Jump to content

Sausageman

Members
  • Content Count

    354
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Sausageman

  1. I'm eagerly awaiting the arrival of my D2 copy here in the UK, and while I do, I have been checking out the rules (and discussing, at length, the customisation of heroes with a friend). I noticed in the rulebook it states there are 84 class cards. With 8 classes in total, this doesn't divide equally, so can someone please let me have a breakdown of how many cards each class gets please. I was also slightly surprised that there were so few. I fully expect a future expansion to significantly increase the number of cards (and probably even them out too), but I suspect that's a way off….
  2. Does this mean we know how many sleeves to buy now?
  3. Slinthas said: a.) Players have insanely too much defense almost immediately. Everyone starts with 1 grey dice. 0,1,1,2,3,4 shields respectively. That is an average of 1.83 shields per dice roll. Now, I do like the variance that rolls for defense add instead of the just raw number you had to overcome in D1, but here where it gets broken. Almost every piece of armor you add doubles your defense. Doubles. The warrior got Chain Mail in the first dungeon from a search. That ADDED a grey dice. Now she's up to 3.66 average per roll, plus her shield. Then the cleric could add ANOTHER grey dice which puts her at 5.5 shields + shield ON AVERAGE per roll. Nothing is going to hit that in act 1. I mean you may sneak 1 or 2 here any there but an entire pack of monsters , doing 1-3 damage to a tank with 14 hp, well..whats the point? I already have no incentive to attack players, because none of my objectives ever involve killing them, just beating them to the punch, and thats good, since…you cant kill them. Sure sure, random is random and any given roll wierd things can happen, and I did manage to murder her once, but only because she made the mistake of going to full fatigue. It still took a LT., Master Ettin, 3 Zombies, Normal Ettin and Normal Dragon to take her down 5 hp. I get that heros are stronger, and its a hack n slash feel, heros mow down monsters in vast waves etc. but … eh. I think players should start out with Brown Defense dice. I think that equipping armor should REPLACE the base defense not add to it. Yes I know everyone will say boo hoo it makes the players weaker, no no no. Yes it will. It will also make combat more attractive to the OL, since maybe, if my monster group lasts more than 1 player round (fat chance if they arent dragons or ettins) I can actually hit the tank…and yes I base this all on the tank since they are going to force me to attack them anyhow. I actually agree with much of what you've said here. Heroes should start with either brown defense dice, or actual equipment cards that give them their base defense (i.e. the grey dice they start with is ASSUMED chainmail, meaning they cannot put on another layer of mail). Any new armour should REPLACE what was there before, IMO. And with the significantly lower damage output now, having armour greatly improved could cause a huge issue in games (and it seems it has done, looking at this thread). Slightly related to this, I wonder why they made all armour dice six sided. Battle of Westeros shows they are prepared to make custom eight sided dice, I wonder why we didn't see an eight sided black defense dice. The armour value might not change, but the chance of rolling a blank is reduced. Just a thought.
  4. This is alarming news. Cheap tactics from an overlord, or a valid strategy which should have been changed in playtesting?
  5. PDT said: Leoric of the book.. his hero ability stats that each monster gets one les heart on their attack roll if within 3 space of him.. does this also count when the monster attacks another hero..? Think of his ability as a protective aura. So yes, if they are within 3 spaces of him, they do less damage, whether they're attacking him or another hero.
