Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Ken on Cape

Besides new races, what do people want to see in expansions?

Recommended Posts

Graf said:

 I hope there will be the rules how to implement heroes into battles between armies. 

 

Having played much more sessions of Runewars in the last days, I have to repeal and cancel my own former statement. Please do not implement heroes into army-battles!

I think their distinct role aside the battles is too essential for the game and I think the game would be narrowed if the heroes would be reduced to some kind of better units. I think the heroes impact on the map is much more subtle and elegant in the current ruling – and this impact is big enough. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Graf said:

Graf said:

 I hope there will be the rules how to implement heroes into battles between armies. 

 

 

Having played much more sessions of Runewars in the last days, I have to repeal and cancel my own former statement. Please do not implement heroes into army-battles!

I think their distinct role aside the battles is too essential for the game and I think the game would be narrowed if the heroes would be reduced to some kind of better units. I think the heroes impact on the map is much more subtle and elegant in the current ruling – and this impact is big enough. 

I've seen this similar change in thought from several people.  I myself feel this way too.  When I first started playing, i thought it would be cool to have more direct interaction.  The more I play, I think the level of separation is just right :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Graf said:

But if they include some more tiles, they will need some neutral units to inhabit them – and it would be really boring to pick more of the old ones. So they will need new neutrals, and if they integrate new ones, I think there is a good chance it will be circle and/or rectangle units as stated above.

I personally don't have any doubt that an expansion would include more neutral units.  I think what Sigma was saying is that the logic you use to reach your conclusion is a bit shaky, he wasn't questioning the conclusion itself.  It's like saying the existence of generic music stores that sell all genres of music is proof that more music will be made in the future.  Yes, in all likelihood there will be more music, but the generic quality of the location you get it from really has nothing to do with whether or not it's coming.  In a similar vein, the likelihood of new neutral units is very high (IMHO), but not so much because the city tiles have generic recruiting icons as because it's an obvious game element to expand upon.

If they had made the circle cities specifically recruit sorcerers only, then they'd want to make specific beastman and razorwing recruitment icons to maintain a consistent look and feel.  That would mean there wouldn't be a whole lot of choice for the player though.  They wanted to make triangles generic for simplicity, so they made circles and rectangles generic too, to be consistent.  As an added bonus, it leaves the door open for more units in the future.  When designing a game, particularly a board or card game that needs to printed out in hardcopy, it pays to leave some things generic, not because of what you intend to definitely put in later, but because of what you *might* decide to put in later.  That goes for "later in the initial design process" just as much as "later in an expansion."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jasonspace said:

 I would like to see an adjustment made that would allow for 5-6 players to play instead of just the current maximum of 4.

 

I totally agree. As soon as possible. Most of the time we have 5-6 players. All of us want to play, but its current maximum means it won't be leaving its box very often.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve-O said:

 As an added bonus, it leaves the door open for more units in the future.  When designing a game, particularly a board or card game that needs to printed out in hardcopy, it pays to leave some things generic, not because of what you intend to definitely put in later, but because of what you *might* decide to put in later.  That goes for "later in the initial design process" just as much as "later in an expansion."

 

 

In these last sentences, you rather support my argument. That's exactly what I was writing about. Surely the game designers left the doors opened in their initial design process for future stuff. And surely, they will make use of the unfilled possibilities they created. 

 

Moreover, my intent was less to say that there will be more neutral units than to give hints what these neutral units will be like. You must confirm that it's a more concrete assertion to say that there will be at least one circle and/or rectangle neutral unit than just to say there will be neutral units at all. 

Surely, all we do in this thread is speculating about possible future expansions. But I wanted to fortify some of these speculations by showing what parts of the games seem to be more likely made to be supported by future expansions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Graf said:

Steve-O said:

 As an added bonus, it leaves the door open for more units in the future.  When designing a game, particularly a board or card game that needs to printed out in hardcopy, it pays to leave some things generic, not because of what you intend to definitely put in later, but because of what you *might* decide to put in later.  That goes for "later in the initial design process" just as much as "later in an expansion."

 

 

In these last sentences, you rather support my argument. That's exactly what I was writing about. Surely the game designers left the doors opened in their initial design process for future stuff. And surely, they will make use of the unfilled possibilities they created.

