Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Sausageman

  1. Robin said: Thus the more appropriate question, IMNSHO : Is Descent 2nd edition a Dungeon Crawl? That is a fair and appropriate question. And my answer would be, well, not really. Which I think is part of the problem, as D1 was very much a dungeon crawler. People have upgraded to D2 expecting a more finely tuned game, and actually ended up with an extremely different game to boot. In the same way as buying a sequel to a video game, you expect it to be, by and large, the same sort of game, only with refined mechanics and wotnot, I (and it seems, some others too) were expecting the same from D2. Just look at the furore that the FPS version of XCOM caused - people wanted the turn based game from before, not a drastic re-imagining. And now we have XCOM: Enemy Unknown…
  2. Robin said: …the possibilty that the first edition gave of looting heaps of treasures. The thing is, D2 doesn't give you ANY treasure - not by my interpretation of it anyway. Potions were, in D1, the 'booby prize', by and large, of a treasure chest, and the fact that these make up most of the 'search deck', it leaves us feeling a bit flat. My other issue with them (as I've mentioned previously) is you can't even save them for a future quest - use them or lose them. This makes zero sense (other than from a GAME perspective where the search deck resets every quest) from a hero perspective, and leaves me feeling that the quests are slightly disjointed/autonomous. And as someone said WAY back when the previews of this game were coming out, what's a dungeon crawl adventure without treasure/treasure chests? I completely agree with this - I can count on one hand how many fantasy rpgs I've played in that haven't had some treasure/magical items, particularly from dungeons. And those that didn't were usually Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay
  3. Rajamic said: In 2E, without this skill that started this conversation, there's basically no reason to ever wield two weapons. Agreed - which is a shame, an opportunity missed AND why I think it's something they'll revisit… And Steve-O, I quite like this: "Add +1 Damage to the attack roll for every die on the off-hand weapon's card, and you may spend surges rolled on abilities granted by either weapon. Dual-wielding only requires one Action, but if you do this, your other action this turn cannot be an attack. Both equipped weapons must be Melee weapons." Possibly a little convoluted or unweildy (heh), but it works for me.
  4. Nexx said: Personally I always liked the idea of if you miss when you have two one handed weapons, you can reroll that attack. You miss with your main Hand weapon and make up for it with your offhand decreasing it's effectiveness. Blue + Red + Red = Blue + Red Blue + Red + Yellow = Blue + Red Blue + Red = Blue + Yellow So you're off hand attack would be weaker but you'd still have a chance to hit. I just came up with that and you know what, I like it. Wouldn't this be - Blue + Red + Red = Blue + Red + Yellow? Following your other examples anyway. Regardless, giving another possible attack is, IMO, way too powerful. Though I do like the idea of adding some dice from the 'off weapon' in some form (dropping the blue seems the obvious choice, but potentially rolling BRRRR seems terrifying). I dunno what the solution is, but it seems there's enough of us that want a tangible bonus from two weapon fighting that we might see something at some point…
  5. nathrotep said: I think you're misunderstanding me; I'm comparing the first edition to the second edition. They share the same name, the same art work, and many of the same concepts. It's not in my mind-they've been marketing this as an improvement over the first edition. Which, in my opinion, it is not. That's my argument. Therefore, if you have never played the first one, then you have no reference to understand what I'm talking about. The second edition is an okay game; it's simply been dumbed down to appeal to a wider, and perhaps younger, audience. Much like what they did to Dragon Age with Dragon Age 2. I believe that they are holding back the better cards for release with the next expansions. This second edition is just a base game with no frills, and they plan to include more cards with each expansion. That's just an educated guess based on what they've done in the past with re-issued games. I guess you could say it was a pet peeve, but since you haven't played the first edition, how do you know it's not actually a valid complaint? There are some aspects that I believe are better in 2nd Edition, but comparing the two, I would say that Descent 1, WITH the Road to Legend expansion, is the much better game. With that being said, I completely understand that Descent 2 is just the base game, and comparing base game to base game, 2nd edition is much better (not to say there aren't things I miss of course - treasures and off-hand bonus' being things I've already mentioned). With that I mind, I keep reminding myself that it IS just the base game, and in 3 or 4 expansions time, it may well be the game I hope it becomes. Or at the very least, I really hope the Overlord gets some love.
