ilikegames said: Ok so I see the heroes gaining "levels", getting new skills, and treasure (don't know if there's copper/silver/gold level). What does the OL get? I don't see the different levels on the monster cards (i.e. RtoL). As the hereos get more BA are they just going to destroy the vanilla baddies? Does the OL get to upgrade his deck when the heroes upgrade skills? Read the previews on the website. There is one all about the OL.

Unclechawie said: New preview is out of the Healer archtype with Disciple and Spiritseeker as it's classes. I'm intrigued. Spiritseeker seems like a neat class and one I will be more than willing to explore. I always thought it was SpiritSEEKER as well, but apparently it's been SpiritSPEAKER all this time!

Columbob said: Bleached Lizard said: Columbob said: Unclechawie said: The preview states that we will be able to use "certain" lieutenants from the 1st Edition, meaning that only some of them will be available. The next question is which one. Also, I'm loving the Dragon Hybrid and based on the preview, it looks like Zachareth may be an Lieutenant Ally?!!!!! Can't wait to see how this plays out. I doubt we'll see the Kraken for instance. You never know. "Water" is a monster trait in 2E, after all! Probably under-used too. Besides the Merriod, what critters from D1 will have that trait do you think? Probably just the ice wyrm and naga.

Columbob said: Unclechawie said: The preview states that we will be able to use "certain" lieutenants from the 1st Edition, meaning that only some of them will be available. The next question is which one. Also, I'm loving the Dragon Hybrid and based on the preview, it looks like Zachareth may be an Lieutenant Ally?!!!!! Can't wait to see how this plays out. I doubt we'll see the Kraken for instance. You never know. "Water" is a monster trait in 2E, after all!

Columbob said: Bleached Lizard said: I think they will be shorter, yes. The current rumour is that a campaign is comprised of six quests (two encounters each), plus the interlude and finale. I think it might be more like 11 quests + interlude(s?) + finale; while the first quest only has a single part (First Blood), every other quest is a 2-parter. Apparently the interludes are longer quests such as we might remember from the first edition (not campaign play) .If you look at the picture of the campaign pad included in the game "The Shadow Rune" www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffg_content/descent-second-ed/news/preview-1/sheet-DJ01-questpad-2.png, there are 5 main quests, each with 2 smaller quests underneath. I figure one of the two smaller quests is played after each main quest according to who won the previous scenario, i.e. if the heroes won, play the left-hand quest, if the OL won, play the right-hand quest. So for example, say the OL wins "A Fat Goblin", the next quest played would be "The Frozen Spire". www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_news.aspSo a campaign will most likely be roughly a dozen quests in length, or enough for 3 months of weekly gaming (or less if you play more than a quest per evening). Still lots of gaming. Yes, I know all of this, and in fact agree with you. However, there is a rumour that a French distributor of the game has had a chance to play it and has released info that only three of the quests are played before the interlude, and three after. However, I have a bet on this that involves me eating various parts of my body, so I certainly hope that you are right!

Sausageman said: Bleached Lizard said: Steve-O said: Bleached Lizard said: Pierce will likely just cancel shields, the same as it did in 1E. Assuming it's still there, I agree. It is still there. You can see it on the Bane Spider cards for the conversion kit. It may not do the same. It *could* be a 'force a re-roll of a defense dice for each rating in pierce', who knows… If that were the case, the Knight's sword would have Pierce.

I think they will be shorter, yes. The current rumour is that a campaign is comprised of six quests (two encounters each), plus the interlude and finale.

gforce200 said: I tend to agree with you about the Overlord. I am not too excited about the limited number of monsters available. In the first scenario, you have a group of goblin archers and one open group of monsters. The question I have is does the open group have to be all the same? For example, can I pick four unique monsters with the wilderness trait to form a complex group or am I stuck with picking one monster such as skeletons and having four of them in my group. If this is the case, I am now limited to only goblin archers and skeletons that spawn at specific points in the first scenario. Any smart group of heroes will figure spawn patterns and group composition pretty quickly and be able to plan their tactics out far in advance. This is all speculation at this point since we have only seen one scenario, but I just hope the Overlord's tactical options are not as limited as they appear. How far in advance? A scenario is supposed to last less than an hour!

