I love about all the Terrinoth-games I played and it really hits a sweet spot on the gamelength-exhausting to play equation.

@mulletcheese why not talking about runebound ?

Because 3rd edition was an epic fail, hopefully the expansions will make things better by providing "better" content and not just more content.

Runebound was always about telling a story, similar to talisman (without the limitation of d6 movement). The 3rd edition doesn't tell the story of terrinoth it tells a weak generic bland fantasy tale. I could go on about 3rd edition's failures but then I'd never stop.

I've just cut my losses and unsubscribed from the runebound forum, now I can focus on the descent, runewars and Battlelore games instead.

@mulletcheese why not talking about runebound ?

Because 3rd edition was an epic fail, hopefully the expansions will make things better by providing "better" content and not just more content.

Runebound was always about telling a story, similar to talisman (without the limitation of d6 movement). The 3rd edition doesn't tell the story of terrinoth it tells a weak generic bland fantasy tale. I could go on about 3rd edition's failures but then I'd never stop.

I've just cut my losses and unsubscribed from the runebound forum, now I can focus on the descent, runewars and Battlelore games instead.

I'm not sure why you would have such a negative view of 3rd edition if you (apparently) liked 2nd ed. While some of the mechanics are certainly different between the two, they both tell very generic fantasy stories (which is fine with me as I like both versions).

@mulletcheese why not talking about runebound ?

Because 3rd edition was an epic fail, hopefully the expansions will make things better by providing "better" content and not just more content.

Runebound was always about telling a story, similar to talisman (without the limitation of d6 movement). The 3rd edition doesn't tell the story of terrinoth it tells a weak generic bland fantasy tale. I could go on about 3rd edition's failures but then I'd never stop.

I've just cut my losses and unsubscribed from the runebound forum, now I can focus on the descent, runewars and Battlelore games instead.

I always thought of Terrinoth as generic fantasy setting #41, so from that point of view, I really don't see the issue. Everything in Descent is also kept generic as all hell, and I never took issue with that. In fact, coming from a background of loving setting materials and loving unique settings, the generic nature of it all actually comes up as appealing to me. It becomes part of the nature of the setting in itself, and it's a simple setting for simple games. I'd probably hate it for real roleplaying games, but I don't mind it at all in Descent and it doesn't stand out as an argument against Runebound 3rd Ed. to me.

On the other hand, I never played Runebound 2nd Ed. either.

Terrinoth is generic fantasy, but 2nd edition built an interesting setting full of unique characters and encounters.

3rd edition contains no unique characters except the end of game boss, bland monster encounters and excessive duplicates in a small card pool.

From a story heavy game in 2nd edition to a game where you encounter cards like "ogre" (x2), "sorcerer" (x2) or "reanimate" (x4). It was a lazy rehash of a game.

I could go on for ages, but I'd rather not do an excessive rant about runebound and ruin an otherwise interesting topic.

Some people do like it, it's just not for me.

I´ll ask bluntly, justy because I´m curious. I know nothing of the Terrinoth setting besides the fluff in the D2E quest books.

What´s unique about the setting, or what makes it interesting compared to other fantasy settings?

I´ll ask bluntly, justy because I´m curious. I know nothing of the Terrinoth setting besides the fluff in the D2E quest books.

What´s unique about the setting, or what makes it interesting compared to other fantasy settings?

Well for one, the Infernal (i.e. hell) is creatively spelled Ynfernael.

The overlord has a pet crocodile called sweetheart and there is a crashed UFO in the north with a weather control device.

Well for one, the Infernal (i.e. hell) is creatively spelled Ynfernael.

The overlord has a pet crocodile called sweetheart and there is a crashed UFO in the north with a weather control device.

Still not completely sold.

Are there dinosaurs?

There are dragons, drakes, wyrms, giant lizards, lizardmen, serpents and DINOSAURS.

So far only dragons have tried to take over the world, the rest have been lacking in ambition.

Dinosaurs were introduced in the last runebound 2e expansion, the hero's that encountered them were never seen again. They are the only terrinoth hero's not to make it into either edition of descent.... and that's why you don't mess with a dinosaur.