  6. lorddax said: Due to the wording of the large fig part I'd go so far as to say that attacks ONLY target a square (declares which space his figure is attacking, target space) but that in most cases a square without afig are illegal targets (must contain an enemy) and the opposing fig is an inheirited target via the space (target of the attack). That sound about right and least possible loopholey? Shame. There's always a reason that you might want to target an empty square. And lets be far, that shouldn't be too hard to do either…
  7. Steve-O said: New heroes I'm really ambivalent about. With the conversion kit, I'll have more than enough heroes and monsters to keep things interesting. I'm not opposed to more, of course, but I don't really need them either. New classes and the decks to go with them would be interesting, though. Whether said classes become new options for the existing archetypes or the basis of new archetypes, I'm cool either way. I think I'd rather see them as new options for the four existing archetypes, though, otherwise the pool of heroes who can use them will be limited to whatever new heroes come out alongside them, and that would start in on the old "expansion material that almost never gets seen outside that expansion" business again. I think the four archetypes they made do a fairly good job of covering the bases for any new class ideas. Warrior, Mage, Healer, Scout… I'm sure more could be brainstormed if they really wanted to, but I'm not convinced that more are needed. I completely agree with all this. Adding another class within each archetype would definitely be my preferred method of adding new stuff for the heroes. Hell, with a couple of minutes thought, I can come up with 1 or 2 for each one already, I'm sure FFG can do as good a job at worst. I'd like to see campaigns move into a more epic level too. Acts III/IV (or beyond), with much harder monsters, bigger maps with tougher objectives, and 'uber' powers for the heroes. The 'Epic Level' stuff like they did for Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay. I really enjoyed our Gold level campaign in RtL where the heroes were nails, and the monsters couldn't be underestimated either. And an aside from this, I'd like a bit for 'city' detail. I'd even go as far to say city map sections wouldn't go amiss. I can see them being used a fair bit in the story driven campaign. I know it's 'Journeys in the Dark', but there's only so much 'in the dark' they can add before they need to come out the other side Or maybe they need an underworld theme at some point… They dug too far I jest
  8. SnowcatAssassin said: One of the players did some research and apparently this came up at the big games weekend a couple weekends ago, and my interpretation correct, but has anyone else found the wording confusing? I think it's fair to say it's THE No.1 question that seems to be coming up. The official answer is as above - you can only take 1 action while you have the card, and that action can be to only remove the card. Once you've done that, you no longer have the card to abide by the 'only take 1 action' part, so are free to take a second action. Essentially, it comes down to what point in the heroes turn are the number of actions you get determined - at the beginning (in which case, stun WOULD mean you only have one action in a turn, period) or continually (meaning once you get rid of it, you're free to take your second action)… My belief is the latter. Make sense?
  9. MasterBeastman said: I've played a few times as I have my own copy and I'm getting a similar feeling, but not exactly. It's still too early to call (haven't played enough yet) but my feeling is that there's not enough fighting. The Overlord has no incentive to even roll an attack against a hero. He can ignore them completely and just play a solo game of blocking hallways and pursuing quest goals. Yeah, the OL gets a new card for getting a Knockout but even in looking at the upgrade options for the Overlord's deck I was underwhelmed. I looked through all three classes and my impression was that they're all Meh. When I got my first XP I just took the heal, a universal ability, as I don't really care about the class-specific abilities. I miss the trash-talk of 1st edition because it revolved completely around the wholesale slaughter of monsters and heroes alike, and scaled up with higher tiers of loot/monster upgrades. I'm missing that in 2E. Hopefully as we progress with the game and see the Tier2 loot in play my impression will change (though the tier2 monsters aren't very impressive.) This makes me It was my one big worry too - that upgrades (whether hero or overlord) weren't all that. Gone are the dice upgrades, the monster upgrades, etc. I would actually like to see a bit more customisation get added in expansions (or in an 'Advanced Campaign' should one come out in the future…)
  10. MasterBeastman said: So still no consensus on my original question huh? All we really need to know is: 1) Can a hero buff the defense of a character who is attacking himself via Dark Charm? 2) Can the Overlord play monster-buffing cards on a hero that is attacking or moving through the use of Dark Charm? I wish they wouldn't have used the phrase, "As if he were a monster" because that's the height of ambiguity. Also, some people were concerned that Dark Charm can't force a character to attack himself. The card specifically says it can. I would ask FFG for a definitive answer to both of those, but personally, I would say yes to both, for these reasons: 1. He's still a character/hero, so why not? 2. He's attacking AS IF he were a monster. So anything that modifies an attack of a monster (i.e. a plus to damage or the like) seems a natural fit. Of course, the character ISN'T a monster, so cards that say 'sacrifice a monster' couldn't target him. Just my thoughts anyway.
  11. KristoffStark said: Antistone said: KristoffStark said: So, timing wise, this could be done at any time during the Hero's turn, correct? Some skills, such as Defend, seem obviously intended to be usable when it is not your turn. If a skill doesn't require an action and doesn't specify any restrictions on timing, I think I'd have to assume it can be used at any time on anyone's turn. However, I believe the skill you are thinking of is Prayer of Healing, which (based on the image in the preview articles) is specifically restricted to being used during your own turn. Which, actually, raises another interesting question. In first edition, you could only use "during your turn" effects during the action part of your turn (not during refresh/re-equip). As far as I've noticed, second edition doesn't have a rule like that, so it appears you could hypothetically use Prayer of Healing at the beginning of your turn, refresh it at the end of step 1, and then use it again on the same turn. I wonder if that's intentional… That is indeed that card I was referring to. And I'm willing to bet that they did NOT intend it to be used before the refresh stage on your own turn. So use it at the end of the turn of the person just before you. Net result is the same.