Torin Negatia said: The Goblin Archer card already eludes to lieutenants being used in 2e. Whether or not there are cards in the conversion kit for the 1e lts. remains to be seen. One of the 1E lieutenants has already been spoiled as appearing in 2E (the base game, not the conversion kit), so you will be able to use your lieutenant minis.

MCollier said: and now i'm wondering if the RTL leutenant minis will be in the conversion kit No, of course they won't!

Steve-O said: Bleached Lizard said: Racist. Fantasy-racist, perhaps. My bigotry is firmly restricted to fictional realms, I'll have you know. =P Besides, if it's only gnomes, that's really only like half-racism. =P Is that a short joke?!

Steve-O said: Bleached Lizard said: Pierce will likely just cancel shields, the same as it did in 1E. Assuming it's still there, I agree. It is still there. You can see it on the Bane Spider cards for the conversion kit.

Malicain said: Other people were trying to say once you standup as your only action for the turn after you have been Knocked out you are no longer Knocked out and can take your second action because your are no longer Knocked out. That is why they emphasized that it is the only thing you can do on your turn when you are knocked out in a later preview. The Dazed card says the same thing. I can admit that the wording is terrible on the card, hence the debate. I totally understand your argument and concede that this could be the intent of the card, I just wish that it did not have the "on your turn" part. You have strong Jedi powers Lizard, but I remain a holdout. Unless some other revelation is made clear in future previews I know FFG rule folk's will get an email from me to clarify. The difference between the case of the "knocked out" text and the case of the Stunned text is that for "knocked out" we were just going with an unofficial description contained in the preview, as written by someone in their marketing department. For "Stunned" we have the official gameplay text.

PBnJ said: Well we've seen someof the abilities that are in 2nd. like rage,poision, stun and immobilize. anybody care to guess which one's made it to 2nd. Or better yet which one's you hope will never show up again. for me I hope soar is gone. or really really changed. I wqs hoping that thier would be race type abaility that would cover all immunities. Like invrulinable for the golem. I was hoping for something like "undead".= immune to poision, stun ,sleep, and bleed. something like that. you with the def. die, I wonder how priece will play a roll in the game, Hmmm. Pierce will likely just cancel shields, the same as it did in 1E.

I think the clearest wording would have been: "you may not perform any other actions while you hold this card."

MasterBeastman said: The use of one action to discard the stun token is pretty bad in my book. That's half of your actions. I see what you're saying. Surely you see what I'm saying too. If it works where you just spend your first action to discard the stun, and you still have a second action remaining, then why even include the line, "this is the only action you may perform on your turn"? Because that's not what it says! You're cutting the sentence off half way through!

MasterBeastman said: I agree with Malicain. They went to a lot of trouble to add the line, "this is the only action you may perform on your turn while you have this card or token." I bolded the section that's most pertinent. It doesn't say, "Use an action to dicard the Stun token" which is what I would expect if it worked the way some of you are interpreting it. You bolded the wrong part. You should have bolded the part that says "while you have this card or token". If all it said was "use an action to discard this card or token", it wouldn't be a disability now, would it? They need the other part to indicate you can't do anything else while you hold the card/token. Once it's gone, you can perform other actions. And it *does* say "use an action to discard this card/token" - that's what the little arrow at the start of the ability means.

Steve-O said: I definitely prefer the old art to the new art, but I wouldn't say that I hate the new art. I'll get over it. So far, the only thing about 2e that makes me nervous is that Tomble guy in the newest preview. I swear to God, he better not be a gnome. If he's an onoit, that's fair game, but I still don't want to see too many of them… =P Racist.

