I've been looking at Runewars for a long time now. If it wasn't so expensive I'm sure I would have picked it up.

Do you think I would love Runewars?

I know this is very subjective and almost crazy to ask but I'm looking for opinions and thoughts.

I have a ton of FFG board games and my number one favorite is Runebound. Which is in part why Runewars has caught my eye. Being in the same universe will give it some instant appeal to me... but I don't want to get sucked for that alone.
Even though Runebound doesn't really offer much player interaction I really enjoy developing my character and I even enjoy watching the other players turns as they work on their own development. I also really love the huge variety in cards. Market cards and adventure cards are so well developed and varied. The combat is solid and always takes some mindful strategy. And I really love traveling the board with the terrain dice; it's one of the smartest/coolest/fun game mechanics out there.
Some other favorites of mine are:
Descent
Arkham Horror
Android
Talisman

Runewars doesn't have to be similar to the above. I'm certainly looking for a new experience but I thought if you know what I'm into it could only help you guess what I might think of Runewars

Here's one thing I really worry about regarding Runewars. I don't think I will like using a deck of cards to resolve combat and whatever else it's used for. Why didn't they use dice? How is this deck better?

I've read a ton of mixed reviews over at game board geek and I just don't know what to think...

If anyone else reading this is also thinking about picking up Runewars feel free add your own questions and or concerns. No worries about Hijacking

TIA!

It's hard to say, really. I don't know much about Android, and haven't played Talisman (just heard of it), but Runewars is a different beast than Runebound, Descent, and Arkham Horror. Those three games are all about the characters and the story they tell. Runewars is definitely more of an empire-building game; the heroes are only a small part of the overall experience.

Runewars would be more along the lines of, say, Twilight Imperium (though not nearly as deep or complex), War of the Ring, or Starcraft - a war-oriented game focused on controlling territory and resource management.

Hein99 said:

It depends on your take. The card combat allows for a little greater variety in results. With dice, to do what they did here, you'd have to have charts to look up what the various results are: routs, damage, special abilities, etc, all of which happen to have different odds for different unit types.

Plus, one thing I like about it is that the results from before can influence the results coming later. This mostly applies to Destiny (such as with Questing or with Diplomacy attempts), because as the deck runs down, it becomes easier to determine how likely success will be (or unlikely, depending). Whether this system is "good" or "bad" is really a matter of taste, but I've found that it works well for me. I was a bit surprised to hear about the "no dice" thing at first, but the way they implement the system in this is rather good.

Hein99 said:

Mixed reviews are going to be part of the equation no matter what the game is. It should be pointed out, though, that if you are using Boardgamegeek as a reference, that Runewars is currently ranked #44 overall - which is quite an impressive number! There will be some that don't like it, of course, but I think as a whole, most people who've tried it end up enjoying it!

As you state yourself, whether it's for you is highly subjective; I can't really say one way or the other. I'm not sure if the games you list are going to be good comparisons (other than if you like the flavor of Runebound and Descent, there is a similar flavor with Runewars, even though Runewars is a completely different style). To better help, it may be useful to know what kinds of conquest/battle style games you've enjoyed, and what you enjoyed about them.

I own both Descent (+ the campaign...) and Runebound. I love Descent. I think it is a fine game, especially if you have a regualr group of competitive dungeon crawlers. Descent most appealling game feature to me is the tension between Heroes and the Overlord. That mechanic is extremely enjoyable, and adds a layer of strategy to the whole Dungeon crawler genre. On top of that, the heroes and art work and powers available to the heroes is just icing on the cake.

I purchased RuneWars before I ever purchased Runebound. RuneWars is a fantastic game. It is nothing like Descent. It is about resource management and conflict. RuneWars has lots of back stabbing in it, but its all players against all players. You use your nation and all its resources to get to your goal (Winning) Thats soldiers, strongholds, political influence, heroes (right from Runebound and Descent) plus hero quest rewards. (You will recognize all these rewards as copper/silver and gold treasures)

I purhcased Runebound recently just to see what it was about. Frankly, in my opinion, Runebound is a snore fest compared to RuneWars and Descent. I would add that compared to Runebound, Runewars does not have the same amount of downtime.

