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). Now, onto BGG to find out what the hoo haa is about. Can a monster REALLY block line of sight to itself? Seems a bit stupid, and I can't imagaine that's the case. Certainly not a rule me and my gaming group will be utilising if so. Re: point #1 - I'm a bit iffy about that as well. I'm not sure what LoS rules I'm going to use when it actually comes to it. Point #2: As someone above stated, figures have *always* blocked LoS to themselves. It's just that now we measure to/from four points rather than just one. Think of it this way: if we're standing directly in front of each other, facing each other, can you see the back of my head?

Coldmoonrising said: gforce200 said: Wouldn't it actually be two corners since both back corners of the zombie are directly opposite in relation to the character in question? It seems to make sense that one would only use the two closest corners of the attacker and target. It would be silly to attack from a rear corner if it made the uninterrupted LoS besides your own character model being in the way. If there is no resolution for this new rule, I'll probably make a house rule for two-three closest corners to the target closest two-three corners as well. This is exactly the same as the official rule anyway. No need to make a house rule.

gforce200 said: Wouldn't it actually be two corners since both back corners of the zombie are directly opposite in relation to the character in question? I was speaking in general, not about that specific example. If all the walls and rubble weren't in the way, Jain could target the zombie from three of her corners to three of the zombie's corners.

KronikAlkoholik said: Bleached Lizard said: rshelley said: "In short, rather than tracking "center to center" (from the center of the attacker's space to the center of the target space), line of sight is now traced "corner to corner" (from any corner of the attacker's space to any corner of the target space)." Maybe any doesn't really mean any? It does mean any. But you still have to be able to trace an uninterrupted line between the two corners that you choose. If you choose the zombie's lower-right corner, you cannot trace an uninterrupted line, and so the attack is invalid. I don't see what is difficult to understand about this. What is interrupting the line? the monster itself? So she can't hit the monster because it's in the way? I might be misunderstanding something here but with a line from her bottom left to monster bottom right it goes a similar route as Leoric's line so I can't see why she can't hit the monster as well. KronikAlkoholik said: Bleached Lizard said: rshelley said: "In short, rather than tracking "center to center" (from the center of the attacker's space to the center of the target space), line of sight is now traced "corner to corner" (from any corner of the attacker's space to any corner of the target space)." Maybe any doesn't really mean any? It does mean any. But you still have to be able to trace an uninterrupted line between the two corners that you choose. If you choose the zombie's lower-right corner, you cannot trace an uninterrupted line, and so the attack is invalid. I don't see what is difficult to understand about this. What is interrupting the line? the monster itself? So she can't hit the monster because it's in the way? I might be misunderstanding something here but with a line from her bottom left to monster bottom right it goes a similar route as Leoric's line so I can't see why she can't hit the monster as well. I can see "so I can't hit the monster because the monster's in the way?" will become the most-said phrase when explain the rules to D2E! The line from Leoric isn't passing through anything. The line you propose from Jain is - it passes through the monster. The way I explained it over on BGG is like this: imagine attacking each point on the monster's square from a point on your square represents a different thing thematically:- From your square: The point facing the monster: firing straight ahead. The point on the hero's left as facing the monster: leaning to the left to shoot. The point on the hero's right: leaning to the right to shoot. The point facing away from the monster: ???? Targeting the monster's square: The point facing your hero: hitting the monster's front. The point on the monster's left as facing your hero: hitting the monster on its left side. The point on the monster's right as facing your hero: hitting the monster on its right side. The point facing away from your hero: ???? I leave it up to you to figure out what the question marks could possibly represent. Basically what we have now is a primitive form of "facing" for the figures. The entries with the question marks represent impossible shots.

rshelley said: I'm not trying to be obtuse here, i'm just a very literal person (a mathematician). I now understand what you're describing and yes, that works. It just came off as confusing at first because i read "any corner" from both attacker and target, and given your explanation (which i'm guessing is correct), there is never a case where "any" corner can be used with a single target. It's only ever two corners that can be used. Now again, i understand that depending on where the target is, you might in fact use different corners resulting in choosing any of them. All i'm saying now is, it was confusing. And if i got confused, i'm guessing someone else will as well. So, good to know it's not a bug, but i see a clarification coming…well, hopefully. Thanks for the explanation. Actually, three corners. It's only the ones facing directly away from your opponent that won't be used (baring special abilities). And you should see the "discussion" that's already raging on BGG.

rshelley said: "In short, rather than tracking "center to center" (from the center of the attacker's space to the center of the target space), line of sight is now traced "corner to corner" (from any corner of the attacker's space to any corner of the target space)." Maybe any doesn't really mean any? It does mean any. But you still have to be able to trace an uninterrupted line between the two corners that you choose. If you choose the zombie's lower-right corner, you cannot trace an uninterrupted line, and so the attack is invalid. I don't see what is difficult to understand about this.

