Jump to content



Photo

Some talk over BGG and I hope it's not that


  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1 SolennelBern

SolennelBern

    Member

  • Members
  • 970 posts

Posted 14 February 2014 - 09:42 AM

Some thread over at BGG started talking about the game and that it could be a Runebound reskin aka Runebound 3rd edition.  I really hope it's not that.  I'm one of those that is eagerly hoping for a RB3 announcement this year and really wish it's not The Witcher.

 

Don't get me wrong, the game look awesome and i'll probably buy it on release but let's just hope it's not a reskin.

 

But TW doesn't look like a RB reskin.  The board is not layed out like the RB one and the VP track is not a mechanic found in RB either.

 

I still can't wait to know more about The Witcher, being a fan of the PC game and seeing that FFG got the title is great news.

 

 



#2 hencook

hencook

    Member

  • Members
  • 222 posts

Posted 15 February 2014 - 04:27 PM

From what I can tell, TW looks and plays like RB, but it's not a reskin.

 

The board is not a hexagonal one, and you don't move with dice like you did in RB... In fact, I don't see any method for movement in TW. Do characters just teleport, or move to adjacent towns?...

 

The cards look like they represent the encounter cards.

 

There's not a lot to be able to see since there's really only one picture. My guess is that it's going to be just dice combat + item management versus the encounter cards. My main criticism of RB was that RB had way too much downtime between turns; players never interacted with each other, and you had to wait a long time before you could play your turn.

 

I think TW tries to fix this by having all players go together and encounter things together. That's why we're seeing a more abstract movement system in place.

 

All in all, the description for TW sounds like RB. If it was a RB reskin, I wouldn't play it, but if it's an RB revamp, then I'll definitely give it a chance.


Edited by hencook, 15 February 2014 - 04:28 PM.


#3 Julia

Julia

    I survived Avi's apocalypse

  • Members
  • 6,527 posts

Posted 16 February 2014 - 06:14 PM

My very humble 2 cents... but if the game were a reskin of RB, what the need to have an external game designer, and especially a big name like Ignacy?


We have dragged Reason from her Throne and set in her place the Empress of Dreams [liber Endvra]
Custom Arkham Horror material / Arkham Horror Advanced Players League

#4 Captain Clegg

Captain Clegg

    Member

  • Members
  • 25 posts

Posted 19 February 2014 - 03:46 AM

It's just another fantasy adventure game.

FFG have already a few of them in their catalogue (Arkham Horror, Eldritch Horror, Talisman, Relic, WoW, Runebound, Descent, ecc) and there is always space for more! 

:)  



#5 farrlinn

farrlinn

    Member

  • Members
  • 18 posts

Posted 24 February 2014 - 07:02 PM

Love the video game. This could be something great, the production already looks top notch. I may be optimistic, but I think this looks like it is going to be a fun fantasy board game that might help get non-board gamers into the hobby!  



#6 xodarap

xodarap

    Member

  • Members
  • 142 posts

Posted 24 June 2014 - 12:25 AM

Wow I really don't know what to think of this.... I really like the 2nd Witcher game but the focus (or for me the main selling point) of that game was the great story about political intrigue, the gorgeous settings and truly different endings dependent on the player's choices (anything that gives players more agency is always a plus!) also, the game is complex and challenging to play. It's often referred to as "a sane man's Dark Souls" for a reason.

I'm just not sure if anything but the setting would translate to a board game or if it did that it would "feel" anything like the Witcher 2 does. As for adventure games, with the original Runebound, Descent, the almost annoyingly underrated MageKnight, Pathfinder the Adventure Card Game and Eldrich Horror (what you call Horror I call Adventure.) I'm doing pretty good for those types of games.

Even though I really like the Witcher 2 (and CD Projekt for that matter) I just don't think I'll be buying this without something really amazing being revealed about it.
"Hastur. Hastur. Hastur. Suck it, my girlfriend is Science!"
-Will Wheaton-

#7 Happycatmachine

Happycatmachine

    Member

  • Members
  • 7 posts

Posted 30 July 2014 - 02:58 PM

My very humble 2 cents... but if the game were a reskin of RB, what the need to have an external game designer, and especially a big name like Ignacy?

 

Best reply yet. Ignacy is why I'm getting this game. I have everything he has designed and am incredibly happy with the games.



#8 tallmike101

tallmike101

    Member

  • Members
  • 10 posts

Posted 08 August 2014 - 05:15 AM

I've always wanted to play runebound but never really had the chance, and I guess deep down kept assuming a newer edition might eventually be released.

 

I *have* played the witcher board game digital edition in beta last night. The game was definitely fun to play, although a bit hectic as there's no real rulebook to read just the basics are explained to you as you're playing. For example, I have no idea why I am rolling the amount of dice I roll.

 

I'll try to read the runebound rules and see if the game was playing the same way. I definitely will be purchasing the actual board game now without any hesitation after playing the digital edition. It's a game my group will definitely enjoy!



#9 Anglik1981

Anglik1981

    Member

  • Members
  • 2 posts

Posted 11 August 2014 - 11:45 PM

Played it last night (PC Beta) - the game is ok, but what I'm missing is the single quest elements of Eldritch Horror. You basically do quest after quest, without any real interaction between the players - everybody is doing their own thing.

 

Once again going back to EH - you had encounters, which I consider to be mini quests, but in order to stop the great dark one, you have to work together.

 

Unfortunately, so far this was not the case with the Witcher, considering the excellent Robinson Crusoe (also working towards a single goal), I wonder if Ignacy had much input into the final version of the game, as The Witcher feels more of a Typical FFG game that a game by Ignacy.



#10 Baenre

Baenre

    Member

  • Members
  • 114 posts

Posted 30 September 2014 - 06:57 AM

The game is utterly boring and this says something because I play Talisman all the time and even that game has more interaction.  This is what you get when you have people that don't play Board Games dictating to a designer how they want their game to work as opposed to making a game that flows well and is playable by board gamers.  The only thing I can think of worse to play would probably be monopoly.  They made a huge mistake with a game that could have been so much better.






© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS