Jump to content

Grove12345

Members
  • Content Count

    28
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Grove12345

  1. Consider how creative/brilliant the FFG team was in creating 3rd Ed and the two different types of scenarios, I am a bit let down to see that the new scenario looks nothing more than a re-skin. Was hoping to see the co-op mode introduced.
  2. Seems FFG is making their fantasy based games in the world of Terrinoth. Which i think would be great if the Runebound, Descent, etc worlds were better linked together. Then TI universe made it to Rex game. i enjoy FFG backstory to the TI races and backdrop. Very rich. A bit of me wanted to see the TI world in this game as well. Basically more TI universe please.
  3. I agree the price is steep. Maybe if they were painted perfectly. Your basically asking like $500 for your descent minis.
  4. lol. ya that what i was reading and thinking. Pretty much DotR. But i notice counters on the board and allot more dice and junk. Hopefully for the best. And *sigh* cardboard figures. The kingdom also seems to be in the corner so less random possibilities of attack i imagine. DotR had scenarios and events if you chose to d/l them or buy the hero expansions. Also seems the heros are more stat based while DotR is skilled based. I like DotR heroes. each one played the game very differently.
  5. I imagine this game has some descent solo varients or ideas. Maybe you can play each character to benefit themselves the most but later roll the die to see who will be the first player will be. if 3 people want to extract maybe the 4th wouldnt want to stay there and try his luck so he will do something else. Winner of the role in multiple extracts should gain more benefits than the rest. FFG showed that in Rune Age scenarios make variety. It will be super easy for them to release new scenarios cards and new objectives. It will also be easy to have co-op scenarios though i imagine the text and instructions wont be "neatly" displayed on one card, but will need the instruction booklet. the lord of the rings game is pretty popular and thats only solo/coop. Why stop there?
  6. sepayne7l said: +1 Also, Terrinoth and TI3 novels would be nice, too. ya no kidding. i think terrinoth has an semi unique twist to fantasy genre. I almost think TI should just be a video game.
  7. simple stuff like this makes the game more fun. Now I got to find a varient that makes this game less monotone
  8. JCHendee said: 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. 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?
  9. 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.
  10. Im an ex owner of Runebound. I found it very boring. It got super repetitive. Kill monster from a deck and keep leveling so you can later kill the boss in the same exact fashion. The board and the other players had very little interaction Even with a doom counter there was no sense of doom approaching. After playing the board game defenders of the realm you get worried the longer you wait, and things get worse. B/c each turn the board moves against you. Things i think were superb in this game. Combat, monster cards, traveling, and event cards were super cool, since they changed the rules as you went. Maybe if there was a version where you draw a card every 4 or 5 turns and the scenario toughens. That would be awesome. I havent played the expansions or the card expansion since no one could say the game changed so much. Or people couldnt relate to what i was saying, so couldnt persuade me
  11. i think they copied the community bc they listened to them. If everyone wanted heroes to be generals, why not put that in the expansion?
  12. sepayne7l said: To briefly respond to the original post. I played Nerath and it really is just a variation of Axis and Allies. Far closer to Risk than Runewars. Runewars is much more strategic, nicer to look at, and just plain more fun. Nerath is more like a stepping stone to Runewars. havent played either game. But seems Nerath fun can be found in the simplicity as well
  13. Gallows said: American football is a complete ripoff of real football... The only thing those two games have in common is that some pieces have square and hexagon bases. as a friend of mine pointed out (he hates sports) american football plays a lot like chess. And i actually agree, majority of the game is how you set your pieces up and size your opponent and the other half is how good they move. Guess american football takes a lot of flak since everyone in the world likes soccer and rugby players dont use protection, and the rest of the world is a lot more close minded than they admit they are.I hate being a sport spectator and i favor no country or sport "just because" but i think football is a brilliant game. Back to conquest of nerath. Nothing but good reviews. I want to get it bc it seems simple and fun. Too bad WOTC dropped the ball on half the figures look the same and no art on any cards. not even treasure cards.
  14. Unlike most i wouldnt care to see another campaign expansion. Wouldnt mind seeing unit packs. I dont have any AT guns or m10s in my army. And i dont want to spend $40+ to get it. But expansion wise maybe add special units for all factions. I would like to have Airborne and rangers and more unit variation between the faction.
  15. i havent played COH, but i read about the rules before in BGG. I have facing and turning rules in TOI, amongst a few others. It works very well.
  16. Playing this game something that really slowed down and annoyed me was having the enemy or even myself with 2 placed MGs in opfire. With a max distance of 10 which is pretty far it seems when ever someone moved i had to keep rolling. move again keep rolling. Squads getting pinned all the time, tanks taking hits. even with the addition of a arc of fire rules they seem to get everyone. Seemed to turn a 40 min game into an 70min game. Im thinking to avoid this mgs can only fire at regular distance while in opfire mode. But may double their distance in concentrate mode or when they join in a op fire.