rshelley said: Looks like there's a bug in the rules. In the Line of Sight example, it says that you can trace from any corner to any corner. In the picture, it says that Jain Fairwood can't attack that zombie. Actually, it appears she can. She can draw a line from her bottom left corner to the target's bottom right corner. That should have the line go between the rocks and therefore, she can see it. She can't see the bottom-right corner of the zombie, though. That's what's important.

aeroguru said: Bleached Lizard said: I'm convinced it's going to be a blood squid. Now that water (likely) no longer prevents movement, there is an absence of blood squid lore in 2E, and so I think the blood squids will have crawled out of the water and are now fighting the heroes face to face. Looks like it is a picture of Merriod--but just what is Merriod? Maybe it was meant to be "merroid" (mer-oid) and they got the order of the letters mixed up…?

I prefer the new art.

IronRavenstorm said: Yeah, I have to agree. D2 will be like the first edition with most of the play be OL vs. Heroes. It will have a little narration, but not enough for what I think you are hoping for. I think that it will somewhat mirror the narration of the first edition. I think there will be more narration than in 1E - they seem to be reinforcing the idea of a stronger narrative in 2E at every opportunity.

Ruvion said: I'm rather fond of the Android property as well: I wonder if FFG has any plans to revise the "failed" Android boardgame into a streamlined 2nd edition. I would get behind that. Oh, wait - I already did: http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/553565/android-express Unfortunately, life (mostly university) got in the way of me completing this project.

Cotillion37 said: www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_news.asp So far that's all I was able to find. Looks interesting. In that news article there is a link to the website: http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_minisite.asp?eidm=207

Unclechawie said: Part of this game is going to be reactions to OL actions. If the OL is prone to laying traps, a hero may choose a skill that is more suited to successfully getting by those traps even though a better skill may actually be available to them at the same XP level. Each time you play through the campaign, there is going to be a different set of circumstances. Different heroes, different OL tactics. Choosing a "lower powered" skill for the same XP might very well help the cause of the campgain more so than going with one that might otherwise be more powerful. I certainly hope you're right!

Sausageman said: Steve-O said: Bleached Lizard said: I'm hoping there will be some semi-random aspect to the heroes' skill choices, i.e - whenever the heroes level-up, they shuffle their skill deck, draw 2-3 skills then choose to buy any from those drawn. This will help prevent hero players from choosing the same skills every time. I don't think that's in the cards (pun intended), based on the latest preview. I don't mind if class skills are non-random as long as they're also not as swingy as skills were in 1e. If there are some skills or combos that are obviously better than others for the same XP cost, then yeah, that'll be a pisser. However, if each skill is reasonably well priced for the benefit it provides, then I don't think there will be too much worry about how people build their heroes. The thing that will keep people picking different skills each time will be the options there are to explore, rather than having the different choices forced upon them by random draw. I'm sure there will some players who decide one set of skills is "obviously" best and always buy that set, but that's just personal preference at the end of the day. And if it turns out the skills ARE as swingy as 1e's skills, with wildly disproportionate XP costs compared to the benefit they provide, then I'm sure it would be easy enough to institute a house rule about random draw such as the one you suggest. As long as all the class cards have the same back, at least within each class, you're good to go. I'm hopeful that this will have been addressed. Skills in 1ed AC costs a blanket amount of XP. Skills in this one vary depending on power level. A MUCH better way of doing it IMO. Hopefully, but with the XP costs being so low, it's incredibly difficult to balance the skills *exactly* in line with their cost. For example, are *all* 2XP skills going to be *exactly* twice as powerful as *all* 1XP skills? I doubt it. So if it turns out there are "upper bounds" and "lower bounds" skills for each level of XP cost, then why wouldn't heroes choose the upper bounds ones every time?

Pongle said: I really liked this preview. It filled in some of the questions and gaps I've been wondering about with Skills and their relationship with the Class system. With 2 subclasses for each Class, and specific skills for each one, I can see a lot of fantastic replayablility options. I'm curious of the Skills will become segregated into Tier 1 / Tier 2 / Tier "Why would i ever pick this?" like they did in D1, or if the playtesting will balance them out quite a bit more. I'm hoping there will be some semi-random aspect to the heroes' skill choices, i.e - whenever the heroes level-up, they shuffle their skill deck, draw 2-3 skills then choose to buy any from those drawn. This will help prevent hero players from choosing the same skills every time.

