In Runebound it seems that when you run out of parts for most things you will just find some sort of replacement counter to use for that space, adventure jewels being the only exception. Now I have played many games and if things are playing right there is really only one thing that our play group runs out of and that is level tokens. To go around this I would often just say put an exhaust token on the counter that needs that additional level.

Now this would not be an issue normally, but I noticed that the melee counters double each of the other counters in number. This probably means that melee is "expected" to be picked twice as much, or the level counters are parts limited and we have been playing it wrong. So I guess my question is, are the level counters parts limited?

I flipped quickly through the rules and didn't see anything regarding experience counters being a limited resource. If you find yourselves running out of a particular type I'd say just use a coin on button beneath the counter to symbolize that its double value.

I'm surprised you're running out of counters on a regular basis. What counters do you tend to run out of during a game?

just to answer the second part: I'd say there is nothing to suggest you "need" more melee to be playing "right". I tend to spend my experience differently all the time depending on what character I happen to be playing and what gear I happen to obtain.

KilledWithStyle said:

We always played with limited Experience counters, but you're right when you say there's no specific statement in the rules about limited components.

Generally FFG games have a statement such as "if a particular game component runs out during a game, this means that such component is not available anymore". Runebound has no clear rules about this, but I guess they mean that components such as Gold and Experience Counters should be limited to the number in the base set. Big box expansions add some Adventure Counters of different colours to counterbalance the different set of colours on each new map, but also to give some extra stuff which is needed to track experience and replace jewels during the game. If you have some big box expansions, you'll never run out of adventure jewels.

Body counters (Melee) are more common than Mind (Ranged) and Spirit (Magic). I think this was intended to limit the development of Mind over the others, since a high Mind attribute gives you relative safer journeys (easy escaping). In 4-5 player games we always run out of Mind counters, but I think it's correct. Using a piece of paper or another type of token may imbalance the game. You ought to make it with what you have.

I generally operate on the assumption that all game components in an FFG game are limiting, unless the rules expressly state otherwise. Most of the time when a question like this gets submitted to the FAQ, the answer is "it's limiting." (The only exception I can think of being if you run out of GF or FT bonus tokens in TI3.)

On anoher tangent, don't some of the small box expansions come with extra gems? I think I did get some in one of mine, but I don't remember which one.

The downside to running out of counters in some games is that when playing with higher numbers of players, it can make it hard for one of them the overcome any win conditions. But that doesn't seem a problem in RB, as it gets really unwieldy with players over 3 or 4. At 2 to 3, I don't think we've ever run out of exp. tokens before someone won the game.

JCHendee said:

I think its Seven Scion that came with extra gems.

Cataclysm and Cult of the Rune also came with counter sets. Cataclysm had the comet tokens and Cult had the Cult token plus 4 more Doom Counters.

Part of the strategy in a multiplayer game is to only use the counters provided in the game.

We do not play with the "make your own counters" house rule.
Its part of the strategy to get the level upgrades you want before the other players.

@Miles601

AH, Seven Scions, that's the one! Don't have the others... yet.

@Tazbro

Replentishing gems hasn't happened to often in our games, so available gems haven't be a problem either way. Competing for gems, to us, is just antithetical for what a big open land of adventure would offer in the tales of individual heroes. We are more focused on that than just the who wins. No need to artificially constrain what wouldn't be constrained.

To answer miles601's question. We, as a group, tend to find that leveling each area equally results in builds that allows us to win with little problems. And as a result not one token really disappears, its just we often find magic and mind gone while no one even bothers with stamina or health. This becomes especially true if someone picks up a character where a boost in one attribute results in boosts of others or easier battles due to a combat ability (looking at the new Dungeon Quest heroes in particular)

Its kinda nice to see some discussion about this topic and to see that others are not unified about this topic (means it really is not clear about what is true; also meaning I was right to question it). However I wonder if there is an official answer somewhere/somehow.

But for now I am sticking with not parts limited, simply because in the rule book it only really says one specific object is limited and that is the adventure jewels, including rules about who decides what when one is not able to place all jewels.

OH! And jewels was never a problem with me also. I have the big box expansions of Midnight and IOD, so I never really had a problem with those to begin with.

Out of curiosity, what size group do you typically play with?

I play with 2-4 and can't really recall running out of experience tokens. When we first started playing we were much more conservative and let each other level and gear up a bit more (sort of a mutual unspoken agreement that we'd give everyone a fair shot before taking on reds) As we got to play more the "race" to take on reds certainly sped up. I tend to shoot for 4-6 experience tokens before I take on reds (depending on how lucky I am with gear). I like to add 2 tokens to my characters "primary" attack stat and like to add a token to my "off" stats and a wound or 2.

miles601 said:

Geez, you must be lucky. We play with 5 or 6 players, but I usually find we level up about 3 or 4 times in each stat before one of us thinks of attacking reds. I guess I could try what you are doing... Its just we phear the reaper. When you die it sets you, as a player, further back than I would like.

Also in reference to the gear, it really depends on which quests come out for players early on. We either find players are starved for gold (because they have to constantly heal up using what rare amounts of gold are on the table) or players have too much and are not able to find good gear through the market stack. Either way it forces players to level a few more times rather than getting good gear.