"Leaving the door open" though isn't the same as "intentionally planning for expansion."  I'm a programmer, for instance.  When writing code, I often make sure to code for things in a way that they can be expanded later, if needed.  Many times, this isn't needed, as we don't end up expanding anyway, but I do it anyway just in case.  In fact, most of the time, I do it knowing that the more likely case is that there will NOT be any expansion, but I still don't want to paint myself into a corner.

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Graf said:

In these last sentences, you rather support my argument. That's exactly what I was writing about. Surely the game designers left the doors opened in their initial design process for future stuff. And surely, they will make use of the unfilled possibilities they created. 

Again, we're not disputing your assertion that more neutral units are likely to be produced, only the idea that "generic circle icons on cities PROVE they will make more circle units."

Graf said:

Moreover, my intent was less to say that there will be more neutral units than to give hints what these neutral units will be like. You must confirm that it's a more concrete assertion to say that there will be at least one circle and/or rectangle neutral unit than just to say there will be neutral units at all. 

I agree it is likely that they will include more neutral units of all base types, at least one of each I would expect (possibly no new hexes, but still probable.)

That doesn't make it a concrete assertion, though, that just makes it my opinion.  I'm not an FFG employee, so my opinion doesn't carry a whole lot of weight as far as what will actually happen.  Again, not disputing the conclusion that more neutrals (circles and more) are likely, only disputing the idea that it's obviously proven fact based on the generic circle icons on existing cities.  It's not a question of where you ended up, just a question of how you got there.

Nor am I trying to discourage you from speculating about the expansion.  That's what this thread was made for, after all.  I'm not attacking you or insulting you, I'm just offering my own opinion.  Feel free to ignore me if you don't like what I'm saying. =)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never mind, I really never felt to be personally offended or to be insulted. I think it's a common problem of forums that written words appear to be more harsh than they are really meant. I understand our discussion in a rather calm way: All we do is to exchange some arguments, and this should not be taken too seriously or even too personally – especially not in a thread that is about speculating and not about "who is right".

Maybe you can rather agree with my thoughts if you understand that I've never meant them in such a strict matter (Maybe I just hit the wrong words, blame to my poor english). Just replace the term "proven fact" in your summarize of my thoughts by the word "hint", and you will see what was my intend: Not to talk about WHAT WILL BE IN ANY CASE, but to give some hints what stuff could be more likely added in expansions than other stuff. 

 

Well, I think we should stop this too specific dispute (before things are going crazy) and return to the main topic of this thread: What do people want to see in expansions?

I think I would be glad if an expansion would severe (!) increase the size of the season-decks – so it will be hard to speculate for specific season cards that will show up with a high probability. Unfortunately, I don't think an expansion will address this concern in such a high amount – but it's just one thing I would definitely add to my wish-list. Well, it's not a big deal, but I think the given season deck is a little bit too predictable for players who really know this game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Graf said:

Maybe you can rather agree with my thoughts if you understand that I've never meant them in such a strict matter (Maybe I just hit the wrong words, blame to my poor english). Just replace the term "proven fact" in your summarize of my thoughts by the word "hint", and you will see what was my intend: Not to talk about WHAT WILL BE IN ANY CASE, but to give some hints what stuff could be more likely added in expansions than other stuff. 

Point taken, issue dropped.

Graf said:

I think I would be glad if an expansion would severe (!) increase the size of the season-decks – so it will be hard to speculate for specific season cards that will show up with a high probability. Unfortunately, I don't think an expansion will address this concern in such a high amount – but it's just one thing I would definitely add to my wish-list. Well, it's not a big deal, but I think the given season deck is a little bit too predictable for players who really know this game.

I wouldn't mind seeing the season decks get a bit fatter.  I don't want it to get too crazy though, since some of the season cards represent reliable things like harvesting your crops that ought to happen with fair frequency.  Maybe just be sure to include some duplicates of the cards that should come up often.  A few random weather patterns and their subsequent effects would be cool though. =D

I've been thinking about sea units/tiles some more.  I would like to see some new terrain like bodies of water, but I've been appropriately schooled in how difficult it would be to add new units to the existing factions...  Perhaps make some neutral units that can transport armies across water and be hired out.  No actual naval combat ensues (the transporters refuse to engage even if enemy forces are on another ship in the area since they and their crew are unaffiliated) but it provides another obstruction to moving around the map and/or questing.  Could work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Graf said:

I think I would be glad if an expansion would severe (!) increase the size of the season-decks – so it will be hard to speculate for specific season cards that will show up with a high probability.