  6. JohnMill said: Official reply: Your second interpretation is correct. Jonas only receives 1 brown defense die regardless of how many rounds he has not attacked. Thanks, Adam Sadler Managing Game Designer Fantasy Flight Games Thanks. Thanks for the update.
  7. LEGA said: First - as I understand - you may spend surges on any abilities (e.g. Move target, Mend, Fire breath, Draw OL card etc.) even if there is no damage would be dealt by attack, except conditions (there are only 4: Stun, Poison, Disease and Immobilized). Condition-surges require at least 1 damage to be dealt by attack. That would be my interpretation, yes.
  8. JohnMill said: Could you explain "off-hand" (dont understand the meaning of this word, from holland). 'Off-hand' is a term used to denote when you're not using your dominant hand. The 'off-hand' bonus was awarded for having a weapon in your other hand, but attacking with a different one. As for re-implementing such a rule, I'd be happy with a blanket +1 surge off hand rule. Or +1 damage (or both). Or even +1 yellow die. It's a bit of a shame that different off-hand weapons wouldn't give different effects, but I totally agree with you Steve-O on expansion specific rulings, repeat rulings and reprints.
  9. I'm a little disappointed they removed the off-hand bonus of weapons. I'd like to see this return. Or something similar anyway, as I can't see them reprinting every one handed weapon again.
  10. LEGA said: Hi all. E.g you rolled 3 surges during attack. And you have a weapon with 1 surge: Stun or Move target 1 space. Questions: 1. You stun (or move 1 space) target and then calculate and deal damage? What if you do not deal any damage? The target is still stunned (moved)? We played like you can't spend surges if you deal no damage, but I don't see such rule in rules. 2. Can you spend more than 1 surge to recover fatigue? It seems in rules specified "up to 1 fatigue", am I right? Thank you. 1. Quite a lot of the abilities specifically state 'if you deal at least one damage, do X'. If it doesn't, then I'd say the surge can be spent. Of course, I would never decide how I was gonna spend a surge until I'd calculate how much damage I'd inflicted. 2. Nope, a surge ability can only ever be used once per attack. This means once you spend a surge to regain a point of fatigue, you can't activate that ability again until your next attack.
  11. voodoochile78 said: Dam said: voodoochile78 said: It takes no time at all to get. You'll have 3 xp after the very first quest. You then have the skill for the remaining 7 quests in the campaign. Only if the heroes won First Blood (which granted they should), picked a quest that gives 2XP AND won that quest. Introduction - 1xp, win or lose Quest 1, Encounter 1 - 1xp, win or lose Quest 1, Encounter 2 - 1xp, win or lose. That's 3 guaranteed xp right there, ready to be spent after the first quest is complete. You don't get any rewards from the first encounter in a quest - the reward listed is for completing the quest. The 'reward' for successflly completeing encounter 1 is that you'll have an easier time in encounter 2, and therefore increase your odds of winning.You're players must be swimming in xp…
  12. nathrotep said: Actually, the first edition still had all the thinking you are mentioning, plus better dungeons. The treasure cards where split into 3 decks; bronze, silver, and gold. Each dungeon had a starting point which would have only bronze treasure chests (or 1 chest), then a silver level, etc. The chests were further randomized in that you had to draw them out of a face down pile of chits while setting up the game. On the back of the chit it would tell you what you got to draw when you landed on it. Sometimes it wasn't treasure but something else. In the first edition, you start out weak, and the monsters are stronger than you; you almost have to get the chests if you want to survive each level. Each level got progressively harder than the last. And it was a further challenge to outwit the OL by figuring ways to get to the treasure chests around or through the monsters, obstacles, etc. The first edition had both plenty of strategy and thought, plus the fact that you had to get to the treasure to get equipment. You could, (and sometimes had to), try and solve the objective without the treasure. The treasure decks were also random, so a lot of times, you'd get stuff that you couldn't even use! So for those of you who haven't tried it, please take the time. It's really a lot of fun, and very challenging. I think of the second edition in this way: remember how great 'Dragon Age: Origins' was? Then you got all excited when you heard about 'Dragon Age: Awakenings'. But 'Awakenings' was dumbed down and not as fun, right? That's how I felt about this game when I went to play it at the demonstration. I'm not saying that it's not a fun game; I'm saying that it was a disappointment when compared to how much fun I have playing the first one. Having no treasure cards not only takes away the possibility of loot, but also a really fun part of the over-all experience which I feel is a necessary component. Dragon Age: Awakenings was Citizen Kane when compared to Dragon Age 2. What the hell did they do to that game? It was AWFUL
