Anarchosyn
-
Content Count
73 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Anarchosyn
-
-
I bought it and so far I'm regretting it, but I've got a 10 year old nephew who would love this.
There are some things the new edition does better and some things it does worse.
The decision to upgrade to the new edition is just like the decision to upgrade to descent 2nd edition, you'll either love it or hate it... a bit like marmite.
So.. could you elaborate a bit on what let you down?
-
"Are the heroes too generic?"Yes.
More female representation is needed too, FFG (and I say this as a man). Its a veritable sausage fest of uninteresting characters in the base set. If I didn't anticipate a fast expansion release schedule to rectify this, I'd have been inclined to pass on the title.
-
Descent was a good example to use of an evolving game system.
I also prefer d1e over d2e but when comparing core sets only d2e wins hands down, because so much d1e expansion content made it into the d2e core set.
I don't get the same feeling from r3e, it seems that they've reimplemented the r2e core set but ignored the improvements from the expansions.
The frozen wastes was my favourite expansion, for many reasons, but partly because there was questing and an optional non-violent resolution. The hero's each gained map tiles during the game and when they collected enough to make a map tile and all surrounding tiles they could match them against the game board to find the location of the lost princess. Once a hero had rescued the lost princess they could peacefully "defeat" one of the 2 final bosses.
It would have been a smart move to allow some non-combat boss resolution mechanics, I agree, but I can't fault them for leaving out the environmental tweaks or ideas I loved from the expansions (notably Sands of Al-Kalim, my personal fav). I suspect stuff like that will come in expansions, but you can't say they didn't push innovation in the design (and one could argue the build in round counter was a nod to Midnight).
Incidentally, by building in a timer, expansion developers can take for granted its inclusion, making cooperative content a higher possibility. I really look forward to seeing the vision FFG has for how to expand this.
-
Preparation for final battle has nothing to do with the type of encounters you resolve. Each encounter type allows you to gain some specific rewards in terms of trophies, gold, and other benefits. These rewards are used to build engines allowing you to take off the final boss. You can go for a skill card based engine, or for an equipment-based engine, and have similar odds at victory.
This is a provocative thought I hadn't considered; 2e Runebound was all about item acquisition to defeat the big bad. I had naturally assumed the same would be at play here, but you're right that there is potential for skills to fill the void of an alternative choice. That said, I'm not 100% sure this has been borne out by any preview or reveal -- none of the skills currently spoiled seem particularly strong in regards to taking down the end game villain.
I don't know about you, but I found the grind-fest that was Runebound 2nd edition to be boring at times.
To me the terrain was the most interesting part about Runebound 2nd ed. The actual encounters were all fights, with combat that you played by yourself for a couple of minutes while people checked their phones.
The so-called different "paths to victory" consisted of figuring out which combat stats you wanted to upgrade. Everyone was some sort of fighter.
At least 3rd ed. is trying to make the heroes actually have different "roles."
With Descent 2nd ed., I assumed from the previews it would be better than 1st ed. I have to admit it's a better game than 1st ed. for most people, and I would pretty much only recommend 2nd ed. to most people, but I just personally prefer the 1st ed because I like the long game sessions and exploration and more complex rules. It took me a long time of actually playing both editions to realize what is my personal taste and what is actually evolved game design.
I feel the same about Runebound 3rd ed. It seems like it is going to be a more evolved form of the 2nd ed, and I'm eager to try it out to see which version I like more.
No real reason to quote this, save my admiration for the maturity exemplified in this perspective. Kudos.
-
The German language expansion, [url=http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgameexpansion/136986/die-legenden-von-andor-der-sternenschild] Die Legenden von Dandor der Sternenschild[/ur], should get a US release. I'd pay good money to FFG's coffers if such a thing occurred. Or, better yet, gather all the released small expansion content into an official box.
I must admit, I helped diminish this game's initial sales because I wanted to wait for the first round of expansion news before purchasing a copy. Sadly, I now realize the disservice I paid Andor, and have recently purchased a copy of the "base" set to have in my collection.
Please FFG, feed us more content.
-
SnowcatAssassin said:
Aside from what's already in the rulebook, what are some good tips for deck building? I only have one core set, I might get another one, don't really have the money to blow on a second one with sleeves at the moment anyway. I've got a custom HB deck and a custom Anarch deck, but both proved to have their issues when played against someone just using core set decks. Advice?
Can you elaborate on the issues you referenced towards the end of your commentary?
-
TheRealLeo said:
The run diagram has been shown to conflict with the actual printed rules in the main part of the book. In fact, the quote I made of the rulebook should be a clear example of this. Nowhere does it say anything about approaching ice that has not already been approached. It instead refers to following a sequential order, nothing more. As such, I wouldn't recommend using the run diagram for anything other than a visualization for when you can use triggered abilities/rez cards.
The ONLY reason it uses the added verbiage in the run diagram is because, due to the nature of how the diagram is written, it had to take into account loops. At various points, it says stuff like "If.. then go to X", so it's shorthand for "continuing from where we left off."
-
vermillian said:
Playing today as Jinteki, runner hit my RnD and revealed a Snare asset. It did three damage to him (I had the funds to pay its trigger)… YIKES!
So runners really need to hold on to some cards to avoid being flatlined when on the offense… AND need to have creds for the subroutine breaking… sounds kinda maddening!
We play that right?Check out Project Junebug.
::cue evil laughter::
*Ahem* .. and yes, you played that right. Remember, however, that it's at -1 cards, not zero, that the Runner dies. The Runner can have zero cards in their hand and still be alive.
-
Ariston said:
Anarchosyn said:
Thankfully, while writing this, I see a playtester has come in and quoted from a developer to say my camp was correct, that conditional abilities resolve before paid abilities can be triggered, but the fact it turned into a thread where so many people chimed in with the wrong answer speaks to a need for errata.Not errata, just a clarification to the rules. Anyhow, where is the playtester's comment? I don't see it in the thread, or as a new post here in the forum, either…
I mean, I'm convinced by prune's quote from the original rules (going by the assumption that anything that is not explicitly different is the same), I'm just curious.
Mateusz Nowak (Mateui) is a playtester. The last person he quoted, Lukas, is the lead developer (second to last post, as of this posting): javascript:void(0);/*1347241108516*/
btw - Errata, though technically meaning "corrections," is the general expression used for post release FAQ and clarifications. To rationalize the word's usage, you can think of the ambiguity as the mistake being corrected.
-
msdttt said:
This game has ZERO local organized play support. If I cannot find a diverse group of players to play with, I cannot play. Heck, even this own message board is being used more for a player locator than an actual discussion form.
And the championship support being offered for this game is good- if only it was *clear* where it was being held. (http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_news.asp?eidn=3546)
I do not have doubts that the game is good. On the other hand, it does not matter how good a game is if you cannot convince players to get together and play it.
You have no friends?
This isn't a CCG where you need a thousand people with their own decks and enthusiasm to play. You can rock this like a board game -- the core supports two decks, with several options (12 distinct match-ups) .
-
radiskull said:
Yes, they do. It's nasty. Of course, that just means the Corp is going to decide to purge all your counters that much sooner.
Yes, but since the Corp now has to give up a turn to do that, the Runner will get a free set of runs if the Corp wasn't capable of locking everything down before initiating that.
-
Yeah, things are kind of murky around the edges, for sure. Take this example:
Runner places Parasite (effect: trash at 0 strength) on Matrix Analyzer (NBN Ice with an On Encounter effect). Later in the same turn, the Runner decides to run against the Matrix Analyzer, using a Datasucker loaded with tokens to match the Matrix Analyzer's strength (effect: spend a token to reduce ice's strength). Over in the BGG forums, we've been debating back and forth whether you could Datasucker Matrix Analyzer to death before Matrix Analyzer's On Encounter effect triggered. My camp (the small) felt it couldn't, but most people cited "simultaneous effects" in the rules to argue the starting player had the right to choose.
Thankfully, while writing this, I see a playtester has come in and quoted from a developer to say my camp was correct, that conditional abilities resolve before paid abilities can be triggered, but the fact it turned into a thread where so many people chimed in with the wrong answer speaks to a need for errata.
-
Yes, you restart the run.
Cell Portal causes you to re-encounter the outermost piece of ice, then it deactivates. Once inactive, it has no ability to warp you past any intervening ice.
-
Corp chooses.
Subroutines are written from the Corp's perspective (it's "Do 3 net damage" not "take 3 net damage").
Good question, though. It is ambiguous at first glance.
-
I almost feel a little silly asking as I'm sure it'll make sense when I hit on the right example scenario, but why is it that Classic Netrunner used this scoring methodology:
"If you are keeping a running point total, you should play an even number of games, with you and your opponent trading Corporation and Runner roles after each game. The winner of each game gets a flat 10 points; the loser gets 1 point for each agenda point scored."
Aside from the benefit of tracking unconventional wins (e.g. flatlining the Runner), what mathematical benefit does this offer? Why not 7?
I know Android: Netrunner seems to have dropped this, but that is irrespective of my point.
-
Voidy said:
hey all
i hear nothing but positive responses to this game and as a card game lover i will be getting my hands on a copy as soon as i can here in the netherlands
.
Just dont understand 1 thing every boardgame/cardgame news has something positive to say about netrunner but its a redesign of an older game right ? how come the older game wassnt such a succes ??Simple answer: Not everybody did love it back then. It's funny for some, Netrunner was a contentious title back in the day, but perhaps it was "before its time." This happens with films often -- something will release to moderate success (or less) and disappear, only to turn into a cult classic years later. Netrunner is a cult classic of a similar stripe.
-
jpthegreat said:
I played many games today and found out that this is a question. The starter corp decks have little amounts of agendas in them. And the self built decks need 20 to 21 agenda points in a 45 to 49 card deck. The question is what do you do when you want to tweak your deck? Do you have to have a large amount of agendas or do you have the choice to keep the agendas the same amount with corp and neutral?
Thank you,
Your agenda count should be the same in both the starter and constructed decks, depending on their relative card sizes. The starter decks are Faction + Neutrals, not just the Faction cards.
-
Penfold said:
3) It allows you to have at least two decks for both Corp and Runner and any time without having to swap the neutral cards back and forth.
3 only stands if you don't cannibalize cards from the respective factions (i.e. get deeply into your #2). 'Course, you could cannibalize from some factions, leaving other intact, but not all Neutral cards come in x3 iterations (e.g. Hunter, a Corp ice, comes in x2).
-
DeathByLiche said:
Anarchosyn said:
DeathByLiche said:
mkultra said:
And if a card lets you "add an advancement token to any card that can be advanced" you could put them on the ice, rezzed or unrezzed.
I hadn't thought of that! That could be a good combo with both matrix analyzer and autoscript to prevent the runner from being able to make it in on a run.
Not sure I follow. Advanceable ice can be advanced with credits during a run, and Agenda's can't be scored on a run. I guess Matrix Analyzer and Astroscript Pilot Program could be useful to advance ice if you're low on credits, but it seems a waste if you have them already.
No you cannot advance ICE with credits during a run EXCEPT with autoscript and matrix analyzer. Otherwise yes it would be a waste, but this way you can bluff the runner by beefing up the strength of a piece of ICE midrun when the runner didn't expect it.
Ah yes, I was thinking they were paid for abilities like what appears on icebreakers. My bad, headcold.
-
glasswalkerx said:
Can u actually start a RS by placing Ice only and then placing an Agenda or Asset at a later time?
Think about it this way, all the remote servers are started at the beginning of a game. There are an infinite number of them extending from the play space. They're there, active and ready -- just empty. You can put whatever you want into or on them, in any order you please. Taking things out of them likewise doesn't deactive them.. they're there, just empty.
Mind you, you can only uninstall assets, agendas and upgrades when you're installing something new IN the server, and you can only uninstall ice when installing things ON the server. However, you can not remove ice when installing IN the server, and you can't muddle with the upgrades, agendas or assets when installing new ice ON the server.
-
DeathByLiche said:
mkultra said:
And if a card lets you "add an advancement token to any card that can be advanced" you could put them on the ice, rezzed or unrezzed.
I hadn't thought of that! That could be a good combo with both matrix analyzer and autoscript to prevent the runner from being able to make it in on a run.
Not sure I follow. Advanceable ice can be advanced with credits during a run, and Agenda's can't be scored on a run. I guess Matrix Analyzer and Astroscript Pilot Program could be useful to advance ice if you're low on credits, but it seems a waste if you have them already.
-
Treguard said:
I think a powerful-yet-experimental/unstable icebreaker would be certainly fitting.
And fit both the Anarchs and Shapers nicely.
-
jhaelen said:
Treguard said:
There was no constraint in the old game was there?I don't recall any CCG card that allowed you to advance (and thus potentially score) an Agenda that didn't require the Corp's action. Do you have an example?
It's worth adding that it doesn't take any clicks/actions to score agendas in Android: Netrunner. I'm not entirely sure this was even what you intended to imply, but since you used the word "action" I wanted to clarify (I also get that you were talking about Classic Netrunner).
-
Khudzlin said:
Corp cards speak to the corp, runner cards to the runner. ~Amazing, isn't it?~
Stow the snarkiness. It's not a stretch that a Corp trap could read "Take 1 net damage" (i.e. speak to the Runner).
.
2nd edition vs. 3rd edition comparison
in Runebound
Posted · Edited by Anarchosyn
Where I appreciate R2E's dedication and innovation regarding modeling the trials of the journey, I can't say that is what got me in the door or kept me entertained for 4 hours. It was neat, but often became a hassle that lent little to the overall enjoyment of the experience.
The hardcore gamer in me laments the ease 3E's number's imply, but in application I suspect the lessened focus on the trials of travel will translate into more meaningful engagement with the towns, quests and gems within the world.