Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Sausageman

  1. Now I have the second expansion to this game, I'm curious as to how people are storing their games. I have sleeved all my cards bar the combat ones, and have tried to arrange the bits in a logical fashion (keeping all of reds cards, figures and counters together, for example), and bagged up the counters in their individual groups, and because of the weird shape of the civ boards (thanks to the dials) my box is fit to bursting... No idea what I'll do if a 3rd expansion comes out. LOVE the expansion though, great job on that.
  2. Hey there. I just picked this PoD up but reading through the rules cards, I was left uncertain with one thing - the Kings Landing and Eyrie neutral force tokens that are considered Garrisons, are these considered garrisons at their printed strength, or identical to all other Garrisons, so strength 2? Looks like a top expansion though, and here's another vote for Arryn specific pieces.
  3. Well, talk about a surprise. 6 new cultures (FINALLY the English ), a new city action, expanded warfare rules… So much awesomeness!!!
  4. Is it my imagination, or is FFG doing 90% recycled games at the moment? Whether it's new editions, re-themes or reprints of oldies - where have all their NEW games gone? It seems to be predominantly the LCG games that are new for them.
  5. Robin said: Nobody except you and him is trying to say that one system is better than the other one. But, you happen to be on D2's forum. So coming on this precise forum just to say that the game it is about is crap… well, that is quite near to trolling. What if I went to a soccer club just to say that rugby is so better ? Even if I believed what I was saying, I would just be bloody rude and at the wrong place. So, you and nathrotep have now expressed your discontent about D2. Would you expect from most D2 players who like their game to be interested in your preference for a discontinued game system? The only healthy reaction you can expect is : I like D2, I am not interested in anyone bragging that one game is better than the other. I am not even interested in a futile polemic, while I am having fun with D2. So, as you don't like D2 and don't stand that other people like that game, hit the road and stop trolling. That's pretty unfair for a number of reasons. Firstly, why is it trolling to express perceived flaws the game? Perhaps you can point out what I said that was 'trolling' specifically… Secondly, in my eyes, these are the 'Descent' forums, not Descent 2. The older ones were closed, so there is no where else to have conversations of this nature. Besides, this thread was about reintriducing elements of 1st edition back into second, and sure, while it has evolved somewhat (as most conversations do), is that not relevant to discuss on this forum? And I'll thank you to not tell me to 'hit the road' - I have just as much right to read and post on this forum as any one else. Only the mods can tell me to 'hit the road', and until I break some kind of rule, I can't see that happening. Feel my post is inflamatory in some way though, report me. The only part of your post of any relevence is, in my eyes, your comparison of 'soccer' to rugby. These are as different as D1 to D2 are. And that is, fundamentally, the point that was being made.
  6. Steve-O said: Am I the only one who can see that Nath is just spewing crap to egg people on here? He is a little, but I also believe he believes what he's saying - because by and large I completely agree with many of the things he's said. He obviously can't understand how people are finding D2 to be a superior game - and I get that too. Sure, D1 had issues, many issues in fact, there were things I flat out hated in it (the shadowcloaking trees….), but it still felt more *fun* to me. D2 feels like it went too far in 'fixing' things. It's no longer a dungeon bash game - hell, it seems combat is little more than a distraction now. And that's fine, if you want to play what is essentially a glorified race game now, but in making this, they obsoleted D1 - which WAS a dungeon bash game, and many people loved it. I live in hope that through expansions things get added to D2 to address many of the issues I have with it, but until that point, I'm struggling to understand why I'd play D2 over D1… Which is really gutting, I really enjoyed Descent a lot.
  7. Macnme said: D1 & D2 are quite different games, even if they do share the same core game mechanics. Personally, I feel this is the crux of the matter, and why many have such strong feelings on this subject. We were told we were getting a new edition of the game - so expected little more than some cleaner rules, but ultimately, the same game. This is SO far from what was actually delivered (It's 4th Ed D&D to 3.5. Or hell, 3rd Ed Warhammer to 2nd edition - and you don't have to look far to see the vitriol towards either of those). Had they called Descent 2 a different name, there would be no problem, but personally, aside from the aesthetic, I really don't see the similarities between the two games. This is the issue - peoples beloved game was ceased to be supported, and instead it was replaced with an entirely different game… A big shame to nathrotep, and I know me and my game group largely feel the same too. My biggest issue with D2 is the thing nathrotep has mentioned repeatedly - they have stripped away so much of the customisation that was there in first edition. I really hope future expansions see much of this get re-introduced, but sadly I'm not convinced it will. One thing I was thinking about when reading this thread - if I were to play 1st edition, what rules/mechanics from second edition would I utilise. And if I was to play 2nd edition, what rules/mechanicas would I take from 1st…. The list for the latter is CONSIDERABLY longer…. Lastly, while I agree personal preference is entirely subjective, it's not always the case that an opinion is wrong. It is cold hard fact that Settlers of Catan is a better game than 'Chutes and Ladders' (or Snakes and Ladders, depending on your territory). Just thought I'd say
  8. Morthai said: Sausageman said: "4. Will they add more skills to existing classes/a 'generic' pool of skills that anyone could use, instead of adding more and more classes. Personally, I don't feel we need a choice of 10 classes in each archetype - diversity WITHIN that class is better from my perspective." 4) probably new classes, not adding something to the old classes, for the same reasons as in 1) I meant ever - cos in my opinion, the existing class skills are SEVERELY lacking in diversity right now. If I play a Knight to the conclusion of a campaign, the chances are it will be IDENTICAL to another Knight at the conclusion of another campaign. People like choice, and with a relatively fixed skill tree (order changes, powers do not), new items only coming from the shop and no 'black/silver/gold dice' to add to the mix, the game can become very stale. I for one am extremely glad I had first ed and the conversion kit just to add a good mix of heroes.
  9. Rico said: Oh Christ! If the expansions have their own dice we're never going to see extra sets. Maybe they'll just include those as well…. Come on FFG, you're killing us.
  10. I'm pretty stoked about this expansion actually. My biggest *whoop* came at new dice actually. Adding just one more type gives a lot of diversity. I'm now wondering if: The 'overland map' will be the same as base set campaign Will we see a 'Road to Legend' type expansion that actually links the existing CAMPAIGNS together to form one huge 'game'. Adding in Acts 3, 4, 5, 6, beyond, the works When will the two remaining classes get filled out, and what else will that expansion add Will they add more skills to existing classes/a 'generic' pool of skills that anyone could use, instead of adding more and more classes. Personally, I don't feel we need a choice of 10 classes in each archetype - diversity WITHIN that class is better from my perspective. So…many…questions…
  11. Is the suggestion here 'got one deduction game, seen em all'? I have the old GW Fury of Dracula and am extremely interested in Letters of Whitechapel BECAUSE I really like it a lot. Really happy to hear about this announcement.
  12. Steve-O said: I suspect the purpose is so that if you contact FFG asking for replacement parts for like 90% of an entire game, they can ask for this chit as proof that you aren't just trying to get a free game out of them. What if you're missing the punch out sheet with the PoP chit on it?
  13. The formatting on this thread is completely borked. I had to resort to pasting each post into word so I could even read it…. Own up, who did it? I'm pretty sure this thread is at an empasse to be honest. There are those that felt D1 was horrible, and D2 is amazing, and those that feel the exact opposite (and a few that fall somewhere in the middle it seems). I do wonder how many of those are comparing campaign to campaign game, and how many are comparing stand-alone quest to stand alone quest. There is a pretty significant difference between the two. As the post above states, stand-alone D1 quests took HOURS (quite literally). Howevre, I truly believe RtL fixed this issue completely (sure, it might have added more). D2 on the other hand works fine for a stand-alone, but personally, I feel the campaign side of it has severely suffered as a consequence. I can't wait to see D2 in 4 or 5 expansions time though, let me tell you. Oh, and if there are any mods out there, can you try to sort the formatting please
  14. While I really can't be bothered reading through all these mammoth posts (though I have read some of them), and don't really want to get involved in a 'my opinion is superior to yours' argument, my and my groups feeling is this: Road to Legend is VASTLY superior to Descent 2s campaign. The overland map is largely pointless in D2, it's just a mechanic to decide how many cards to draw and what effects take place 'en route' (though it NEVER feels like travelling to me). This means less choices for the heroes to make. The progression in class powers is kinda cool, but I desperately miss the universal skills. I think there needs to be a universal abilities deck that gets added to allow characters to diversify. Otherwise, as someone else said elsewhere, all characters start the same, and by large progress and end the same. That's dull. It's also slightly linked with the first point too - tere was a lot of planning in RtL with 'I want that skill, it's learnt there, let's travel there'. With no usable overland map, that's rendered moot. Sadly. I also agree with the original poster about the treasure deck. I for one DO miss it. When the search counter preview came out, I remember someone stating 'what would a dungeon bash be without treasure chests'. Turns out, not one I find especially interesting. I also REALLY feel the overlord gets the short straw in terms of campaign progression. He was inundated with choices as to how to progress in first ed, in second add it's add another card. I've said it before and I'll say it again, that is DULL. It's a real shame. I REALLY want to love D2, and I think when it first came out, I was initially wowed. D1 had issues, sure, rules bloat and inconsistancies (and not ot mention some things that flat out did not work), but in my opinion, it made for a vastly more interesting dungeon bash game. Which I think is the point - D2 is no longer a dungeon bash game. They are as different to me as Halo was to Halo Wars. It's just a pity D2 rendered D1 defunct and no longer supported… Just my opinion. As badly as this thread may have gone, I do find myself agreeing at least in part with some of the things brought up (as well as much of that Amazon review)
  15. Badend said: Blue-Sunrise said: Stand up order for Lieutenant: He gains two Red Dice insted of one and the Overlord could use his cards to make him move or attack (once for the double attack) The heroes already gain 2 red dice of hp / fatigue when they stand up. He's proposing this for Lts as well as heroes.
  16. Steve-O said: Because somebody at FFG liked the idea of a magical scythe that gets thrown at enemies and returns to the weilder (magically.) Or perhaps it shoots magical death bolts when he swings it. Whatever. They invented the game and the setting, they can get as creative as they want with the magic weapons; that's their prerogative. From a mechanical perspective, they may have wanted to give the Necromancer a two-handed weapon so that he wouldn't have an extra hand free for other things right off the bat. Perhaps as some measure of balancing for giving him the Reanimate (which is pretty keen in the early game.) A wand that somehow takes up two hands is even harder to swallow than a scythe that somehow attacks at range. I dunno, I'm ok with a two handed staff. I know it sounds picky btw, just could never really fathom why a scythe was considered range - without considering tenuous 'it shoots bolts' or 'returns when thrown' type effects.
  17. Triu said: "Magic, Staff" … If that's the answer to explain it, then why not make it a rod or wand of some description, and save the scythe for a melee character? And I don't like to talk about reflux, it's been my bedfellow for years…
  18. Triu said: Mages start with ranged weapons (Arcane Bolt or Reaper's Scythe). On this subject, and it's something that always bothered me in D1 too, how the hell is a scythe a ranged weapon?
  19. The reanimate hits like a freight train, but dies real easy - that's the trade off. Plus, in general, the summoner isn't attacking your monsters as well (if you manage to kill the reanimate each turn), so you still only have to suffer through 2 attacks. AND the reanimate is extremely slow….
  20. Varikas said: oh sure! Descent 2 cards are in the kit…but what about Runewars cards? spalanzani said that they produced runewars cards later so…will I get them if I buy that heroes now? I don't know of any Runewars cards for these figures. When I bought them ages ago, they came with a Runebound card and a 1st ed Decent card. I upgraded to 2nd edition Decent and bought the conversion kit, so I'm sorted for that, but as for Runewars, that remains sadly unloved.That said, maybe the 2nd edition of that will fix that too…
  21. warlord739 said: Another Question! - Characters with Reach. if they have a reach weapon, in order to deal damage do they have have AT LEAST one range to hit the target? My players are VERY picky and these sort of questions pop up from time to time heh. Asbsolutely not. Reach is a melee 'trait'. Melee attacks, by and large, ignore any range numbers showing as they are irrelevant to the equation. Reach lets you attack 1 square beyond the adjacent square - you don't need the range because either you or your weapon is MASSIVE and extends into that area naturally. There has been some conversations about whether you need line of sight for Reach though. We settled on 'yes, you do' btw.
  22. Could always scan the back of a Baratheon token, and print out and stick replacement backs to all those tokens….
  23. flipsnake said: hi, is it possible to use the 1st edition expansion packs on the 2nd edition Descent game? or do I need to retune some rules, or do I have to buy the conversion pack? thanks in advance:) No, in a word. The miniatures are usable with the conversion kit, but otherwise nothing is. Unless you want to put in some extensive work yourself to adapt them for 2nd edition use. TBH, the two games are so different I'm not sure calling it a second edition is accurate. It's more of a 're-imagining'.
  24. Wrapped said: Id say that you will have to wait untill FFG releases a hero that can benefit from dual wielding as an ability before you can use more than one weapon in one attack. And creating house rules for it will make that future hero suck (or throw your players into a fit). Which is kinda sucky tbh… Right now, ANY hero can benefit from sword and board fighting, or two handed weapon fighting, but there is NO reason to wield two one-handers at all, and if such a hero is ever brought out, he'll be the only one. Boooooo
  25. danskmacabre said: Also one of the printed map has a row of diagonally placed rubble with RED borders around it. Is all movement and LOS blocked? Before we started our campaign I sat down with the players, showed this tile, and had the conversation about whether that should be considered blocking, contiguous terrain. All agreed it should, so in our games, there is no shooting between these or squeezing through, you have to go around. Which is much better in my eyes, as blocking terrain like this barely blocks anything - it's almost impossible to NOT be able to go corner to corner for LoS legally, if you consider it can be drawn between the gaps.
  • Create New...