I heard rumored on BGG that it will be available at GenCon. Any truth to that?

I'm looking forward to see if FFG puts a new twist on deck building games

GenCon seems like it could be a realistic date. Sadly I won't be there but this is one I will order from my FLGS store. It looks like fun.

Toqtamish said:

It does? Combat sounds incredibly simplistic. FFG always puts out a nice looking product, but I think I'm going to need more info before I get worked up over yet another deckbuilder.

Trump said:

+1

Trump said:

Yes it does, and who says combat needs to be complicated. Combat in the LCG's is for the most part pretty simplistic but still a lot of fun.

Toqtamish said:

Not the same thing. In a CCG (or LCG), I'm looking at the cards that we both have out and which effects might be used and thinking through the math and looking at my hand and generally figuring out how to win the fight if I start one.

In RuneAge, it sounds like I just pull a number out of my hand and then you pull one out and we go back and forth until one of us just concedes. That's not fun.

Then don't buy it or play it. No one is forcing you. If you don't like the combat mechanics there is lots of other FFG games that you might.

Either way

This game looks like fun.

Toqtamish said:

There's no need to take an attitude. You're pretty defensive over something you don't know anything about. This may very well be a great game. I'm just saying that we still really don't know enough to make that judgement.

No more attitude than I received. You may not have enough for you to decide if this game is for you but I do and that is why I said this game looks like fun and then needed to defend my opinion. Its my opinion and I am entitled to it and to base it on whatever or much info I choose to.

Yes I think this game looks like fun even with what little we have available. Deck building games I think are a great new take on the now classic CCG/TCG's. Also I like the idea of the different scenarios that can change the game from competitive to cooperative. Very cool idea in my opinion and will allow increased replay value. As well as making it appeal to a larger group of people, cooperative has more appeal for drawing in girlfriends, fiances, wives which is never a bad thing.

Very interested

Toqtamish said:

I am completely on your side. This looks like great fun and a great angle on deck building.

for sure. I am looking forward to seeing more of the different scenarios, especially the co-op one.

I am super-excited about this release! I hope it has a nice solo component like Thunderstone.

I share your concern Trump. On the surface, battles look very simplistic, since you only need to beat the defending unit strength score with the summation of all your attacking units' strength scores, although you can lose some attacking units before comparing strength scores. However, it looks like some units have a special ability written down on the lower part of their cards. Those abilities could really add some complexity to battles. Until we try it, we can only hope that FFG has found a good balance between complexity and accessibility.

Maerimydra said:

As described so far, I don't know if those special abilities really make this more interesting. It still sounds like you look at your hand, guess that you probably have more combat strength than one of your opponents, and then just start taking turns flopping a card out of your hand until one of you chokes. On top of that, right after the fight's over, the next guy's going to notice that you just played all of your best combat cards and haven't reshuffled and then they'll nail YOU because they know you probably can't fight back.

There probably IS more to the game. I mean, it's not like FFG just showed up on the scene last week, but they have a lot of pretty products and I'm going to need more than art to get me interested in this one.

Trump said:

And that's why, I guess, you should never go "all in" when you're attacking of defending (at least in 3 or 4 players games) unless you know that this specific battle could mean the end of the game for you. However, based on what we know so far, 2 players games will probably be pretty straightforward, just like you described them. Tactic cards could add more depth to battles, but since they revealed only two of them so far (battle cry and forced march), we can only speculate about them. For example, a "fog" tactic card that negates all damage done during a turn (ala Magic: the Gatherinng) would be great. However, if you're expecting the same tactical depth for battles than Magic: the Gathering, then you will be very disappointed, there's no doubt in that. It's a deckbuilding game and the main focus will be on building your deck. However, unlike other deckbuilding games (ex: Dominion) that can be described as solo multiplayer game, Rune Age, with its player eliminations feature, sounds more like a real multiplayer game to me, and that's why it successfully grabbed my interest.

Since I do not own any SCG, I do not fear that Rune Age will end up gathering dust on my shelf. If you, one the other hand, already own many deckbuilding games, or if you don't like the genre that much, then I can only understand and approves your scepticism. I was about to buy Dominion when I heard of Rune Age, and now I'm waiting to see if it will meet my expectations. I hope that the wait will be worth it. At the very least, I won't have to buy the one hundred expansions for Dominion. My ultimate goal is to use this game to slowly introduce more friends to the Runewars boardgame, because it really deserves more time at my gaming table.

Maerimydra said:

Heh. Didn't FFG invent game expansions? I suspect they could catch up to Dominion if they wanted to. Dominion has five expansions now (only three of which I really care for). I own Dominion and while there have been other contenders since then, none have been able to topple the king. Thunderstone's okay to play, but I don't feel much in the way of deckbuilding there. Still, there are plenty of people who'll opt for theme over gameplay. I liked Puzzle Strike, but I didn't get many takers. There's a small group in my my gaming circle who play Ascension all of the time, but I find it too simplistic and ugly as sin. The verdict's still out on Nightfall, but my initial impression was so-so at best. All of the other deckbuilders have been one-time wonders in the group. There are interesting ideas down the line though. I find FFG's Blood Bowl to be more interesting than RuneAge and I know LESS about it. Actually, the "hottest" deckbuilding game for me that is coming soon is Quarriors, but I realize that's sort of bending the rules a bit.

As for using RuneAge to lure in RuneWars players, that's a tactic I can get behind.