To be honest, this is one thing I really *DO NOT* want in the expansion.  The more I play, the more I have come to appreciate the small nature of the Season Deck; the fact that you know what's in it, and what is likely to come up.  In an EPIC game, you know that ALL the seasons are there, and if it goes to the end, you know what will be there the last year.

The reason I like this is that the Season decks are sometimes so harsh and chaotic, that they can really hose plans, big-time.  Knowing what's come and what is likely to come later helps mitigate that.  You can plan for possibilities, and prevent them from killing you too bad.  But you couldn't do this is you had absolutely NO idea what was to come.

For example, if there were 30 of each Season Card, and 10 were really good, 10 were really bad, and 10 were somewhere in between, you'd have no idea the mix; you could have 10 really bad ones, and that would just make planning impossible.  With the fate deck now, there are some really good and really bad ones, but you KNOW that there's at least some of each in the deck; you will never have a situation where you can't plan for the possibilities.

I think the predictability is what makes the Season Deck WORK, rather than just being a wildly chaotic and random factor that you can't plan around.

But that's just my opinion, of course :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More than anything else:

  • Rules for 5-6 players
  • Rules for 2 sides (2v2, 3v3). This is the one I'd like more than anytihng. This will encourage players to attack instead of turtle, and the early parts of this game need this badly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

z22 said:

More than anything else:

  • Rules for 5-6 players
  • Rules for 2 sides (2v2, 3v3). This is the one I'd like more than anytihng. This will encourage players to attack instead of turtle, and the early parts of this game need this badly.

While I can see the benefit to some degree of team-style games (though I probably wouldn't use them often myself), I'm not sure how that would encourage players to be more aggressive.  Being allied with another player doesn't make you more likely to go on the offensive than you'd do by yourself.  In fact, in some ways, it could encourage LESS attacking, because now you have two other armies to contend with; even if you yourself have an ally, the person who attacks first will, by nature of the game, be leaving himself open.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I keep wondering about this as I play the game more. What would make Rune Wars cooler?

I agreee with the basics. More Quest cards, more heroes. Maybe more neutral units, and definetly some new factions. Assume the will be neutral, but I think in all reality, it should be another good faction and another evil faction. That way the neutral heroes and there unpredictability stays in play more often. I like that part of the hero mini game.

One of the things I like about Rune Wars is that it is epic in story and game play, but still finishes reasonably fast. Along those lines, I think the best thing that can be introduced to Rune Wars right now are specialized scenarios and maybe specialized "Theme" expansions" Meaning, unique sets of season/quest/tactic cards that have a certain type of conflict or story in mind.

An example of what I am thinking would be say, "The War of the Latari". In this "expansion"  there would be a new season deck, new tactics cards, new quests all with a theme of the "War of the Latari" then there could be some subtle or not so subtle cards that say force the elves to be more of the antagonist with some special rules. There could even say be a specialized unit with a little inititive board addition for the Elves. I imagine the new unit would be some sort of elite unit. Maybe Winged Death the super pegasus for example. These little "Expansions" would be akin to the way a Rune Bound operates. Not that I am a fan of Rune Bound. Its a sleeper (yawm) however, I do think how you can buy a little expansion pack for runebound, get a hero and some other items to augment your existing game is a great idea.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

simpatikool said:

An example of what I am thinking would be say, "The War of the Latari". In this "expansion"  there would be a new season deck, new tactics cards, new quests all with a theme of the "War of the Latari" then there could be some subtle or not so subtle cards that say force the elves to be more of the antagonist with some special rules. There could even say be a specialized unit with a little inititive board addition for the Elves. I imagine the new unit would be some sort of elite unit. Maybe Winged Death the super pegasus for example. These little "Expansions" would be akin to the way a Rune Bound operates. Not that I am a fan of Rune Bound. Its a sleeper (yawm) however, I do think how you can buy a little expansion pack for runebound, get a hero and some other items to augment your existing game is a great idea.

I like the idea of theme expansions that detail famous battles in the overall war for dominion of the dragon runes.  Introducing new factions or giving existing factions a more specific "story" role to play is a neat idea, too.  I don't like the new unit idea, though.  I think that was one of the first things that came up this thread - the idea that expansions adding extra boards to existing faction sheets is annoying as all get out.