Arkham Horror is also a stellar game. I would say Arkham horror has more akin to Descent in terms of game play than Runewars does.

simpatikool said:

I'm not sure Arkham Horror is any more like Descent than Runewars. Arkham Horror's mechanics are closer to Runebound than either of those two

Of the games I've played, Runewars is most similar to Risk. If you love Risk, you'd probably love Runewars. If you like strategy games, you'll like Runewars.

The cards-instead-of-dice thing works out really well for Runewars. I was dubious about it at first too, but if you do end up playing it, you'll see dice wouldn't work.

My husband and I only recently purchased Runewars, but we love it so far. The game is fairly expensive, but it's been worth it.

sigmazero13 said:

I can't help but feel Arkham Horror is sort of an RPG "lite" kind of game. Going around town, fighting the monsters, trying to improve your character. I guess it is like RuneBound. However, Runebound is fracking boring! Arkham Horror is gobs of fun! (OPINION)

I was wondering if Runewars could be a game for me, just as Hein99 stated above. And this discussion is only making it worse . Now I not only want to try Runewars but Runebound too. But it seems, that getting Runewars first will make Runebound less interesting. Had Runewars never existed, would Runebound be the game of my choice? And what will my bank manager say to all this?

Poeppel said:

To be honest, I don't know if Runewars would really affect one's interest in Runebound at all - they are very different games, with very different goals.

Runewars is a more direct "conquest"-style game - building armies to take territory and push back other armies. A lot of direct, head-to-head interaction and conflict. There is a little questing with the heroes, but that is definitely just a secondary aspect of the game - not the primary thrust by any means.

Runebound is more of a single-hero, quest-oriented "race"-style game. Each player controls only one hero, who goes about doing his thing pretty much independently. There can be direct head-to-head fighting, but it isn't necessary, and there are many games that will go by without any at all. It comes down to who can get the objective first.

I think both games can be enjoyed rather well. It just depends on what kind of game you are looking for.

Poeppel said:

I wouldn't worry about RB ruining RW or the other way around. They are different games set on different scales and with different goals. RW is more of a wargame, RB is more of an "RPG-lite" game. I have played and enjoy both for their respective differences. I owned RB before I bought RW and the latter has not made the former any less interesting to me. Frankly, I think the people who say that are only saying so because RW is the new shiny in town, and they'll probably find their interest in RB returning in time.

Steve-O said:

I feared you would say that. In the end I will get them both, I'm afraid. My budget tells me otherwise but...

About Deck resolving vs Dice Resolving events:

On first sight, you may think, A dice would do the same trick, but this isnt so:

a) You wold need a20 sided die (as fpr the 30 cards in the deck) and a heck of tables to see the results, Example: there are 4 good, 8 neutral and 18 evil "fate cards" determining the outcome of events. 40% of the cards have no symvol at all in the triangle section. And each section has a unique disribution of symbols.

b) You would need at least 8 dice for a Combat, and roling this much Dice isnt fun with large D30.

c) Dice have a constant chance, a Deck is evolving. The used Fate cards are discared on a Pile, the Deck is shuffled anew when its empty, this leads to the fact, that with each used Fate Card, the chances are changing. i.e if all Good symbols are gone from the deck (4 as said before), there won't coming any more, And since every player may look through the fate discard pile anytime, you can calcualte your chances. (The deck is also shuffeld anew every game-year)

Jenna said:

So if I hate Risk, I will probably hate Runewars? I really hate Risk. A lot.

qwertyuiop said:

So if I hate Risk, I will probably hate Runewars? I really hate Risk. A lot.

