Because the holidays are coming closer and I will have some extra spending money coming to me, I am interested in collecting a game that will have many expansions and is solo-able. My analysis has came down to two games: Arkham Horror or Runebound, but I do not know which one I should choose and so I have a few questions about both games.

A strong breaking point for my decision would be whether or not the two games have loads of flavor text. Imagery only goes so far: I love to read aloud details that encompass more the tone of the game (as Mansions of Madness does so well). I also enjoy games that have flavor text for victory and defeat I found too.

Though I have heard Arkham is the better rated, Runebound has a competitive play mode too. Cooperative play is a must however. I know Arkham has cooperative play covered but I wondered if Runebound can do that too. Replay value is also important to me: how far do the expansions take the games?

Thanks.

I've never played Runebound, but I looked into purchasing it at one point. Note that there's now a second edition, but (I think) all of the expansions were originally for the first edition and only some of them have been updated.

Tromdial said:

I haven't played Runebound yet, but I've played a lot of Arkham games (ca. 130) and at the moment I still haven't played the same game twice. It's the game with the highest replayability I've ever played. All components of the expansions can be blended together in any sort of mix, and every time they grants you a different experience. Plus, if we only consider the possible combinations of official Heralds & official Ancient Ones, you have something like 270 different games to choose among. If you start adding custom stuff (some of the components are really cool), the number of possible games grows up incredibly. And then each of those games is different according to the investigators you play (from 1 to 8 / game to be chosen among 48 investigators), the number of expansions you put in, and so on.

Arkham has a lot of flavour text too, even if not properly intended a la Mansions of Madness (although some cards have actual flavour text on them): locations and OW encounters offers you a detailed description of what's happening and why you have to do that check.

And if you want a competitive Arkham, you can join a League and measure your skill against other teams scattered across the globe. There were two official FFG Leagues (in English) and on a yearly basis there are two european Leagues (open for everyone), in French and Spanish. Plus there is a Custom League, lead by Avi (if you want to see some stuff, just check the link in my signature), which is not official, but at the moment is the most challenging things ever seen in Arkham. Lots of fun :-)

And the Arkham community is great! Just like a second family.

Anyway, I cannot say that Arkham is better than Runebound, but I certainly can say that Arkham is a *lot* of fun! Should be money well invested (especially if you like Mansions. Most of the people who love Mansions play also Arkham and viceversa)

I have played Runebound... Arkham Horror a million times over.

Of course, if you post this same question on the Runebound forum, you'll probably get a different answer.

Again, I haven't played Runebound, but you have to take expansions into account with Arkham. I much prefer all-expansions Arkham to base-game Arkham, even though we tend to lose.

Like many here I preface this by saying I've not played Runebound.

However. Tons of flavor text: That's a big check. Arkham has probably MORE flavortext that MoM does. AH is widely considered to be one of the best co-op games out there, and for good reason. There's really no competitive mode, but personally I don't feel it's needed.

I've logged literrally hundreds of games of Arkham Horror. So long as you don't mind a slightly longer-than-average setup time, replay value will not be an issue.

RB as is doesn't really have the pressure in a solo game that AH and its doom track provides. RB is a race game at its core, but luckily there is a very good and simple variant that adds a time tracker to the game, without one you just grind the enemies down for as long as you want, boosting yourself up until you can auto-beat everything. In a 2+ player game, the other player(s) provide that time limit, if they are taking on tougher enemies and winning, they are getting more xp and levelling up faster, so you need to start matching them.

RB expansions come in few forms, you have ones that add cards for the encounter decks (mostly challenges aka fights), ones for the market decks (allies and items to buy) and small-box game variants that change the base scenario into a new version (in the base game you need to kill 3 Dragonlords or the big Dragonlord). RB, like AH, also has big box expansions, these too come with a board, although those boards are placed on top of the base game board, so you can only really use one big box at a time. Each big box comes with a set of encounter cards that are only used with that expansion, but makes setup easier since you're ready to play out of the box (not that mixing everything straight in takes a lot of time). Each big box has a different region to explore, ice realm, desert realm (Sands of Al-Kalim being generally considered the best big box, it makes the players complete quests, which provide a nice change of pace from the basic kill, kill, level up, kill, kill grinding, although you still have that too), island hopping and jungle adventures (doubtful you can find the fifth expansion box, Midnight for less than $200 anywhere).

Grudunza said:

I totally second Grundunza opinion. Runebound is way less exciting than Arkham. If I had to play a medieval-fantasy game, I'd pick Talisman (much more fun than with runebound).

I've played both. Dam nailed the basic issue with Runebound: no sense of pressure, unlike Arkham Horror. As for solo playability, Arkham is no probem, provided you are willing to run more than one investigator. I've clocked over 200 solo games and am still not tired of the game (though I'm playing less now that I'm getting into the LOTR card game).

Thank you everyone for your advice. I got a chance to play Arkham finally with my friend who owns it against Yig with blessings to counter the curses and a trusty shotgun right before his awakening. We barely won, and it was very intense. I played Kate Winthrop and he played Mandy Thompson.

He also had all the expansions that gave new investigators, and as I was perusing them I discovered Joe Diamond's ability of rolling an extra die per clue use and the violinist, Patrice Hathaway's clue sharing and gain abilities. Quick question: do those two work together or is their a key detail where Joe Diamond cannot use his clue ability while using Patrice's clue tokens?

Tromdial said:

They are allowed to work together. And poor all AOs when this happens...

What Julia said. And, for the record, Patrice is widely considered to be earth-shatteringly overpowered. Personally, I haven't felt the need to nerf her, but she is undeniably far and away the best investigator. If you're ever feeling humiliated after a run of Arkham defeats, just play a game with Patrice, Mandy, and Hypnos. If you're feeling downright murderous, play against Nyarlathotep. (Don't tell anyone, though.)

Walk said:

And while you're at it, buy a gun (a real gun) and shoot the board and all the AOs through the head ;')