Hi there

I was just musing about the recently announced update for Descent, and wondered where this leaves us in regard to Runebound.

Dungeonquest was made with the new full-bleed cards and graphic art which is very similar to the new Descent Hero cards. Rune Age has the same, along with most new releases from FFG.

So...

With the proposed "update" pack for Descent 1st Edition owners, they will have all of the old figures/monsters to play with along with the totally new sculpts for Hero figures and Monsters in the new edition.

Do you think it possible (or even probable) that FFG will release cards for these new heroes so that they can be added to existing Terrinoth games?

Do you think Runebound is going to be given an overhaul in the same way as Descent?

Could it mean that the new figures will be incorporated into an expansion for Runebound, and hopefully Dungeonquest?

I have only recently bought into the Runebound game, and have yet to actually play a game as my life has been somewhat busy of late. I hope to address this oversight in the near future.

In preparation for this (and due to an overly active OCD gland) I have collected together the entire range of Runebound expansions, including the promotional ones, and of course those from Dungeonquest.

Admittedly there was the surprise Mists of Zanaga expansion of late and the so-called "Essential Collection", which is only one set of the waves of mini expansions released.

So, are we going to see a third edition of Runebound some time in 2012? What do you think?

PS - I have absolutely no inside information on this subject, or even any inkling. It was just one of my many subjects for mulling over!!

talismanisland said:

If FFG doesn't, I'm sure the fans will.

talismanisland said:

Possibly, although I don't think RB is hurting for it as much as Descent was. Really the only major issue to be addressed would be downtime between player turns in larger games, I think.

talismanisland said:

That would be one way to get the new hero cards out there, although FFG seems to have been shying away from the "release the same heroes in every Terrinoth game in its own expansion" model. It's also possible Descent 2e will follow DQ's lead and include hero cards for the new heroes in each other game inside the D2e box.

talismanisland said:

I wouldn't bank on it that quickly, anyway. Considering all the other Terrinoth games that have come out lately and the relatively stable status of RB's rules, I would expect them to move on to other franchises for a while before coming back with an RB 3e announcement (assuming they even have plans for such a thing right now.)

I hope not, I've recently gotten into Runebound and bought a lot of expansions, I'd be pretty mad and dissapointed if they suddenly made a 3rd edition. And I can only imagine how people would feel if they've bought the majority of the expansions, only to know they won't be used. Instead of a new edition completely, why not just have a completely new rulebook? that way we can keep what we have, but can still get a few fixes that we need (which even then, I don't see any large problems with runebound, I barely get downtime with my friends, and we do 4 player games.). If they do a 3rd edition, I'm sticking to 2nd, theres already enough in it to be happy if they stopped supporting it.

Hmmm. I think you are (both) right in thinking that a third edition is not required as yet.

I was mainly musing on the graphical elements that have been updated in the other games, but figure that would not be a reason for a "new" edition on its own.

I will be hoping for some cards for the new sculpts from Descent 2, but of course I am sure fans will take the lead as soon as they come out anyway.

I would be "game" for an RB 3E only if the expansions and/or core were compatible with 2E (at least for the most part). I think 2E is pretty stable and adaptable as is... and me and mine have no issues with turn time. Then again, we know we're in the minority on that last part.

What might interest me more is seeing if another big box might be done. I realize there's only so many "new" endgame mechanics that can be devised for any one game, especially when core mechanics are to be kept simple. But it might be nice.

JCHendee said:

Being compatible with 2e sort of runs contrary to the purpose of making a 3e. Anything that's still fully compatible with 2e can just be called an expansion to 2e and thereby not risk anyone being confused about the question of compatibility.

The only valid reason to make a new edition is if they are planning significant mechanical changes/improvements. Based on past experience, FFG isn't shy about making such changes, either. They might offer something akin to the D2e conversion kit to allow RB 2e players to continue using all their heroes in this theoretical RB 3e, but that's about all I would expect.

Personally, I think it's better not to tempt fate. RB 2e is solid as is. There's no reason to reinvent the wheel just for the sake of reinventing it, and FFG doesn't strike me as the kind of company to pump out new editions of existing games just for the sake of "making people re-buy it." (Though I'm sure there are probably some in the Descent forums who would disagree with that assessment.) I've never seen FFG make a new edition of an old game that would qualify as a "money grab," it's always something significantly different and usually significantly better.

