I want to buy a copy of Runebound but I'm afraid that a 3rd edition will come out shortly after I purchase it... In which case I'd be very angry that I missed out on a new Runebound...

I did notice that there is a re-print about to hit the market again... can I dream that this means they won't release a new edition any time soon...

Anyone here ever purchase a re-print of a game to have a updated version come out shortly after?

With all of the spin off and Terrinoth themed games, such as RuneWars, RuneAge, and then the new edition of Descent, it's hard to guess what might come along later. For now, I think you're safe in purchasing the base game. While many of the small box card expansions for RB are out of print (and a few of them were so-so), the big box ones are the most bang for the buck when it comes to needing something new for the game. So long as those big boxs are still selling, I don't see a Runebound 3E on the horizon.

So give it a go. Should you eventually find you need to spice up your base game and can't find any small box expansions for that, drop by the Runebound 2E page at BoardGameGeek.com and look in the file section. Then learn how to make home printed cards using card sleeves. I have few meager offerings like that at my little site as well, but BGG is THE place to go if you get in the mood to try such things later.

I think I will buy the core game and maybe one big expansion... **** you FFG if you release a new Runebound very soon...

My household's favorite is Sands of Al-Kalim. It's win criteria is based on completing the most quests. Island of Dread is probably the closest to the standard game except with some seafaring adventure. Frozen Wastes has a "Clue" based search motif. Haven't played Mists of Zanaga as yet.

sapender said:

It can be very frustrating when that happens, unfortunately, there's not a lot you can do to predict whether it will happen or not. It's true that the expansions seem to have died out, but does that mean a new edition is on the way, or are they just going to let this one sit for a while? Only time can tell (and FFG, of course, but that's not really the sort of question they'll answer.)

If it's any consolation, FFG has not, in my experience, been known to release a new edition JUST for the sake of releasing a new edition. IF they release a new edition of something, it is because they have some ideas for how to significantly change and improve the game (at least in their own opinion.) They generally do a good job of addressing the flaws of the previous edition and making things all that much better.

By way of example, I have a friend who owns all three editions of Twilight Imperium. He does NOT own them all because he's a blind fanboy who purchases everything FGG publishes. Each time they made a new edition, he waited until he had a chance to see and play the new one, and even then he was skeptical about whether or not the new edition was "worth it" considering he already owned the last. Each time, after having seen the changes to the new edition, he agreed that those changes were significant enough to warrant upgrading.

By now, you may be wondering what my point is, exactly, so I'll get right to it: Runebound Second Edition doesn't really have any great flaws. The biggest complaint I know of is the downtime between player turns (particularly with 4+), and it seems to me that this flaw alone is probably not worth revamping the entire game engine. The changes required would probably be fairly extensive, and who knows what new issues would surface as a result? What I mean to say here is that, unlike other games such as Descent, Runebound doesn't have a lot of NEED for a new edition, and despite what some might say, I haven't known FFG to release a new edition if it wasn't needed.

Thanks for your reply everyone... Steve-O I can't believe how many posts you make in the various forums you seem to have a vast experience of board gaming... I think I may take a chance and buy the core game... I will let you know how things turn out... Runebound looks like a great 2-3 person game... Can it be played solo? that would be really cool...

sapender said:

Yes, it can be. Quite easily, in fact.

Is there solo rules in the rulebook? and should I follow them or use some home made ones?

BUY IT! BUY IT!

I recently moved and had to put my Runebound collection in storage.

So pick it up and play a game for me!

Also, I recommend your first big box expansion be Mists of Zanaga. It ads some mechanics that really improve the game experience, such as roaming monsters, standard equipment to purchase instead of just what you draw from the market stack, different types of cities, and a different endgame each time depending on how things shape up during play.

For small deck market expansions pick up rituals and runes first. That is just my opinion though since I enjoy the rituals.

For small deck variants I recommend The Cataclysm if you can find it. Harder than the base game IMHO, but it really shakes up the game play. After that Cult of the Rune is good. Its another variant on the race game of the base set.

I would say avoid the class decks. I bought a couple but have yet to use them the way they were intended. RAW they add more interaction between players in a MTG sort of way. They also make every turn longer in a game that already has play time issues.

Some of the cards are good to take out and houserule into your base game. The talents can make characters more interesting/powerful, and some of the locations, like mercenary camp, are neat to put down using the undefeated monster track and tokens. I'm probably getting the terminology and card names wrong here...

GET RUNEBOUND!

sapender said:

I don't know if the rulebook explicitly mentions solo play, but the way the game plays there's almost no interaction between two players unless they go out of their way to cause one another trouble. The result is that a single player can quite easily play using all the normal rules without missing a beat. You can play one lonely hero, or you can play multiple heroes all by yourself and see which one ends up "winning."

Are you in the UK?

If so, I might be able to do you a nice deal regarding my complete (unplayed) set of Runebound which might help you take the plunge.

(and when I say complete, I mean complete including promos and all expansions)

Very tempting... I live in Canada... and I've already bought the core game... tried it out tonight... so far I like it a lot... I will play it a couple more times to make sure I understand all the in and outs... I must get sleeve protectors now... gaming is expensive...

So what's the best number of players for this game? from what I've seen in the forums it's 2-3 players... is that true?

Ah well, not to worry, it was just a thought.

sapender said:

I've managed to enjoy it with as many as 6 (the official limit, IIRC), although there does seem to be a popular opinion that the downtime between turns is too long with more than 3, and I can see where people get that, too.

Side question, Steve. I've never played with more than 3 players, so I'm wondering if when you play with more do you use a graduated exp system? If so, did it help with game length, or does the increase of players make it mute point?

I Just played a game with my two buddies and it was a blast... it was fairly easy to learn... very cool game... I luckily won as well... I'm glad I got it...

JCHendee said:

I have not yet played the game with a graduated XP system, although that is definitely a house rule I have at the top of my list for the next time I get around to doing so.

I think the main reason we don't mind higher numbers of players is because we have almost as much fun watching each other's turns as we have taking our own. The fact that there's little or no pressure to interact with other players directly (until the end game at least) makes it easier for us to cheer each other on and generally play "together," if you see my meaning.

Steve-O said:

My sentiments as well! We often even remind each other of overlooked options in the moment.

We also haven't yet tried the graduated system previously discussed here and elsewhere. Usually its just 2 or 3 at our table when playing RB, so haven't had a need.

So, if I were to buy one expansion which one should I get? should I go big or small?

sapender said:

Oh boy, you're going to get a lot of different answers on this one. That's one nice thing about RB; there's a little something for all different tastes.

The popular big box around my place is Sands of Al-Kalim, likely because its win criteria is notably different than the base game. But though we own the others, we haven't "thoroughly" tried them all yet.

Pfft, there is no such thing as RB and only buying a single expansion . I suppose if you make a Mind 90 check, maybe. But yeah, SoAK is pure gold.

How gold? Well, I honestly bought SoAK first (off an online seller), then set about ordering the base game . I'm a sucker for theme.

Okay, that's two votes for SoAK. Anyone now have a favorite small box (still in print) to recommend for Sapender?

As far as small expansions go is the essentials collection worth picking up?

I would say yes, though I consider only half of it worthwhile. At the price, that's still equitable to buying three select small boxes, and maybe you'd like a different three than me. A number of the packs in the box aren't available separately anymore.