sigmazero13 said:

True, but fighting over a false rune isn't really all that vital - fighting over a REAL rune can win you the game. So although with the false runes you'll have more opportunities for advantage, with only real rules, you know that EVERY fight in a rune territory will be worth fighting over

I think in many cases, the true power of this title is not its offensive impact to conquer areas with rune tokens. In my experience, the defense quality of this title card is often more important: It increases the "defense rate" of nearly all your areas by 2. Especially in addition with a stronghold, your enemy will think twice if he wants to attack you.

Moreover, some areas without real rune tokens, but with strategic importance (like bottlenecks) may be highly important for the outcomes of a game session – and these are the areas that are worth to be conquered or defended with this title card.

sigmazero13 said:

That is not true at all: Attacking in a FFA game leaves you open, and is usually a sure way to make you lose indeed, unless you are an adept of metagame diplomacy, and convince your other neighbour that if they don't attack you while you are wide open, you will help them in the next game, it is usually a recipe for disaster. That and there are many other "issues", like kingmaking (I know, not everyone sees that as an issue, but I personnaly don't like this kind of games very much), that don't make these games very enjoyable, except for a very few ones like Chaos in the Old World, that have special mechanisms preventing this from happening (Citow still somewhat "suffer"s from kingmaking, but to a much lesser extent than most other FFA games).

On the other hand, in a team game, not attacking allows the other team to double tap on one of your guys, and get him quickly out of the picture (it works in Nexus Ops, Starcraft, Axis and Allies). Turtling in a team game is usually a pretty suicidal strategy.

I too would like to see some team rules ( the lack of team rules being what makes me not get the game in the first place...). I really love Starcraft, but it is so unforgiving for new players that it is pretty hard to get them to play again.

Galdred said:

I completly agree with this. Pretty much any game involving attacking that has more than 2 player FFA is open to having players reluctent to attack and leave themselves open. In a game like Runewars where attacking is not actually neccessary to win the game this can quite easily be a possibilty in a given play.

However, if there are going to be team rules added to Runewars there are going to have to be some major revisions to the game. Basic rules needed for team actions vs non-team aside the game ends instantly when a player reaches a set number of runes. If the game is going to have teams something has to be done to make sure that the game doesn't end too fast with players getting the needed runes before anything even gets going (which can happen in the game even now) or the game going too long with the max years coming to a close and players unable to reach the goal.

If the lack of team rules is what is keeping you from getting the game and you don't mind house rules I have created a fix for the objective that also allows an easy transition into team games:

You play until the end of the sixth year with no set rune amount that ends the game suddenly. Instead the winner is determined at the end of the sixth year by counting up runes. Fake runes are worth one point, real runes are worth two. You will have to create your own runes for this as there are not enough in the box. I just painted some game beads grey and put marks on the bottom of half of them.

For team games now, all you have to do is pick your teams, pick who goes first then alternate players so that 2 players on the same team do not go in a row. Then everything else plays the same as the FFA with the objective fix.

Even kingmaking which seems to be an issue with you is less of a problem as it is difficult for one player, by the time they realize they are far enough behind to not have a chance, to really influence the game for a specific player. I wouldn't say it's completely impossible but they have to be pretty convinently positioned at a specific time to make a major impact against exactly who they need to to push their chosen player into a set lead.

Galdred said:

I disagree. Your claims would be true if Runewars was about conquering and wiping out your opponent, but it's not - it's about claiming runes and keeping them. Any player who goes out conquering willy-nilly deserves to be smashed by a third player - that's not what this game is about.

Most conquering in Runewars comes early, in the form of resource grabbing, or late, to claim that one last rune to win the game. During the middle of the game, my experience is that conquest is only done in controlled amounts - hardly enough where a third party could come in and clean up the results.

I've won plenty of 3-player games of Runewars, both via attacking and without attacking; the FFA aspect doesn't make leaving yourself open too much of a worry because attacking another player just to attack them is usually a waste of an action.

It wouldn't surprise me if they came out with a team version of Runewars, but like Starcraft, I'll probably never play it because it just seems to defeat the purpose of what the game is about.

sigmazero13 said:

You see this is a problem for me. A game called RuneWARS with a picture of a huge battle on the cover, a description that states "An epic board game of conquest, adventure, and fantasy empires", mass unit figures for each races armies, and more and the game is NOT about conquering your opponent??? I think the objective is what defeats the purpose of what this game is about.