I really don't like Risk, but I love Runewars. I wouldn't say that these two games are really comparable or even similar in their characteristics. I think the game mechanics of these two games can hardly be considered as equal. They are both games about area control, but thats the end of their common ground.

Graf said:

qwertyuiop said:

So if I hate Risk, I will probably hate Runewars? I really hate Risk. A lot.

I really don't like Risk, but I love Runewars. I wouldn't say that these two games are really comparable or even similar in their characteristics. I think the game mechanics of these two games can hardly be considered as equal. They are both games about area control, but thats the end of their common ground.

I agree. I'm not sure the comparison with Risk is really accurate. Really, the only similarities between Runewars and Risk is that you have armies that can fight each other and capture territory. But the objective of Runewars, the way that you move around and fight, the strategies, etc, are all very different. To be honest, Runewars has little more in common with Risk than it does with Monopoly.

Oh, happy birthday, Sigmazero13. I never recognized before that this forum shows its members birthdays by printing cakes under their avatars.

I hope you could celebrate your day with a match of Runewars or TI3.

Graf said:

Thanks I didn't get to play today, but I have tomorrow off and I hope to play Runewars

I really love the sound of Rune wars and like everything i've seen of it so far too. I regularly play games such as Titan and Wizards by Avalon Hill and Talisman and Runebound by FFG along with D&D. I used to play a lot of battle tech and starfleet battles but sold all that stuff when i joined the army.

The only thing stopping me from buying Rune wars is Twilight Imperium. That looks so cool too.

I can only afford to buy one of them and can't make up my mind. I've been dithering for days now. Please help me choose before my wife spends my money on some crap.

I know it comes down to personal taste but to those of you who own both, what should I pick?

striker442 said:

Runewars and Twilight Imperium share a number of things in common, but they also have a number of significant differences. You already know about the difference in themes, of course (sci-fi vs fantasy.)

Runewars plays up to 4 people and takes about 3-4 hours to finish, perhaps a bit longer if you have to explain rules to newbies. TI3 supports up to 6 players (8 with the expansion, although it seems to be getting harder to find these days.) Play time varies heavily on how many players you have, but it's usually pegged around 6-8 hours for a group of 5-6 experienced players. Newbies will extend that play time A LOT. The one 8 player game I actually played to completion took us about 13 hours (with relatively short food breaks.)

Both games have a lot of decks of cards to manage, and bits. Runewars in particular uses a deck of cards for combat and otehr randomized resolutions (no dice.) TI3 uses dice for combat. That has proven an issue of taste for some.

TI3 has a grand total of 14 races (I think) including the four expansion races, so there's lots of variety to be had. RW has four races, so they're all around in a maxed out game.

As I mentioned before, the expansion set for TI3 (Shattered Empires) seems to be getting harder to find. FFG's production schedule shows a reprint in the works, but it's been idle for a while now so no one really knows when it will come. The expansion makes a BIG difference to that game. The new components it adds are great and it also has some errata'd cards to fix issues in the base game (you can get the errata off this website anyway though.) Anyway, the point I'm driving at is that you might want to consider whetehr or not you can locate a copy of the TI3 expansion if you're leaning toward buying that one. If you can't find it, you might want to tide yourself over with RW and wait for the reprint (if it ever comes =P)

I think those are the pertinent points. Perhaps others can add more, but I'm tired

striker442 said:

I have not played Twilight Imperium so I can't comment on that put if you have played Runebound, Runewars has a similar objective. It is a race to get a set number of dragon runes first to win. The way you achieve this is of course different from Runebound although there is a simplified version of heroes questing thrown in on top of the other methods. If you are expecting a war centered game then prehaps you should look elsewhere unless you are willing to play varients as the game can end without armies even meeting. A fair amount of people do like the way it works though and even though I pretty much only play a varient I made (you can find it on BGG) that fixes the objective to be more war/area control focused I would say it is a beautiful looking game, component wise with some great game mechanics (although the core objective does make the game's own description misleading).