Jump to content

Tony P.

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Tony P.

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • AIM
  • MSN
  • Website URL
  • ICQ
  • Yahoo
  • Skype

Profile Information

  • Location
    Melbourne, Florida, United States
  1. I'm actually enjoying Runebound 3e more than previous editions. I had everything for 2e including all of the class decks. First major plus is controlling monsters in combat for your opponents. This really reduces the downtime and allows you to interfere with the other players. We are ruthless to each other when it's our turn to be the monster. The while thing is much more engaging than the static roles from 2e. Second, the smaller area of the board and fewer cities keeps the game more focused. 4 market stacks instead of 8 helps with finding items you want. The many towns, forts, and shrines allow for more options for resting. Third, instead of leveling up the skills and abilities allow for more variety in character development. I really enjoyed some of the combos I figured out so far. Definitely need more characters but that's a small gripe. Last, the 3 types of challenges really mix up the game play. You can avoid combat if you want and still develop your character. This was not really possible in 2e. I could go on but I suggest you just get the game!
  2. Thanks! This is great!
  3. I got them both. Michael Scorefan has it right. I especially like the new sellable assets such as contraband added by The Gilded Blade. With these combined with the base set, some kind of delivery variant could be cooked up...
  4. Budgernaut said: Thanks for sharing! I haven't had a situation where we had 5 players yet, but I imagine I might some day. If you get a chance to play other scenarios, I look forward to hearing how they go. I'm really looking forward to eventually playing Rune Wars this way. I played a 4 player game once pre-expansion, and even the players that were put out first were interested in seeing who won and how. With the expansion factions and the mercenaries I can imagine a 5 player Rune Wars game getting pretty bloody. I'm reluctant to try Cataclysm with 5 players. Some of the Event cards might make things too difficult with Holy War being the least of them…
  5. Freeman said: Tony P. said: I had a chance to finally try out a 5 player game. To make up for the gold shortage, we all started with decks consisting of 3- 1 gold cards, 1- 2 gold card, and the 3- 1 cost units. We each kept the 2 gold card in our hands and drew 4 random cards. This may not have been the most balanced approach but it worked. Why not simply use any neutral card not designed for this scenario (such as Battle Cry or similar), as a 1 gold card for the 5th player? Then, as people destroy gold you may exchange that card if you wish…. I did it once and it worked very well. You need just one of them as long as nobody wishes to purchase 1gold cards (which usually won't happen). Thanks for the idea. I should have thought of that myself! I'll try that next time. I just have to be carefull to only use cards that are pointless for whatever scenario we play or 1 cost units from the 6th unused faction. I play with my tweener and teenage stepsons and nephews and they tend to have "fast hands" if you know what I mean
  6. Tony P.

    New edition?