Steve-O said:

I beleive this is true, FFG doesn't remake a game just because, and they definetly don't do it for the money, cause if anything if they made a 3rd edition of runebound, and released a new big box expansion as good as say, Sands of Al-Kahlim for second edition, what do you think would make alot more money? I feel like a lot of people would buy a new 2nd edition expansion over a total revamp that makes many large collections useless. Heck, I have all 5 big box expansions, 4 adventure variants and 2 market expansions. Even with discounts, that comes up to 230 dollars. Thats alot of money, and thats money I wouldn't spend again because of new rules, ecspeccially cause the runebound rules work (for me, at least).

Steve-O said:

Kind of my hidden point... and not really hidden that deep. But thereby I agree with you and G.R.Z.... I was just being a little open to the idea of a 3E but under some strict conditions. I could imagine some ways (???) to expand upon the 2E base without scuttling it.

JCHendee said:

Just release a 3rd edition rulebook instead. Have it fix any issue's FFG see's with the game and just make sure it can work with any of the expansions. Much cheaper, and it wouldn't cause fans to be angry, because we get to keep our expansions and FFg still gets money. It's a win-win.

grim_reaper_zig said:

And there it is... though I'd probably call that RB 2.1 rather than RB 3.0. As to cheap, how about free? All such a bump needs to be is a PDF for download. FFG has that up for promotion of many of their games.

But overall, to go to 3.0, I could see some other stuff too, from superficial component improvements to intergration of some new optional mechanics, etc. There's still room between an updated manual with all of the fixes and a radical new edition that would make 2.0 incompatible with new stuff. Lots of room inbetween.

JCHendee said:

And this is precisely why it's a bad idea to "just make a rulebook." Just because such a revised rulebook can be made and distributed electronically does not mean it costs FFG nothing to do it. If nothing else, it takes their employees time to think and write. Time they are being paid for. And that's an expense FFG will want to (and have every right to) recoup. There would probably also be at least a couple new pictures that artists would draw, and rightfully request compensation for. And assuming FFG would rather not make do with sh*tty freeware PDF writers, there's also software licensing fees to consider. You may be willing to download cracked software yourself, but most incorporated companies know better than to screw with copyright laws.

This is why the Tannhauser revised rules were not free. This is why such a proposed RB "2.1" rulebook would not be free. And at least some portion of the fans would undoubtedly get their shorts in a knot about the fact that an entirely electronic product like this is not free. Especially a rulebook, because FFG "always" puts the rulebooks up for free, you guys!

With an entirely new box set on store shelves, FFG can afford to put the rules up for free because the cost of making it is incorporated into the cost of the box. With a pure PDF release of just a rulebook, there's nothing else FFG can use to recoup the money they spent making it in the first place.

Steve-O said:

While I agree with you in general about recouping expenditure, Steve, you severely misinterpreted and oversimplified. A so-called 2.1 version of the rulebook does not need what you claim. Not even close.

The work on it is already 90% done (and that's a conservative estimate). No new images are needed. No new layout is needed (layout files are archived by any production department worth a plugged nickel). All that is needed is to incorporate FAQ corrections, any rules updates, etc. Then consider anything else that's lying around or that fans might like.

You are lumping on a bunch stuff that doesn't have to, doesn't need to, be done at all. I know, because I've done this kind of work for corporate productions that output hardcopy, online, and transportable e-copy all from the same layout source file. This included a lot more than columned layouts with just flowed and positioned graphics but professional color-matched photos, diagram, flowcharts, schematics, etc.

As said, not that this is really the kind of version people originally intended, but we don't need to go into exaggeration of reality if we don't want something. With proper preparation taken in spare moments. A 2.1 version of manual is half a day's work at best for one competitent layout designer.... and that's with room for taking it easy. There were a lot of other issues involved with Tannhauser, such as overdoing it, from what I've heard by those who play(ed) it.

And I still stand by the idea that a full 3.0 would just be profiteering unless it could prove itself to be a vast improvement worth a considerable reinvestment by fans. I still stand by a shorter range set of encouraging 2E+ plus efforts to revitalize interest in 2E. Then again, maybe RB has just run its course, and that's the end of it as product.

JCHendee said:

I don't know, I have the original Game of Thrones Boardgame with the two expansion, what reason is there for me to buy the second edition?

it is quite possible for FFG to release a third edition, with the wave 1 cards in the box and slight rulechanges to speed up the game. especially with the limbo state of wave1/wave2 reprints. anything can happen.

what I want to say: third edition does not have to be a new game (like going form TI2 to TI3), RB1 didn't differ that much from RB2, as does the GOT boardgame. and I still have to see what actually changed in descent 2nd edition. so it's quite possible, that suddenly a wild runebound third edition appears (and with my luck, probably right after I bought the second edition and chased down every wave1 pack)

I like your idea of a main box plus known small box expansions with an exception. A lot of the wave 1 cards weren't that good. Not awful, but not great. But unless this kind of RB3 could be done for a cost (and retail price) that stayed near the cost of just a core game, I'm uncertain it would sell well enough to stay on the shelves. I think RB is caught between 1) the current edition as "good enough" and 2) a new edition that would change it too much to be compatible with old material and yet not bring anything new to the actual game itself.