Kirenx said:

You still fight over runes - just not over random territory

I've only been disappointed a few times in my games of Runewars in respect to combat - most games tend to have enough combat to keep it interesting.

Not all wars are endless skirmishes; maneuvering and positioning are just as vital

sigmazero13 said:

Never thought that all wars had to be endless skirmishes, but as you said maneuvering and positioning should be just as vital. However when you break the game down to it's basic neccessities all you need are 3 hexes aside from your home to place the runes needed to win. I'm not saying that is all you'll ever take but what does bother me about this is that you could essentially give players those 3 hexes from the start, remove armies from the game altogether and the game would still work, it would now essentially just be a different version of Runebound. I just find it strange that armies are not a more central mechanic of the game. especially since many aspect of the game seem to suggest it was meant to be. If you removed either hero questing or influence, the absence of either would have a more profound effect on aquiring the end objective than the armies.

Don't get me wrong, I love Runebound. The race objective in Runebound works, but I don't think it should have been recycled into another variation and especially not while that variation makes claim at every angle of being a game about war and conquest. And as my objective fix shows the method for making the game what it suggests to be is there, in fact by changing the objective not only does combat become more essential but at the same time all other mechanics remain vital, some even balancing out more AND to top it off you get an easy transition into team games that some want and even the addition of more players in the future! I realize that some people love the game as is and always will but it just strikes me as you end up losing out on so much potential.

Well, I know you've stated your opinion on such multiple times, but I still disagree. At least with my own experience with the game, holding just the basic 3 areas will rarely win the game. Sure, that's all you NEED - but what the extra areas gives you is more flexibility to move, more resources with which to acquire units (and influence!), and the ability to defend yourself.

In most of the games I've played, the person who expands the most ends up winning, and the player who ends up holed up in his little region, while never out of the game, is always struggling to keep from going under. Sometimes that player wins, but mostly it's the more aggressive, expanding players, those who have enough resources to take control of the bidding, the cities, and the other things that play into the end objective.

3 areas can win you the game, sure - but only if you end up getting 3 runes to put in them! If you aren't expanding, the chances of gaining most of those runes is drastically reduced, because the other players will be able to beat you on the bidding front more consistently, and most runes come from bids and other influence factors.

CAN the game be won without fighting? Sure. Is the game still a race game? Yes, it is - but at least in my experience with the game, to win against aggressive players, you have to be aggressive also, or you just won't be able to win that race.

sigmazero13 said:

You see though I know you disagree, but at the same time I don't think you really understand what you are disagreeing with. You like the game the way it is. I understand that, I have no problem with that. That does not overwrite the simple fact that there is a flaw in the games objective mechanic in relation with how the game presents itself. Say you buy a box. This box says oranges on it, it has pictures of oranges on it, it has a description saying 'box of oranges'. Now you open that box and it is full of apples with a few oranges inside. There is something wrong with that. Now that being said you may love apples, heck you might enjoy apples MORE than oranges, there is still a flaw in that design and/or presentation though.

Now saying you only need 3 areas to win is obviously an extreme example and as I stated you will most likely take over more than that. The point was though that broken down to the core the objective only REQUIRES those 3 areas. Sure taking over more areas MAY help, it also may not. It ends up depending a lot on luck of what gets drawn. I've seen games and read other peoples examples on boards of games ending in the first few years suddenly because of the cards that come up. The word 'suddenly' and 'abruptly' end up getting tossed around a lot when describing these games as that is how the game tends to end. Then all the strategy, all the planning means NOTHING. That is one of the biggest issues when trying to incorpriate a race objective mechanic into a game that is trying to be about strategy and control. The best ways to win will be the most efficient ways to reach the objective. Now you say that combat can lead to runes and sure it can. But it doesn't generate runes, it relies on a lot of outside factors leading to the condition that you can reach and secure someone elses rune and at the same time defend your own. This would be just fine if once again you also had to worry that at any time the game could come to an end before the limits on movement could allow your forces to reach their destination. On the other hand influence bids generate a rune directly that you get to place down where you choose, most likely as close to your homeland as possible. This does lead to races with a higher starting influence on top of a higher influence generating potential to have an advantage. Reagardless of how large or small you want to argue that advantage is, it is there.