  17. to save time i think the number idea is best. Makes setup alot quicker. But only works if its not obvious what you are hiding. Hmm scenraio calls for enemy to have 2 AT squads. And he sees none on the field. Guess the ? are AT but even in current state its okay. Ya i hid my AT crew in the trees too and in a rough area. He had to advance the tanks but was wasting time trying to get near the hidden units to expose them with his inf.
  18. KlausFritsch said: Aussie_Digger said: just heard of others using it to limit vision. Hm, then I should go out and buy an MG 42, because that would improve my vision by 2 hexes. ya i was thinking LOS should either be double firing range (which meant an oddly 8 for inf and 10 for Mgs). or just make it 10 across the board. I think having units almost constantly insight really bogged the game down. I got a few house rules with elevation. 1 terrain higher +1 range. But still limited to 10 LOS. 2 terrain higher +1 range and +1 to defense. And i got a whole front and rear movement/attacking method that is simple and works. Posted it on BGG i think its off topic here.
  19. First reaction when i looked at the units stats, i was like "cool the germans have strong MGs and an extra tough tank King Tiger". But then to see what the US had. Maybe tougher elites, extra officer skills, or an AT gun. I saw none. And i was sad to see that the add on wtih Brits was standard units again. Point being. I like to see variation amongst the factions, that leads to balance. Not standardization. Dissapointed to find out that the US had a unique strategy like the AT gun in a expansion only to be out done by the pak in the later expansion. I agree with some army packs. But of new units. Like rangers or ostwinds. Something to mix things up. And stop making evenly balanced counter parts.
  20. Ok looking at DQ and D&D Wrath of AShsomething/ Ravenloft same price for all 3 DQ tons of nice looking tiles. Character Art,,, Terrinoth is lame. Wizards Of the Coast D&D tons of amazing minis. Like some of the best. And LOTS. But bad tiles. Hmm which one is worth $50? I think DQ should be like $30
  21. Thinking about getting this game and i thought if we just reset players once they died it could work. But alot of people complain the game is just too out of your hands, which isnt really appealing as a game. Hard is one thing. I enjoy a challenge. Winning or losing doesnt matter. But not getting a chance to control either is just lame.
  22. I played the much loved Battle Lore, and felt the game was too simple. Maybe b/c the scenarios were too simple and victory was just to rack kills. Also didnt feel much strategy when it came to combat. Once the armies were lined up face to face, felt like the strategy stopped and the players took turns hitting each other, or in much cases missing. I guess i would like to have more choices in a strategy game, and once combat starts or engaged i still can out manuever the enemy. Does this game have that?
  23. Steve-O said: Grove12345 said: IM looking for a game with lots of player interaction and involvement between players. From what ive seen RB doesnt seem to have too much interaction. Like 1 player goes out on his adventure and then the other goes out on his own as well, what players dont need to plan ahead or keep constant track of each others movements. First one to kill the boss wins. Or in some variant some people tag in only for battles. Am i right to think this? You are correct. Without any expansions there's no real motivation to attack other players. You certainly can, and the game has rules for such, but you basically have to go out of your way chasing down other players when you can get equal or better rewards by doing your own thing and fighting the game directly. There is a category of card expansions called Class Decks that add some more player interaction to the game, although I haven't got any of them myself so I can't say if it would be enough to make the game interesting for you. Considering how hard it is to even find the class decks nowadays (and that you'd need one for each player to use them properly) it's probably not worth your time to pick up RB. A better game for player interaction would be Descent. It's technically everyone vs the Overlord player, but it's a highly tactical game, so there's plenty of interaction in planning your heroes' turns and then enacting your strategy. It has a thin shell of a story, but you're better off ignoring that and focusing on the crunchy tactics. If you want something like RB, but with more interaction, I'd point you at Talisman. It's a more traditional board game format, but it has the same heroic questing feel of Runebound in a much more competitive style. thanks for the feedback steve. I looked into Runewars but felt the game isnt reached full potential with just 2 players. And thats all i got. As much as i REALLY want to play Descent with the add ons. I only got 1 friend to play with. I actually got Defenders of the Realm. Wow that was an intense co-op game. Even though we had turns per player, it felt like we were all coordinating each others players. You need to plan ahead with your buddies to and provide feedback on what you are going to do.
  24. IM looking for a game with lots of player interaction and involvement between players. From what ive seen RB doesnt seem to have too much interaction. Like 1 player goes out on his adventure and then the other goes out on his own as well, what players dont need to plan ahead or keep constant track of each others movements. First one to kill the boss wins. Or in some variant some people tag in only for battles. Am i right to think this?
×
×
  • Create New...