    A new edition would need to shorten turns and increase player interaction. Otherwise I'm perfectly happy to keep playing my base game, two big box expansions, and numerous card pack expansions. Not to mention the home brew scenarios readily available here and on BGG. I don't mind the cartoony art. A new edition would probably recycle big chunks of it or import art from the other Terrinoth games IMO.
  7. I had a chance to finally try out a 5 player game. To make up for the gold shortage, we all started with decks consisting of 3- 1 gold cards, 1- 2 gold card, and the 3- 1 cost units. We each kept the 2 gold card in our hands and drew 4 random cards. This may not have been the most balanced approach but it worked. We played the Quest for Power scenario. 5 players didn't really change anything that I could tell. One of the players was almost a complete noob but he seemed to pick up the basics pretty fast. I played the dwarves this time. I did not go "all out" with my play style since I didn't want to alienate the noob. I was rendered mostly helpless after the 5th turn or so when I gambled to claim one of the rewards. Any result on the attrition die except the 2 skulls would have meant victory for me, but as luck would have it… If there was any drawback to 5 players it was just that the 4th and 5th players were mostly screwed when it came to claiming any of the rewards that came out of the event deck. I look forward to trying out other scenarios with 5 players to see how they work out. I have high hopes for Resurgence and Wars. If I felt I would be playing a lot of these 5 of more player games I would invest in a second basic set, but at this time it doesn't seem worth it.
  8. I only have one copy of the base game and the expansion. Any advice on tweeking the starting deck rules for a 5 player game? My initial thought is to have each player start building their deck with 3-1 gold, 1-2 gold, and the usual 3- 1 cost units. However this seems like a lucky draw could unfairly benefit some players. Another option I considered was a 4-1 gold, 3-1 cost units, and everyone starts with a stronghold. I only had this idea since the first turn for most of us is focused on gaining a stronghold or two. The nuclear option is just sleeving all the cards and just throwing in some gold proxies. Gold is the only resource I'm really worried about. I think the new mercenary cards make up for any shortfalls of neutral cards. I might even use more mercenary cards than suggested. Any thoughts or other options?
  9. I think I might have a 5 player game happening this weekend. I only have one copy of the base game and the expansion so I need some advice on how to best work that out. I'll just start a new thread.
  10. Cwazie said: Our house rule is that you can add a card to a market (facedown) if you pass through the town without stopping there. This puts a little more emphasis on your movement step and makes you take routes through the towns. You do not see what is in there, merely the fact there is more passing trade should mean there is more stuff to buy. Also we start with all items face down so visiting a town is never a foregone conclusion of what is available unless you have been there before. Great game. I'll have to add this in as well. I would even have cards cycle in and out with trade, but keep a few cards facedown that don't cycle out. For the more chaotic evil players among us, how about a chance of Banditry on the roads? I was thinking of adding a chance to rob merchants on the highway. Here's my idea: 1. Each time a player enters a road space there is a chance of encountering a merchant. Roll a d10. On a x through x you encounter a merchant. I shy away from giving hard numbers here since I think it would depend on how robust the Terrinoth economy was at that point. Also I could see modifiers based on how many hexes away from a town you are. 2. Merchant caravans would have set statistics. A random roll would modify these statistics and determine how much loot the caravan was transporting.I also think you would have to beat them in a limited number of turns or they get away. Alternatively there could be a chance of a Hero guarding the caravan. Maybe a 50% chance. So a 1-5. The Hero would be chosen randomly from the unused Heroes. The random loot roll would also determine how experienced the Hero was. Depending on the roll a number of bonus counters would be added to the hero in a uniform manner in order of mind then body then spirit then life. Since the hero wouldn't be using any powers, fatigue wouldn't really be necessary. 3. Merchant caravans give gold, items, and experience. I'll have to work out the details on this. 4. It would be important to track the number of Merchant caravans robbed. Maybe the caravans get tougher. Or as the number goes up maybe only Heroes are guarding the caravans. Or this could lead to some sort of Crime and Punishment track for characters. They may not be able to visit certain towns for fear of getting arrested. 5. Escorting the Merchant Caravans could become a side quest and way for players to earn extra gold.
  11. Tromdial said: Excuse me: I'm going to exit this post and make a new post showing how 2 cores and 2 expansions can make a 9-player Rune Age. I gotta go to work. The forum is now Tony P.'s on how to make a basic core and expansion fit more than 4 players. Be back with an update in an upcoming post. Again, sorry for the brain storming mess. I doubt I'll ever get to play a five player or more game so its kind of a mute point to me! I hope that works out well!
  12. Just an overall reply here. I really love this expansion. It added a LOT of replay value to the base game. I'm a family guy so I don't get to be a full time gamer anymore, so I haven't really developed any of the strategies I read about here. Based on just casual play I really like Quest for Power. We've only played three games so far. One was two players, three players, and four. Each game had very different strategies and twists and turns. I really enjoyed this one. The Overlord scenario was great. We did this twice and both times the Overlord was victorious. I was the Overlord one of these times playing the humans. I have to confess this is one of the few times I did look up some strategy online and used a good human build. The Roc really beefs up the humans! Looking forward to playing this some more. I really liked the mercenary cards. We went back and forth as to how to implement them. Sometimes we did it RAW but other times we separated them into two piles or even by card type just to get more exposure. Overall I'm glad I bought this. I saw Tromdial's post about a 9 player game. Unfortunately I rarely have 4 player games so that is just a pipe dream for me.
  13. I like the hero deck idea. With the number of heroes introduced in the various Runebound and Descent games and expansions there would be plenty. It seems like there should be different types of heroes. Some would go into your deck and others would go into play like your strongholds and be a fixed resource that you exhaust and refresh. Just an idea that struck me as I read your post. Either way FFG BRING ON MORE EXPANSIONS! EVEN PRINT ON DEMAND! Then bundle some card sleeves with a print on demand package deal.
  14. I think I'm going to try to play a five player game this weekend. I'm thinking either Runewars, Quest for Power, or Ascension of the Overlord. To counter the gold problem I might just proxy some gold and sleeve my whole set. This could also work for adding any extra neutral cards. This would require a little more work than I'm probably willing to do though. A free and easy fix would just be to do as was suggested earlier and give less gold or in a different denomination. I might try this. 3 one gold each and one 2 gold to start. I hope this slight change doesn't unbalance any of the races. Another option might be to just have everyone start with 4 gold. Again I'm not sure how this might unbalance things. I'm leaning more toward the previous idea.
  15. I'm thinking of team play ideas. I was trying to figure out a mechanic that would allow players to aid each other when attacking or defending. One idea is for a player to declare an attack then allow an ally to play cards along with him. They would decide who played in what order, and they could even alternate. The only difference from normal play would be they would potentially have 10 cards available for use instead of just 5. The player whose turn it is would still be subject to any effects that targeted the active player. This would also work for defense but the active players home realm would suffer any damage. The active player would also claim any cities or strongholds captured this way. This would not really work for any scenario except Runewars.
  • Create New...