Then comes heroes and questing. This is slightly less direct as you need to convert rewards and shards into rune but as heroes do not interact with armies or neutral units and thus have a more straight forward time moving they can often reach their quest goals at a much faster pace, obviously combined with the luck factor of quests possibly being located even closer than your enemies homeland. Of course you can duel heroes but this brings a whole different slew of factors. Duels only last 4 draws, without equipment (and even with certain equipment) this can lead to no resolution expect the attacker uses up one of their turns made ever more important by the fact that they are on the clock. You could of course gand heroes up on a single hero but once again with the limited turns and the race going against you this will need to depend on the gain as the opponent could very well have other heroes as well and be getting multiple shards and rewards in the span of time it takes you to take out one hero and gain the rewards held.

Anyways, I will state again. You can enjoy the game as a race game for sure. The game however does not present itself as a race game and even many of the mechanics do not seem made for a race objective, working better when the race aspect is removed. I actually think that things such as the epic varient being placed in the rule book at all, not to mention the fact that there are not enough runes included in the box to support it, suggest the game designers were most likely not completely done with the game on release. Prehaps they were a bit rushed by marketing, maybe not. I just hope that if it is the case that the game was released prematurly that they either fix it with a new edition that has the game represent itself more accuratly or release an expansion that brings the game more in line with what it was meant to be.

On a slightly different note Sigmazero13, it has been established what the race objective mechanic takes away from the game. The general consensus from people that don't like it being the abrupt game endings and high relience on luck. I'm curious to hear from the perspective of someone that prefers race over turn limited zone control. What does the race objective bring to the game? And also what do you see as being lost if it was removed?

I know what I'm disagreeing with You claim that the game is a race game at heart where conquest is often unimporatnt. I disagree - I think conquest and fighting has more impact than you give it credit for, even if conquest in and of itself doesn't win games. It's the reprecussions of conquest that make big impacts in the game.

I can go only off my own experiences (with several different groups of people), but in very, very few of them has conquest and fighting been negligible; in the vast majority of games, the player who is aggressive in conquering territory gains a large advantage, because they have resources to expand with, more influence, and are in position to steal runes from others. Players who turtle up CAN win with just 3 areas - but they almost never do, because they have a hard time filling those 3 areas with anything.

Perhaps your game group just plays it differently than my games have been; I can't say for sure. But I suspect if your group were to play against players who took the conquest aspect of the game as an integral part, they would probably find that being passive will not win very often.

Kirenx said:

I think you've taken an inference of the consensus. The only consensus I've seen is that it DOES often end abruptly - however, I haven't seen anything to indicate that people (as a majority) don't like it. I personally don't think it detracts from the game in most cases - because the last year tends to be a last-ditch grab for runes by ALL players, and in most cases, all players have a good shot. Fighting is often a big part of that to jostle for that last rune - I've won many games by snagging my 6th rune after combat.

Of course, we may just have differing viewpoints on this. I guess the issue is that it seems you don't like the "who gets there first" aspect - and if that's the case, just don't play with the race, and just play the full 6 years. Not a difficult change to make (and more than a few of my games have ended up going to year 6 anyway, with a handful even going to the end of Winter). I can only speak from my experience, but I just haven't seen that conquest is anything but a vital part of winning the game.

For what it's worth, I'm not necessarily opposed to lengthening the game (I like the Epic Rules, for instance). I once tried a 2-player game where we said "we will do 6 seasons and call the winner then" (ie, not stopping at 6). After about Year 4, in that particular game, we decided that one of us (I think it was him, but I can't remember) was just kicking the tar out of the other (I think it was like 7-2 at that point), and the one who was down really didn't have much opportunity to come back, so we called it there. The game had a lot of conflict, too (which is why the one player had 7 runes - not from stealing a rune, but just because his area dominance gave him the Influence dominance as well).

sigmazero13 said:

I'm not saying conquest in unimportant. I wouldn't even deny that you COULD possibly win using conquest. The problem is that conquest is not as vital as it should be given the games representation of it being a core mechanic. As earlier stated you could remove the army aspect fairly easily and the game would still run. This should not be possible if the mechanic is vital to the core objective.

Sure people can go aggressive. They can grab nothing but tactic cards and try to rush a player right off the bat. The problem is the random elements of the game can present yet another player with the needed runes and since the game will end when he gets them that aggressive player , or any player really would have a hard time finding the movement or resources to change target and prevent the win as once the last rune goes down the game is finished. This means that the race objective is actually limiting strategy and tactics in a game that should be about strategy and tactics. You can have the greatest plan ever but it's hard to plan for lucky draws that lead to the game ending on year 3.

You seem to mention playing passive all the time as well. The issue with this is that it is easy to build up a sizable force and still focus on influence and hero questing. You are limited to 8 units a hex no matter how many total units you have and everyone has the same limitations moving their forces out (aside from the few fast units) and through controlled and neutral areas. The 'passive' players therefore are not going to be sitting on just the 3 hexes they need they will be spreading out too and should be able to put up just as much of a fight as the 'aggressive' players, especially considering a large amount of tactic cards are defensive.

Of course if the game was more combat oriented then playing 'passivly' and 'aggressivly' would definitely be more noticable as differing strategies. As is though the game is won by who gets to six runes first regardless of how they do it and since heroes and influence generate those runes players that utalize those resources will end up winning the race more often than players who try to win based on the focus of taking others runes, in which case they need to succeed to actually gain a ruin in the first place.

sigmazero13 said:

I think you misread my post I said the consensus of people that DON'T like the way the game works, not the general consensus of everyone that plays it.

Kirenx said:

I don't usually like to quote myself but I still really have not gotten any kind of response to this. It's one issue I have with some of the defense against the need for change in Runewars. It seems sometimes people just blindly defend it with no real idea of WHY it shouldn't change. I honestly want to know what is better about the game with it's current objective. It strikes me that alongside all the fixes I have pointed out the objective change would also allow things like team play and easy additions of more players in the future. So I do want to know WHAT would be lost and WHAT the race objective brings to the table.

Kirenx said:

I've given my perspective many times - I'm not sure what further I can say that I haven't said already. In short - forcing it to go to 6 years COULD make some games more exciting - but in many (perhaps even most) cases, the last 2 or 3 years would just be dragging out the inevitable; the race condition allows for the game to end when someone has won, instead of playing out a losing battle for one or more players.

I think the point is - you don't like the race condition. That's fine - but that doesn't make it a bad thing, it just means it doesn't suit your taste.

I absolutely hate this forum software. I typed a response, hit submit, got some lame error, and when I went back, my post was gone. I don't feel like reposting it.

In short, I disagree with your premise at it's core - I believe conquest IS a vital part of the game. I've given my reasons before, and rehashing them now is just going in circles. If you don't like the end result of that, well, that's a matter of personal taste.

As for the consensus, I don't agree it's even a consensus among those that don't like it. It may be one factor for some people, sure - but even then, it's just one facet of many. And I've seen more people who complain about the game taking too LONG than saying that it ends too early.

Anyway, I had more posted before, but I'm sick of this piece-of-crap forum software and it's bugs, and I don't feel like trying to remember how I worded it. If FFG has one flaw, it's that they continue to use this idiotic Edge software; it is bar none the absolute WORST forum software I have ever used.

There are many fine suggestions here about what could or should be added. Personally, I'd like stands, coloured the same colours as the races, that the heroes clip into. I've lost count how many times someone has said 'whose bloke is this'...

Sausageman said:

That would be cool. Even just cardboard tokens that go under their base and have a coloured ring that shows around the hero base would do the trick.

Kirenx said:

For my two cents, the "race objective" brings about the ability to end a game whose outcome is really not in question without having to go through the motions for another hour or so, thus sparing 1-3 people from a boring and pointless hour of game experience that might eventually sully their opinion of Runewars.

If you don't find it boring to continue playing a game whose outcome is already effectively decided, then you really wouldn't be losing anything by removing it. I also don't see any reason why you can't remove it yourself, it's a simple house rule. Whether or not this idea gets mentioned as an optional rule in an expansion is irrelevant, IMHO. Use it if you want, don't if you don't. There is no reason WHY it should change, nor is there a reason WHY it should stay the same. This is how it was written, saving time is WHY it was written. If you want to change it, go nuts.