Walk said: kerred: Remember, the overlord not only gets a new card every turn, he/she gets new monsters every turn (well, he/she does in A Fat Goblin, and I assume that's the case elsewhere). Thus, if the heroes dally, the overlord will just send endless waves of monsters after them (or other important things, like the crops). Incidentally: I've gotten used to peering very closely at cards shown in FFG previews, but even I can't read the text from the adventure. Could someone who's deciphered it post it? http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/796438/the-overlords-objectives

Proto Persona said: kerred said: Well in the 1st Edition, you couldn't just waste turn after turn resting, shopping, and re-arranging before opening the next door. It's looking like there's no chance for heroes to really do any of that often in second edition. It's looking like the town has been completely phased out, as well as buying equipment or skills with gold. And it looks like the rest order has become a possible skill since i didn't see any mention of all heroes being able to do it. It's on the hero turn summary. If heroes couldn't rest, how could they ever make use of their skills? If what you say were to be true, the "rest" skill card would be the first purchase for every hero!

IronRavenstorm said: Yeah, that is what I was looking at. That is how I remembered the daggertooth sharks. Actually, I think you're still not getting it. From the FAQ: "Q: Why can’t I jump over water like I can pits? A: As every hero knows, the dank water found in subterranean caverns is usually infested with deadly bloodsquids, ready to pull an unwary hero to his doom at a moment’s notice. As a result, only the most acrobatic heroes dare to leap across even the most innocent-seeming pools of water." This has been in the FAQ since the beginning as far as I'm aware, and has become a bit of a running joke. I wasn't aware of their inclusion in Sea of Blood.

IronRavenstorm said: OK Bleached Lizard, I have finally done my homework to figure out what you were talking about when you kept on saying bloodsquid. This whole time I thought you were getting it from Runebound, but I should have checked Sea of Blood first. Sorry about that. We hardly ever play with the Sea of Blood expansion, and my OL would always call them Kraken tentacles. Now that I am all caught up you make a good point about it being a bloodsquid, but couldn't it also be a daggertooth shark? Since we never saw any of the artwork of what they actually looked like it looks to be up in the air, kinda. Granted, I am now more on your side with the bloodsquid thing. My reasoning: If you watch the video again you can see that the creature clearly looks to have two tentacles. In the bottom right hand corner of the box you can see the Fantasy Flight logo, but you also see something else that is being kinda covered. That could possibly be a third tentacle which would lend more evidence on the bloodsquid theory, but again you could argue that the thing on the top of it's head is a shark fin. Does anyone know what these creature look like? Lets start off with their size. Are these single spaced or four spaced creatures? I'm just going to rule out the two spaced creatures since we already have one in the second edition. Please when you respond cite your references, so that others can check to see your sources. That's just the scholar in me talking. Actually, you should have checked the FAQ. That's what I'm really referring to (I don't even own Sea of Blood).

IronRavenstorm said: From Beren Eoath's post on the release date info he mentioned that in the Tom Vassal review of "Commander and Chief" you can see the Descent 2nd Edition box behind his head. On the box Beren Eoath mentions that you can see a "Fishman/Sharkman" creature. My first questions is what does everyone else think about that? Personally, I see something closer to the "Sharkman", but it looks like it has tentacles or something coming off of it. Any other thoughts on the subject??? I'm convinced it's going to be a blood squid. Now that water (likely) no longer prevents movement, there is an absence of blood squid lore in 2E, and so I think the blood squids will have crawled out of the water and are now fighting the heroes face to face.

Beren Eoath said: If someone would be interested I got an anwser when the game will hit stores. It will be in ….. Between 3Q 2012 and 4Q 2012 - it's an official news from the publisher of Polish version of the game. So this I think will cool many peoples heads. We will not play this game this summer but after it and after GenCon 2012. That's a big, sad news to many of us. Like I said we will get it for X-mas 2012 knowing that FFG releases are always later and not sooner. I'd say this is likely not true. FFG don't start putting out previews for their games until they are pretty sure they know when they are going to release, and never more than a couple of months distant. Maybe it's true for the Polish version, but not for the English language version.

Well, none of us knows for certain yet, but to me pretty much everything about 2E is looking better than 1E, so I'd say hold out.

Columbob said: Hopefully the OL won't need to constantly prey on the weaker members of the team either. From what we can tell, the OL needs to have every member of the hero party defeated simultaneously to achieve a TPK.

Columbob said: Hope the next preview states the game's objectives, and how to gain and spend XPs. How does the OL win? By getting a certain number of knockouts? Will this then mean that games will still end in the middle of a quest as the OL reaches his objective? Is that how he gets XP for campaign play as well? Stuff like that. The next preview will likely be about objectives and how to gain (though not spend) XP. I imagine the objectives for each quest are specific to that quest. So for example, for A Fat Goblin, I imagine the encounter ends once all bundles of crops have been either stolen or stored. Then each side gains XP according to how many bundles they collected. Probably the OL can also get bonus XP for achieving a TPK.

IronRavenstorm said: We already know about the OL having the ability to specialize his deck to fit his playing stay with the example of the Saboteur class. So, do we know what the other classes are or might be? If they follow the general pattern of the RtL "classes" then there will be specialisation in traps, monsters and spells.