But aside from quibbling over details of implementation, I do really like the idea of story-based expansions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1: I would like to have it from1-6 player game

2: Scenario gaming like Descent and Tide of Iron

3: Make the world as big as you want it (more tiles in the expansion but also a tile expansion)

4: A little more of everything else :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The one thing I would like to see is a new order card for each race permitting the player to take an additional hero phase- maybe with a supremacy number of 5-6. It would permit the player to take a complete quest phase with his heroes at the cost of not taking a "turn" that season- no tactics cards or "During your turn" actions, but if that player is focusing on heroes would be a boost for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

pendrag2k said:

The one thing I would like to see is a new order card for each race permitting the player to take an additional hero phase- maybe with a supremacy number of 5-6. It would permit the player to take a complete quest phase with his heroes at the cost of not taking a "turn" that season- no tactics cards or "During your turn" actions, but if that player is focusing on heroes would be a boost for them.

 

The thing is Runewars is supposedly a war game and yet games can end without units even meeting.  Heroes already play a larger role than they should really and adding more focus on them just brings the game further away from being about conquest and area control.  The game is a race and ends when the first player gets the 4 runes aside fromt he 2 that he starts with.  Since you only generate runes from influence bids and hero questing games would end even more often before armies meet if players could quest an extra time each year.  If you want more focus on adventure with the same race for runes element I would suggest playing Runebound instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Upon thinking about it, I think one thing I'd like to see a little more of is Rune Tokens (both real and fake).  I think part of the reason that the Epic rules don't use fakes is that if you play a 4-player Epic game, it's possible (and probably not uncommon) that you would run out of one or the other type of token.  Having just a few more would allow you to play an Epic game with hidden runes :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's exactly what I think about. Being forced to play the epic variant WITHOUT false runes really lowers the "Lord Commander of the Warriors Guild" to a point where it is not purchased any more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Graf said:

That's exactly what I think about. Being forced to play the epic variant WITHOUT false runes really lowers the "Lord Commander of the Warriors Guild" to a point where it is not purchased any more.

I disagree with that - if you are buying the Lord Commander card just to look at face-down runes, I think you are buying it for the wrong reason.  90% of the time, it's easy to tell which runes are real and fake based on how they are placed on the map.  This card can help with that other 10%.  But I think the MAIN power of the Lord Commander card is the +2 on all rune spaces.  Sure, with fake runes, you have more spaces this affects, but I've seen many battles won or lost simply because of the +2 this card brings.

In Epic games, i find it far from useless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't even thought about that rune-revealing-ability, I had only the battle-advantage in mind.

In games with false runes, nearly the whole map will be covered with rune tokens very soon so you get the +2 in nearly all battles. 

In epic games without false runes, only the corners of the map will be filled with rune tokens – at least for the longest time of the game. So this title is definitely losing much from its power. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Graf said:

I didn't even thought about that rune-revealing-ability, I had only the battle-advantage in mind.

In games with false runes, nearly the whole map will be covered with rune tokens very soon so you get the +2 in nearly all battles. 

In epic games without false runes, only the corners of the map will be filled with rune tokens – at least for the longest time of the game. So this title is definitely losing much from its power. 

True, but fighting over a false rune isn't really all that vital - fighting over a REAL rune can win you the game.  So although with the false runes you'll have more opportunities for advantage, with only real rules, you know that EVERY fight in a rune territory will be worth fighting over :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sigmazero13 said:

Graf said:

 

I didn't even thought about that rune-revealing-ability, I had only the battle-advantage in mind.

In games with false runes, nearly the whole map will be covered with rune tokens very soon so you get the +2 in nearly all battles. 

In epic games without false runes, only the corners of the map will be filled with rune tokens – at least for the longest time of the game. So this title is definitely losing much from its power. 

 

 

True, but fighting over a false rune isn't really all that vital - fighting over a REAL rune can win you the game.  So although with the false runes you'll have more opportunities for advantage, with only real rules, you know that EVERY fight in a rune territory will be worth fighting over :)

 

In fairness it's pretty rare that you don't know which rune is false and real.  If someone places a rune in or beside their homeland and one further out there is a good chance the one closer in is real.  And if not, who cares you can plow through the fake one on the way anyways if you are that far in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...