  13. JohnMill said: First: With "the Desciple ability" you are referring to the ability "Armor of Faith"? which states: "Each time you use Prayer of Healing on a hero, that hero adds 1 additional brown die to his defense pool until the start of your next turn. Place a hero token belonging to that hero on this card as a reminder" There it specifically states until the start of your next turn. And the rulebook states: "Players are not limited to the number of dice included in the game. If more dice are needed for a roll, the player simply rolls all the dice he can, records the result, and rerolls any other dice needed." P.11 section Core rules, The Dice. Yes, I meant Armor of Faith. And it specifically states 'until your next turn' because there isn't an 'until your next attack' trigger. Otherwise it would be permanent. As for the need to roll extra dice, I know you CAN roll a dice multiple times. But I HIGHLY doubt FFG would would engineer a situation where you might need to roll the brown dice 25 times in a round (due to multiple attacks on a Jonas that's not attacked for several rounds). This was the point I was making. JohnMill said: Second: Jonas the Kind is a hero from the 1st Edition, rewritten to fit into the 2nd Edition. Only they did this after they brought out the core set. I doubt they thought about these heroes when they included the amount of dice in the game. They based that on the 8 heroes included in the core set. I think they haven't thought this hero through or it's just a typo and it should have said until the start of your next turn on the card. I don't agree with this either. First off, the 2nd edition Jonas is COMPLETELY different to his first edition counterpart (who would make a monster surrender when reduced to exactly 1 life point). Secondly, it was pretty obvious that the 1st edition heroes were worked on at the same time, roughly, as there were several previews of 'Conversion Kit Heroes' before the base game came out, and only two, maybe three weeks between their releases. Until the start of your next turn would have done the job IMO, however, I don't believe they have built in an escalating defense mechanism for him, so personally feel the statement is unnecessary. I'm prepared to put my hands up and say I was wrong if/when you get an official answer contrary to this btw…
  14. JohnMill said: Hero ability states: “During each round in which you do not perform an attack, you gain 1 additional brown die to your defense pool.” Rulebook states: “The defending player – any player controlling a figure affected by the attack – creates his defense pool by gathering all the defense dice listed on his Hero sheet (in addition to any dice provided by equipment and card effects) or Monster card and rolls them for his defense roll. If an ability allows a player to add dice to this roll, he does so before the roll.” P.12 section 2, Roll Dice. The way I see it, there are two ways to interpret this. 1, during each round in which you do not perform an attack with Jonas the Kind, you add 1 brown defense die to your defense pool. Meaning, after 3 rounds not attacking you would have 3 brown dice extra, on every defense roll, permanently for that encounter (as rules lawyer, I would say this). 2, during each round in which you do not perform an attack with Jonas the Kind, you add 1 brown defense die to your defense pool. Meaning, you can use that extra die only in the following overlords turn on every defense roll, after which the die “vanishes” (this is what my friend thought it meant). Meaning: I thinks it’s 1, so let’s assume that. The way we’ve been playing (4 heroes), each encounter lasts only around 6-10 turns. And having a hero not attacking is a tremendous loss. So I assumed it would result in permanent (during that encounter) extra dice for Jonas as compensation for not attacking. My friend thought Jonas would become overpowered with all these extra dice. But what is a brown die? Three times 0, two times 1 and one time 2 shields, which results in something between 0.5 and 0.6 shields per roll. Which doesn’t seem too bad to me, assuming the lack of attacking is such a great loss. I think it's 2. It's the same as the Disciple ability in my eyes. There's only one brown dice for a start, giving an ability that would potentially have you roll it 5 times, multiple times in a turn… I can't see them doing that.
