It's not a five player game either. There simply are not enough adventure spots, replenish cards, experience counters, or time to make this a viable game for 6 players. The first couple of turns determine which two players are in the running to win. Everyone else won't have enough adventures to catch up or counters to level up with, and must spend the next 5-6 hours waiting for the game to end. In fact, games with more than two people can be just as painful, for the same reasons, but for shorter amounts of time.

This observation comes from someone who always played Runebound with 2 players only, tried once with three and felt 2 was much better, and lost and entire day of his life playing with 6. I will never play this game again with more than 2, and the others who were eager to try the game out or remember what they liked about it now hate it and don't want to play ever again/want to sell their copies. I'm disappointed because it's a good game. A good 2 player game. Now destroyed for many because some decided the box should incorrectly state it supports 6 players when it doesn't.

I totally agree that six is TOO many for Runebound! Way too much downtime for my tastes, among other problems you mention. In my experience with the game so far, I enjoyed two players the most! I wouldn't give up on the idea of three or even four, but I'd cap it there. I think 4 is about the limit of the "sweet spot" for this game.

Yes, thosenwho were not completely turned off from Runebound after that said they'd only play again with max 4.

Hello,

I had my first Runebound game at December 26th and started with 6 players... 15.00 to 20.30 and NOBODY became powerful enough to withstand a blue/violet challenge. I tried once and was defeated in a rush of bad luck. We eventually gave up the play.

I agree with you, the game won't support more than 3-4 players. A round becomes way too long, and considering that the rules for player interaction are not very interesting, there's no point in having that many players.

a few house rules (and a 2nd set of movement dice) and you can play a six player game in a somewhat reasonable amount of time.

True, but time is just one factor that makes 6 player Runebound unviable. I'd have no qualms about playing Runebound into the wee hours of the morning on a weekend if I was having a good time, but all the other problems I mentioned make 6 player Runebound unworkable. I guess 4 hours of an enjoyment-less game are better than 7 hours of an enjoyment-less game, but since no one's holding a gun to my head or threatening to play Battlestar Galactica or Android instead if I refuse, I don't see myself agreeing to 6 player Runeboud again, regardless of time commitment.

I feel for you. I really do. I think a six player game could be done, but not with the rules as written. I wouldn't think that component limitation would be the major issue (sure, there won't be enough counters, but you can just record the bonuses on a piece of paper...or download my +4 stickers I posted on BGG!) The major killer to such a game would be the time. There has to be some tweaking of the rules to speed things up. But how far do you need to go to make things go smoothly? Certainly reducing XP for leveling to at most 2XP will make the total game length shorter. Also, I would make healing much cheaper (1 gold heals all wounds) and reduce the KO penalty (perhaps the greatest of All gold, items or ally...gotta have some bite still though).

Still, while these things would shorten the overall length of the game, there would still be the downtime issue. A full round with combat can easily take at a minimum of 3 min, longer for some of the more tougher challenges. Even at 3 min turns, you are waiting 15 min for your next turn. That is just not acceptable. I wouldn't want to tweak combat, but perhaps movement can be tweaked. Rolling the movement dice before the person before you has ended their turn might help, but perhaps getting rid of movement dice altogether might be better...use some sort of movement point system where easy terrain costs one MP and difficult terrain costs 2 MP to enter.

That being said, I will never play this game with more than 4 people!

All good points. I would never modify a game that much just to play it however, unless it was my only option, like I was trapped with six players due to a snowstorm or something, and all we had available to us was Runebound. It's not just the components that cannot support six players, which could be helped with your token stickers and such, it's that the game itself is physically unable to support that many players. The board does not have enough encounter locations to allow six players to compete for the end game, etc.

I guess the best modification is to simply pretend the box says 1-4 players instead of 6.

Well, the game could still end by killing Margath...but still, I agree, it really isn't a realistic 6 player game.

It's not. It's still excellent, though.

Since Runebound is not a team game, investing a considerable amount of time into the game and losing can, depending on the group mood, suck a lot. In Descent, when I lose as an overlord, it's really no different from an RPG session. When the party loses, there's a sense of camaraderie which prevents the experience from being disappointing overall. The same "We'll show them hordies/allies next Saturday" atmosphere follows each WoW game. Talisman is fast-paced enough to allow for several games per evening.

On downtime. In Descent there's none. in WoW, when one team is taking their turn, the other can discuss strategy and plan ahead. Runebound with six characters is slooooooow, and there's not much to discuss in-game for inactive players, which is potentially game-breaking even for a board game (and kills RPG campaigns). Thus, I don't usually play Runebound with more than two other people. (When more are present, there's always Descent.) Still, it's a great game, and I'm buying my own collection.