I'm not in the camp that sees the game as needing to speed up, though I accept that many are for worthwhile reasons. A sped up RB3, for what that would require, probably wouldn't appeal to me personally. I already have fantasy games built for speed, and I have a rough idea of what that does to those games. They're fun, but they're dumbed down and push the randoms to an extreme that cuts out most layers of choice, strategy, tactics, etc. I like a balance between both. (Not that RB has a lot of the latter, but it has just enough to be better than most other fantasy board games of the "character" ilk).

ADDENDUM: If such a collective "starter" box were an option, maybe instead of picking a wave, some could go back and find the best selling of the smallbox expansions to use instead. I don't think such a box really has a big chance, but might as well start with the best of the best as judged by the people enjoyed the previous edition.

Gray said:

In fairness, I think the primary motivating factor for RB2 was switching the cardboard tokens for minis, which may have seemed like an important enough change for FFG to pull the trigger despite not making sweeping changes. Most edition upgrades FFG makes tend to favour the TI2-TI3 level of change (which I see as a good thing, because like others have said, why would people buy the new edition if its exactly like the old one?)

I can definitely see them doing either of these options...

1. New 3rd Edition that has mechanics for boss-fights and wandering monsters like Mists of Zanaga. This new edition would have updated art to match the new releases (not sure I'd like that...see Descent 2.0). It would likely have mini POD expansions rather than the rstore versions. It would probably still have large expansions though. This edition will use the new heroes that are to be introduced in Descent 2.0

2. Keep 2nd Edition and large expansions in print. Re-release all mini expansions via Print on Demand.

I can see them doing either of these. I'm sure they are up to something with Runebound though.

I have just started my journey into Runebound, I hope 3e will be some time off.

I bought and played RB and didnt like it.

THe theme was great. Maybe only some of the event cards needed to be more redone.

Movement dice was awesome, cards were great, combat was good enough.

Felt some characters could have more differences.

Main issue was the board was static and boring. Nothing moved against you, and all you did was constantly battle cards and when you reach the boss it was no different.

I would like a 3rd ed that throws in more strategy. Maybe against players, or maybe add a total co-op variant. But instead of battling static monster, have them move and maybe include more kind of threats to deal with, more than the player(s) can handle so they have to choice wisely on what to do, not just keep attacking.

You need to look at some of the small box variants or the big box alternatives. I'd generally agree that the core game scenario gets monotonous very quickly, and a few variants don't really vary much from that. But some of the others do, and then there's the big boxes. The favorite around my place is Sands of Al-Kalim. There are many who enjoy Mists of Zanaga. Each one offers something a little different in the win criteria.

JCHendee said:

ya i had people tell me that. But then some told me it didnt really change anything, or it wont be different enough that i would like it.

But yes monotonous is a great way of putting it.

why is sands different?

SoAK is based on completing quests. You still get to beat up on monsters and game gold and goodies, but the simplified quest motif is a nice change of page. The one who completes the required number of quests first (from five different categories) is the winner.

Traveling in a desert land is also quite challenging, as heat fatigue can take its toll. But you can choose to travel in day or night... and some creatures can be a bit easier or tougher depending your choice. There's a simple story die that can also be rolled during turns, with some rather simple but often beneficial effects.

You use the standard market deck, but when you draw an Ally you discard it and draw one from the special SoAK allies cards. There are other little differences as well.

If you go the SoAK page here at FFG, and then visit its Support Page, you should be able to find a copy of the PDF Manual to peek at. Overall, RB just may not be for you, and that's okay. But I felt the urge to pipe in on the issue of diversity in the game. It's not immense by some standards, but it is there... a little bit.

Oh, and as for creatures that move against you, you might go look at the Mists of Zanaga page and look for a manual that. Haven't play that big box yet, but I've heard it can be VERY challenging to stay alive and win.

I would be in favor of an expansion for the expansions, similar to what was done with Miskatonic Horror. There just aren't enough adventure cards in those expansion sets. Also, an official version of something like the excellent Cities of Adventure variant would be great. Hell, just publish that and give Warbringer25 piles of money. It adds so much to the game, and has probably already sold me on the idea of buying all the expansions.

Yes, Judd's work on CoA is awesome, but it's doubtful (and unnecessary) that FFG would take on that as a commercial project.