  15. Triu said: Some people like Monty Haul dungeon crawls, some don't. Sounds like D1E was the former -- although I haven't played it -- and they tried a different tack with D2E. Personally I think most games put too much emphasis on gear & not enough on skills. If you take away Conan's +9 Sword of Compensation, does he go from hero to zero? To be honest however, finding potions (majority of Search cards) -- and buying items -- does seem backwards to me. Looting trash (level 1) gear -- shield, armor, etc. -- during the run would make more sense to me than finding an undamaged potion bottle … and then drinking from the **** thing without having it identified by the town alchemist?! I can kind of understand why they did it from a design / playability standpoint, but I think I'd have made different decisions. Relics are the rare exception of gear acquired during Encounters, aside from the occasional chest, which does seem right to me. What doesnt seem right though is you are assumed to sell all potions etc when you return to town at the end of a quest… Why is that?
  16. I actually understand and agree with you, to a point. The search deck has one, ONE card in it that can cause you to find new, useful equipment. Players like new equipment, just like they dig new powers too. It's perfectly possible to play for many hours and not get anything beyond your starting gear (certainly in a four player game where money is spread thin). Is this really what people want from a dungeon crawl game? Especially when you compare that to the first edition that had gear thrown at you constantly. I think it's gone slightly too far the other way now. Hell, you can't even keep potions from one quest to the other… Wow…
  17. Steve-O said: You could try giving the heroes a free item draw from the store at the end of each encounter, and see how that works out for you. Getting more gear more quickly will top out that aspect of their growth really quickly, but I get the impression that most of the real power advancement comes from skills in 2e, so hopefully it won't be TOO unbalanced. So allow the overlord to upgrade one monster to Act 2 stats at the same time… The heroes want their shiny new weapons, the overlord should get some love too.And BOY should he get some love. Upgrades for the overlord are duuuulllllllllllllll.
  18. To house rule this would be a complete nightmare, AND you'd likely need more troop types. However, it's not a terrible idea. The Lanisters having another knight or two, but less ships, for example. Greyjoy having more ships but no seige engines. Whatever. Had it been in from the start, it could have been used to address the (perceived) balance issues too, but it also adds more colour to each house imo.
  19. Triu said: No, didn't see that in the FAQ. Throw does not use the word attack, nor does it use the blue attack die -- it involves an attribute test. AFAIK, throw away! LOL, **** my failing memory. Clearly Throw was a bad example. What about Sweep? If it uses the blue dice, it's an attack. Is this an assumption or a ruling? I'm kind of on the fence about this. Attack is explicitly stated as being a specific action that rolls the dice shown, and we're also told creatures CANNOT 'attack' twice in a round (barring card use). Some creatures have a unique ability that emulate an attack but often have additional benefits - but this isn't an 'Attack', this is 'Insert Unique Action Name Here'. Part of my figures this was there just to boost these more powerful creatures. But the other part of me thinks 'of course it's an attack'….
  20. Spot on and well illustrated Triu. Course, you only need to look at the zoombie monsters to realise the intention was to not have the reanimate performing two move actions either. Thematically accurate at least.
  21. Wow, surely this is pretty obvious no? Zero guests rescued, ZERO chance of one of them being the guy you need - despite what the dice says. Play it how you want, consider that RAW state a blank rolled is equal to the number rescued. But I do not. Not even close.
  22. Was the 'does a 'unique' attack (like 'Throw') constitute an attack' question answer in the FAQ? I assumed an attack was using the dice shown on the creature sheet to **** someone. If it's an ability that acts like an attack, it's an ablity, plain and simple.
  23. Dam said: Sausageman said: But, you're still limited by components too - and they're aren't that many ogre models if memory serves. True, there are no Ogres in D2 currently, but D1 players probably have a fair share of Ogres somewhere. I have all the D1 stuff - there are only 2 or 3 models aren't there?
  24. But, you're still limited by components too - and they're aren't that many ogre models if memory serves.
  25. I'm quite disappointed they ditched the off-hand bonus feature. It was hardly complicated, and really added another layer of diversity for players. I mourn its loss.
  • Create New...