Runebound End-Game Strategy

I don't have a lot of time to properly articulate this, but hopefully I can get the gist across. This is in regards to vanilla Runebound's endgame. Where you have to defeat Margath or three Dragonlords. Now I've yet to see a game that didn't end with the defeat of Margath even if the person already had 1-2 Dragon Runes. Then I again I do have the Heart and Skeleton in my red deck, which makes Margath more likely. I'm digressing here and will a little more before I get to my final point/question.
A lot of people complain there is no player vs player combat in Runebound or at least there is no need to ever attack someone. I don't believe this is true, but I do play mainly two-player so this may not hold for scaling. I think that anytime an opponent is close to being ready to do a red gem you MUST attack them or risk losing the game. Because the first red card they pull could be Margath and by that point in the game they probably have a good chance of taking him out. It seems to be in your best interest to attack them. Since if you aren't ready for red gems they will most likely win before you are. Or if you are ready for red gems you're still taking the risk they'll win before you get a chance to. It is somewhat of a race game, except in this race you can trip them before they reach the finish line. Whenever I play, my friend always knows I'm going to attack him if he's heading for a red gem and I'm not quite there yet but feel I can knock him out to buy myself some time. What do you all think?

It depends on how well they're equipped to take on the final baddies.

I'd say that if you possess 2 Dragon thingies and your opponent has one, it's easier to kill him that find Margath.

Ken B. wrote:

It depends on how well they're equipped to take on the final baddies.

Do people even pick red fights if they aren't equipped enough for them?

I'd say that if you possess 2 Dragon thingies and your opponent has one

See I'm thinking more of when you're still picking blue gems and they're starting reds. They should have attacked you before you had a chance to get those two dragon runes. Each of those two times you drew a red card it could have been Margath and you would have won...twice. But like I said in my experience most wins have been from defeating Margath before getting more than 1 dragon rune.

I'd say if an opponent gets a killer item (Touch of Death), you might hit the Red quests out of desperation, trying for the win. Also, some people are just masochistic. I remember reading somewhere about someone playing the Mad Monk and just taking out after red quests, getting his ass handed to him every time, picking himself back up after healing, and trying it again. It was hilarious.

I've had two Red totems and hit Margath for the win twice instead, I believe. I know what you're saying.

Mad Dog wrote:

I don't have a lot of time to properly articulate this, but hopefully I can get the gist across. This is in regards to vanilla Runebound's endgame. Where you have to defeat Margath or three Dragonlords. Now I've yet to see a game that didn't end with the defeat of Margath even if the person already had 1-2 Dragon Runes. Then I again I do have the Heart and Skeleton in my red deck, which makes Margath more likely. I'm digressing here and will a little more before I get to my final point/question.

A lot of people complain there is no player vs player combat in Runebound or at least there is no need to ever attack someone.

This was something I always meant to write about, because it is something that applies to adventure games in general. Basically I think that people don't tend to attack each other not because it's tactically bad but because it feels like a dog's act. These games are multiplayer solitare in many ways, as everyone is off having their OWN adventure. When you attack another player, it's like you are crashing that guys adventure. That guy was off doing his own thing, found that sword, and you stole it from him when he was low on health. I think people get so wrapped up in their own adventure that crashing other peoples kind of feels bad.

I don't believe this is true, but I do play mainly two-player so this may not hold for scaling. I think that anytime an opponent is close to being ready to do a red gem you MUST attack them or risk losing the game. Because the first red card they pull could be Margath and by that point in the game they probably have a good chance of taking him out.

I agree BUT not because of Margath. In fact your best bet as the other player is for that monster to BE Margath as he has the best chance of beating that player. Because once a player gets a red dragon rune, it's pretty much game over man, the final stretch, the last insilata. The first dragon rune is the endgame, because those things tend to be so good he will proceed to quickly romp through the next two reds. And if you attack him well - he can use that rune on you too!
So yes, the best time to hit is before that first red rune is awarded. Otherwise you better start praying to your gods.

That's why movement powers are so coveted in the 2p games I play. The only way to beat the person who gets the first Dragon Rune is to get the rest faster (or luck into killing Margath). Most of the Red jewels are in hard-to-reach places. So abilities that make your movement easier or make your opponent's movement more difficult can be difference makers.

This was something I always meant to write about, because it is something that applies to adventure games in general. Basically I think that people don't tend to attack each other not because it's tactically bad but because it feels like a dog's act. These games are multiplayer solitare in many ways, as everyone is off having their OWN adventure. When you attack another player, it's like you are crashing that guys adventure. That guy was off doing his own thing, found that sword, and you stole it from him when he was low on health. I think people get so wrapped up in their own adventure that crashing other peoples kind of feels bad.

Or it's because there isn't a lot to gain from attacking each other. Like in Prophecy if you beat somebody I think you get to take an item, which would be great if they had one of the artifacts, but if they have an artifact chances are they are stronger than you and will probably beat you down instead.

Wasn't that the major draw to World of Warcraft: The Adventure Game, that there was lots of PvP screwage and interaction? It doesn't seem to have very many fans though.

We only ever really PvP if someone is conveniently close by and pretty clearly weaker/in dire need of a beatdown. Otherwise it just seems like too much time wasted that could have been better spent doing something else.

The thing about PvP is that, in addition to crashing someone else's experience, it is pretty much going to be a game-ender. This is even true earlier than the endgame, and often exacerbates the problem as SOMEONE is going to not only get knocked out, but lose some important piece of equipment and give it to the other player. That's a huge hole that is really unlikely to crawl back out of if it happens to you, and playing out the rest of the game becomes tedious for that unfortunately player.

I've played a number of 2p games where an opportunity arose where I or my opponent would consider some PvP. We almost always decide against it. Some of this is the risk of ending up on the losing end yourself, but I'd say the lion's share is due to not wanting to cut the game short. The couple times we did throw down resulted in an almost immediate concession of the game by the loser. That's just not a satisfying way for a game to end.

-MMM