), I would go for the option to increase the neutral value on the monsters. Having them as starting positions would increase player 1s advantage massively (starting with lots of +2 bonuses). In many game formats, players will have the auto-deploy on the wizard, the standard 3 troops (I assume) +1 for 3 monsters. Therefore the wizards have 3 just like monsters - players have 4 to deploy - they can either attack from the monsters, which involves meeting other players - or go for a runebound monster from a wizard with 7 v 3 (or 2).Let's consider the monsters neutral is 2 - players can typically attack 7 v 2, with the majority gaining the bonus. In round 2, player 1 then has the normal 3 +1 + 2 to deploy - an opportunity to hit someone else's runebound monster and deny them the +2 (then fort from wizard to runebound monster to protect their own bonus). Therefore, a likely first player advantage if the neutral is 2.
If the neutral is set to 3 then we have a similar scenario, although a higher probability that some players wont get the dice to take the runebound monster. Therefore, still a likely first player advantage if the neutral is 2.
If the neutral were higher, say 5, players would most likely wait another round before taking it. The more rounds it takes to take the runebound monster bonus, the less player 1's advantage is likely to be (as other players will have had chance to build a force, probably on their wizard).
Ideally, I would suggest runebound monsters have a relatively high neutral. With the wizard auto-deploy, they will still be an attractive proposition when after a couple of rounds. Players would then be taking a big risk attacking the runebound monster first round - with no fog they may not have enough to safely defend, and in a card game they might not get the dice to take the runebound monster and therefore not get a card. Players are then more likely to deploy elsewhere to attack first go, or build their wizard and not attack. This would delay player 1s advantage to at least round 2 where the other players will have more chance of counteracting.
Basically, all this is about reducing Player 1s advantage - the principal which attracts many strategically-minded players to maps like New World, Feudal and Peloponnesian War because players dont meet for several rounds.
Here, by increasing the runebound monsters neutral value could be very interesting - it will delay players meeting on the critical territories (i.e. the runebound monsters) but hasten them meeting on less critical territories - i.e. the 'normal' monsters.
Personally, I would set them as neutral 6, maybe more. The value comes down to your preferred gameplay style. And of course, it is something that can be easily amended in Beta without disruption to on-going games.
What do you think?
By the way, I can smell the stamping ink
It will very soon be time to knock on a graphics assistants door.
Certainly unique gameplay, looks like a winner 