I've been following the discussion between you and Sigma for a while now and it seems to boil down to this: You dislike the race objective, he likes it (or at least doesn't mind it.) That's a matter of personal opinion for each of you. You guys can keep going back and forth forever and it's highly unlikely that either of you will change the other's mind. It isn't a question of game balance or mechanical simplicity, it's just a question of how you each like to play. That has been Sigma's main point for at least the last couple of entries he's made. Agree to disagree already and move on with your life.

sigmazero13 said:

Actually all I've seen you post is that you disagree not WHY. This has been the first post I've seen from you that actually gives a reason. I wasn't trying to be a jerk asking why I was genuinely curious. From your statement that the last 2 or 3 years would be dragging the game out I assume that your games are very one sided? Like when someone reaches 6 runes is everyone else at 2 or 3? I'm not sure why you seem to think the games winner would be so obvious early on purely in runes controlled at that point much less with the mechanic involving more combat related conquest and control of opponent controlled runes.

And the point isn't that I don't like or do like the race condition. That has never been the point. I was pointing out that my objective fix would ADD more options to the game that some people have mentioned wanting but that is an extra bonus not the point. The point has been about how the game represents itself. It has been established that games CAN end without combat which is questionable why it would be so in a game that describes itself as a war game. It has even been said by players content with the games mechanics that the game can end abruptly and is not about long term strategies which brings into question why the game describes itself as an epic game of conquest and empires. But mainly what I note is that on sites like BGG every negative review seems to have a few complaints in common and are followed by the diehard fans disagreeing and shooting their opinions down. However these complaints steam from players been mislead by the games box art, box description, game name, as well as certain things in the box. So the game's objective mechanic being a good thing or not certainly is a matter of personal taste. At the same time the games developers have either misrepresented the game or produced a flawed mechanic and one way or another it would be in the best interest for any future players if it was fixed.

I think Steve's point is valid here - I'm not interested in continuing the debate to give the same arguments over and over. If I haven't been clear to this point why I dislike it, further rahashing of the same won't make it more clear.

Honestly, what I think this boils down to is that (at least from way it sounds to me), your argument is "Since you disagree with me, you obviously don't understand my point of view; if you did, there wouldn't be any disagreement." IE, while I'm sure you enjoy your variant just fine, it sounds a lot like you are evangilizing it to the point of "if you don't try this, you are doing it wrong." But it really boils down to personal taste - I don't think the game NEEDS it, and hence, I don't see any need to change it!

No, my games aren't always one-sided, but that doesn't mean a clear victor isn't obvious early on. Some games do go the full 6 years; I don't think games that end earlier as-written should be FORCED to go longer just to make them longer.

Steve-O said:

Well with the base objective I don't know how often your games end with such a huge obvious lead but the fix is meant to solve the issues with abrupt and lucky wins. The influence and questing mechanics actually balance out better over more years as luck and race leads play less of a factor. The fact that combat becomes a more central and vital mechanic also makes the outcome not obviously decided until the end.

As for your view on the matter of changes being made or not to the game. If you are the type to get something and be content no matter what, good for you. I like strive for the best experience something can offer. I suppose developers would love players that accept everythere as is no matter what but that does seem like it would lead to lazy development. Why not make suggestions, point out flaws, and try to push games to be better? I suppose in short I just don't want to settle for mediocrity.

I'd point out that I have stated many times I do like the game and many of it's mechanics. Some things that don't seem to work to me I have pointed out and been upfront about stating that those are my opinions and not something I am trying to state as facts. On the subject of the core mechanic though I have pointed out WHY it shouldn't be that way OR they need to redesign the box and description. This is more in effort to stop players that end up disappointed with the game from buying it in the first place. Many of the negative reviews have been from players mislead about what the game was from information on the box and the website. This seems valid to me and many of the points I have brought up have been in relation to this.

sigmazero13 said:

Wow I didn't know asking for reasons why someone disagrees with me means that my arguement is "Since you disagree with me, you obviously don't understand my point of view; if you did, there wouldn't be any disagreement." There never seemed to be a problem with having a discussion when I didn't say anything about people responding with a simple "well I don't agree" but apparently I shouldn't have asked for reasons why. I apologize then I didn't think that was taking things too far.