One exception to that was last game we had a familiar out that allowed one player to do a market step if he was within 2 spaces of a city. Somehow he was in his own corner (where no one was) and he was constantly moving good items into the city stack. This created a strange situation where he had no money (because he had to constantly heal), and all the best items that he could not buy.

I use a variant that limit the main characters to a number of counters from each atribute at the initial value+1, if a character has 0/1, 3/1 and 4/2 thay can have 1 mind counter, 4 body and 5 spirit, 10 upgrades only for atributes plus health and stamina ones.

Mad Carthos

Mind 0/1 at limit 2/1

Body 3/1 at limit 11/2

Spirit 4/2 at limit 14/2

But to balance with this limited values, the allies can use normal itens, with the item cost limit the same cost value for the ally (special quest allies use 5 for green, 10 for yellow, 15 for blue and 20 for red, or something like that)

I've played games both ways and prefer limitations based on available game pieces.

When we limit the bonuses to whats available some players complain, but the endgame isn't as easy. This seems to make the game more fun IMO since finding the best items and allies becomes more important. Combine this with some kind of Doomtrack or other timer and player victory is no longer inevitable.

We have tried to play games and use dice to represent bonuses once we were out of game pieces. Some of the more munchkinish players would find game breaking combos with items or start "grinding" in order to level up everything before going after reds. This would often stretch out the game and lead to Margath dead in an underwelming finale where no one cared anymore who won.

Of course in some games it never matters anyway.

Establishing external limits on "leveling" is an interesting approach, and I especially like that Miles bases this in the "innate" starting skill of the character. I'm not sure I fully understand the calculations as they don't add up to the numbers displayed. But overall when attempted by various means it became pointless.

In Runebound, with few players if you're smart, if all want to work on really beefing up, then no one complains. If someone in the game doesn't care for prolonging things, well, that player can always go for the win and end the game. And if they succeed or get knocked out, so be it. Either way, the mix of players almost always creates a balance between leveling and game time.

I'm not one for replacing leveling with artificial boosts; if the level limit is so low that a character has little hope of winning without a bunch of toys, then those levels are wrong. Buying into a win isn't for me, though I will go after as many Runes in the market as I can get my hands on.

JCHendee said:

Just to clarify the only limits I meant are those imposed by the number of game pieces available.

Personally I enjoy all of the items and allies. They add to the RPG experience in numerous ways from questing for certain items in far off towns to working allies into your story. Even moreso IMO when you NEED them to win because you can no longer level up the stat you want.

Leveling up is limited anyway since there is no way to increase damage by leveling.

I think once you play a few times you get a good sense of how leveled and geared you need to be to start taking on Reds. Its a little lower than you might initially think and of course a little luck in the dice rolls goes a long way against a Red. If the endgame feels like its dragging on for your group, start throwing caution to the wind and taking on reds earlier. Sure you might get smacked down by a Red, but if you endup defeating a Red and gaining its Dragon Rune, everyone else will start going into endgame mode quickly realizing you have a big leg up.

I agree that RB is a little more fun when you give everyone a chance to get rolling, but don't be passive. If you feel the game is dragging out, go for the win.

miles601 said:

Yeah, that's the ticket... it's only a knockout if you fail.

JCHendee said:

Plus loosing your gold, Plus loosing your highest cost item, Plus while you are wounded or fatigued you roll fewer movement dice.

Many little things go a long way to fearing the reaper.

What reaper? No one ever really dies in Runebound. And without some such risks, the game wouldn't be worth playing.

There are rules for lighter weight losses as well.

I play with some very conservative players that don't like to lose. It makes playing regular RPGs a pain as they try to micromanage every risk and think of almost foolproof plans. I wish they would charge in without thinking sometimes but they just don't work that way. When playing Runebound they will clear every green and yellow space before even thinking of starting on the blues. After events refresh spaces they will go back for more easy XP.

And we play with easy knockouts. You only lose all of your gold.

Tony P. said:

Best way to deal with that, in my experience, is to push for the win yourself as soon as you think you can take blues and reds. Eventually they'll catch on that they're wasting time powering up beyond what they really need, and in the meantime you score yourself some easy wins by always being the one who acts first.

That's the funny thing. I personally don't get that invested in winning the game. Usually by stringing together a narrative in my head I create a story based on the challenges, events, etc.. This is usually my payoff for playing this game. Don't get me wrong. I go all out in the endgame or to "score points" in some of the variant deck adventures like Cult of the Rune, but a loss isn't a big deal to me with this game. Unlike things like CTCGs and other more competitive board games where a loss can sting.

If someone else is going against Margath I tend root for him. Like you said, its not like Runebound is a one-on-one duel. Sure, if I feel like I'm strong enough to win and someone else gets there first, I wish I'd have won. But, RB is a more of a social game for hanging out, seeing what items and challenges show up, seeing if you can win with a hero you haven't tried before.

After the game I tend to wrap it all together with a good story. In one recent game I kept drawing traps from one of the expansions. These cards don't have much of an explanation with them so in order for them to make sense from a story standpoint I throw in "I came across a tomb, the trap was there to stop grave robbers like me." After the second time this happened and since I was playing the undead hero from the base set I decided that my hero was looking for his lost wife's body from his living years. I think I drew five different trap cards during that game so the narrative made sense. I never found her (heh) and then we all died tragically in the endgame, leaving Margath to have his way with the world. So even though it was a loss it felt pretty epic!