Malicain said: According to the Terrinoth's Bravest preview you only get two Actions per turn. So the Stunned card modifies that rule by saying "this is the only action you may perform on your turn while you have this card or token". So when stunned you have one action and that is discard this card or token. Hmm… I really think you're not interpreting it correctly.

ilikegames said: I'm wondering about treasure cards. Are there still going to be leveled cards? In 1ed once the heroes got gold, as the monsters didn't level, all my little baddies got slaughtered. And with the campaign part as heroes gain exp/levels/skills what does the OL get? Do monsters level up? We all know that a high level hero can destroy several lower level monsters. The OL can add more powerful cards to his deck, a bit like treachery in 1E. Also, his monsters level up after the interlude.

steveg700 said: Sorry to detract from bickering about LoS, but I feel there's something else worth bickering about. Anyone else take a look at how the stun condition works now? It completely cancels the next round of action. And in the case of this sling, it only takes one surge to activate. Seems to me a no-brainer tactic to turn enemies into helpless punching bags until they're dead. Anyone else think this could get old quickly? Also, if characters can't actually die (they just keep standing up endlessly), and there are no conquest tokens to lose, how exactly does the OL win? Stun takes one action to remove, not two. Once you remove it, you can perform one more action. The OL now has his own objectives to achieve. For example, in one quest revealed so far (one of the first quests of the campaign), some goblins are trying to steal crops from a farm. The objectives are based around how many crops the goblins manage to steal, and how many the heroes manage to save.

Puer said: IronRavenstorm said: I agree with you, but I don't think that it will be enough for those people who want this to be an RPG. I think the best change in this regard is the obviously varying objectives for the OL (1st objectives were solely 1) harass heroes, 2) kill enough fast enough to deplete conquest to nothing) With the removal of conquest there does not appear to be any more generic all scenario win condition for the OL. Win conditions are now dependent on the scenario, just as it always has been with the heroes. So, I guess my biggest hope is for a wide variety of quests (possible quest expansions?) which would really challenge both the players and the OL to meet stated objectives above and beyond killing hero's and killing baddies. Although a good 'run in an kill da big boss' scenario is good now and then also. I wonder what the OL objective would be in a 'run in an kill da big boss' scenario? Survive a certain number of turns…?

Columbob said: Bleached Lizard said: Columbob said: Sausageman said: Am I the only person that doesn't like tracing line of site between diagonally places blocking terrain? I've always looked at those as a continuous wall (despite the fact you can walk between them - which also doesn't make a huge amount of sense to me). What if they're not continuous? What if they're supposed to be piles of boulders? Those usually taper towards the top. Hence the view in between two distinct mounds not orthogonally adjacent, and the ability to step between them. So with those same piles of boulders, why can't you see/walk between them when they're orthogonally adjacent? Maybe because it's then supposed to be a single large/long berm. So single large barriers only ever exist at right-angles to the dungeon walls…? You see where the problem we're having with this comes from now?

Columbob said: Sausageman said: Am I the only person that doesn't like tracing line of site between diagonally places blocking terrain? I've always looked at those as a continuous wall (despite the fact you can walk between them - which also doesn't make a huge amount of sense to me). What if they're not continuous? What if they're supposed to be piles of boulders? Those usually taper towards the top. Hence the view in between two distinct mounds not orthogonally adjacent, and the ability to step between them. So with those same piles of boulders, why can't you see/walk between them when they're orthogonally adjacent?

Lilikin said: I obviously mean from the GM's perspective, I personally hated the first edition for that reason as the overlord you had to pull all the tricks out just to have an even chance. I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. As far as I can tell, you're saying "you had to play your best in order to win". What is wrong with this? Additionally, most people complain that it was the OL who was overpowered and the heroes didn't stand a chance in most scenarios. Unless you were just playing the first couple of scenarios over and over again…?