One last point though I also never stated "if you don't try this, you are doing it wrong." about my fix but at the same time now that you brought it up I have seen you post on peoples negative reviews that they have not played enough or it's the way their group plays so I do wonder how you can have a view on my fix without playing it, much less playing it multiple times.

Kirenx said:

It may have come across harsher than I meant it, but I think the reason it feels that way to me is that I've given my reasons why both here and on BGG, yet in your earlier post you suggested that I hadn't answered them. I'm not sure if maybe my answers just haven't been clear, or what, but your logic hasn't changed my opinion, and thus my answers aren't any different on why I don't think there's a need to change.

And in any case, my opinion is just my opinion based on my experience playing the game. Yours is just your opinion based on your experience playing the game. Whether or not the end-game mechanics as-written are "good" or "bad" has no right or wrong answer, because the answer depends on who is playing it. Some people will like it, some people won't (or will find it flawed). I think I'm in the former, you seem to be in the latter. And that's fine - that's what house rules are for - changing the rules to suit personal/group tastes!

Kirenx said:

Again, it's more that I've given my reasons in other posts here and on the BGG forums, yet it feels like I keep being asked the same questions. All I can go by is my personal experience, and the posts of people on the forums (which are going to differ greatly). I can't speak for yours because I'm not you

Kirenx said:

My posts on your variant, though aren't based on whether it "fixes" the problem or not, though; that was never my point. My point is based on whether or not there was a problem to fix at all. That topic is a matter of opinion. IE, my "counter" comments have instead been focused on the NEED for such changes.

It's true I can't really speak for whether or not the variant "works" - but even by trying it, I don't know if it would give me any better insight into it, beyond "does it work". I'm sure it does, though maybe not, I have no idea. But since I don't mind the race condition as it is, using it would just be using it for the sake of "change" - and I'm not big on playing with house rules for things that don't need to be changed. I *DO* have a lot of experience playing the game as-written, enough that I can confidently say for myself that "I don't think there is anything wrong with the end-game conditions". But since again, that's a matter of taste, that won't suit everyone.

I think it's perfectly reasonable when a variant idea is posted for others to bring up contrasts with the rules-as-written on why the variant may not be "needed" (especially when the variant is posed as a "fix" to a problem). Sometimes, it can help a new player to decide for themselves to see both sides of things. I know when I'm learning a new game that others are veterans with, and someone proposed a variant, one of the first things I do is look for those who say why they think it's needed AND those that think it's not, so I can better get an idea of the PURPOSE behind the variant, and decide for myself if it seems useful to me.

Anyway, I apologize if my comments here or elsewhere have seemed harsh. Trying to discuss in a forum isn't easy because it's not always easy to tell the "tone" of a post based on words alone. I respect that you and I don't agree on this topic; if you've found a way that makes the game more enjoyable to you, that's great! Maybe sometime I'll give it an honest try just to try it, but I don't think I'd give it a fair shake since I'd come in biased against the need for using it anyway. But that doesn't make it "bad" - just unneeded (for me).

Kirenx said:

Ah, but this is the whole crux of the problem. In your opinion, the game isn't good enough as is and needs to be "fixed." In my opinion it's fantastic as is and doesn't need to be fixed. Just because I'm content to leave the game as is doesn't mean I'm "settling" for anything. It means I think they did a perfectly good job designing it the way they did. This is a difference of opinon. I'm not saying you're wrong to feel like you do, I'm just saying we both have a right to feel they way we want.

I don't accept lazy development at all - if a game is unsatisfactory I don't buy it. I research games before I buy them. I read reviews, I play other people's copies if possible. Lazy developers never get my dime in the first place. By contrast, you seem to think it's fine to buy a sh*tty game because you can fix it up yourself if it isn't good enough out of the box, but if you follow that logic then the lazy developers are getting your money which only gives them further incentive to make more sh*tty games. Developers are in business to make money. They don't care what you do with the game after you buy it, they just want to get your money.

"Why bother making it good before release? The fans will fix it if they don't like it."

As I said before, you can keep pushing your opinion until the end of time, that doesn't make me wrong for disagreeing with you. It doesn't mean I'm ignoring your points and it doesn't mean I'm somehow not getting as much out of the game as you are. It just means we have different points of view. Agree to disagree.

For the record, I have no problem with making house rules and tinkering with stuff. I do that, too. In this specific case, however, I don't feel the house rule is necessary.