  12. Antistone said: How do you know? I mean, I'm probably biased, and I remember a number of forum threads in which players of 1e complained about the lack of continuity between quests, but the comparative lack of threads begging for non-campaign play didn't mean that players didn't want it, just that they already had it - I wouldn't draw any conclusions from that. Maybe one could learn something from sales figures of the various expansions, if they were available… I also saw a lot of threads asking for solo or cooperative play, and they didn't give us that. Probably the sales of Road to Legend, the leiutenant miniatures, the number of people talking/asking questions about it gave the impression that people wanted that sort of thing. And I must confess, playing Descent stand-alone now feels like something is sorely missing…
  13. David B said: Thanks, that is good to know. We never took WQ that seriously - it was a bit like Talisman in that regard - lots of crazy stuff happened which didn't really make sense, and yes, the travelling rules were just daft when you got to a higher level (I recall a friend's L9 dwarf getting robbed by a group of hobgoblins when travelling, which would never have even have bruised him in a normal fight), but it was a laugh. Still, I suppose being older now it is good to have a tighter ruleset without so much silliness/crazyness, and without unlucky random deaths either. Cheers, David. As someone who tried to play Warhammer Quest fairly recently, I would say, hands down, go for Decent. WQ feels very dated now, and I wasn't enamoured with the mechanics at all. The ONE thing I completely loved about it though was the character packs they did. That was an AWESOME idea, and balance issues aside, is defo one FFG should consider copying (maybe in a PoD format, if that's possible with a miniature included…)
  14. brm130 said: I'm pretty disappointed. I put a pre-order on the conversion kit yesterday, and pulled my core game out of storage today. I know it's my fault for not following along close enough, but all the early news / rumors pointed at this being an actual conversion kit from 1e -> 2e. Now to see about getting my deposit back. Don't be disappointed man - FFG could have easily just brought out a new version of the game, that had a lot of the same stuff, and paid no attention to existing customers. I'm really happy they're providing something like this kit, so not ALL my Descent 1 stuff is defunct. Hell, if you were a player of D&D, Warhammer 40k/Fantasy and several other games you'd be more than used to new editions rendering your previous stuff totally useless should you wish to upgrade… For the record, I have pre-ordered both D2 and kit. I have a TON of old Descent stuff, and I'm really excited to see how the old heroes translate to the new game, and I really dig Descent a lot, it seemed an obvious choice for me. Kit cost me £22 (with free shipping ) which roughly translates to 'King of Tokyo', or other lite games. I'm fine with this. I'm expecting a LOT of cards in this thing.
  15. IronRavenstorm said: I also wasn't happy about how some of the familiars and lieutenants didn't transfer over. Then when the rules were posted my group read them from cover to cover combing over all of the details. I started to doubt the game, and started thinking of how to make a mixture between the two (which I might still kinda do to transfer the other lieutenants over to the second edition). Are these NOT covered in the conversion kit then? On the subject of large monster movement, I VASTLY prefer the new mechanic. It's easy to imagine a dragon folding it's wings and squeezing through a space, and I hated that a large creature could be rendered useless by a previously placed rubble pile or something.
  16. Flashie_Dirk said: Hi, As a semi-avid Descent and DOOM player, I really appreciated the extra dice sets that were on sale - because you can never have enough dice! So I would be very happy if there'd be additional Descent 2nd edition dice sets. I'd be sure to order 5 sets. I contacted FFG, and they told me they'd forward the idea to sales to show that there is demand for such a product. Maybe the community can show how much demand there is by replying to this topic. Please respond with something like "I would buy n sets" if (and only if) you intend to buy them. Thanks! Dirk FIVE sets?!? Jeez, do you guys not like to touch stuff handled by others in your group? I'm SURE FFG will release these though. They pretty much have for every other game.
  17. any2cards said: We found, for the most part (not saying that there aren't exceptions) that Altar of Despair and Well of Darkness seemed to work well with the base game. Once you started to get into Tomb of Ice, Road to Legend, and the unmitigated disaster known as Sea of Blood, it went down hill fast, and never stopped. SOB was such a mess that our group has never actually played with it. I'm beginning to wonder if you're in our gaming group Seas of Blood made us want to weep. The Kraken and, well, practically everything else was a total mess, the ship encounters seemed broken, even the island levels of each dungeon were fubar'd. We had an aborted campaign of SoB and made me long for the relatively painless Road to Legend again (and that was not without pain)… Don't get me wrong, I think they *almost* had it, and certainly did with the concept. I just hope D2 hasn't stripped too much of what I loved about the first game away - or at least we see some of it return. I liked the progression of the characters, the length of the campaign, the pseudo-rpg side of the campaign.
  18. any2cards said: As you stated, the more that was released for D1, the more headaches it created. They need to really make sure that as they introduce new concepts, triggers, events, etc., that they are appropriately tested with everything that came before; quite frankly, I think there are some participants within this forum that would make good play testers. You are so right here. Swoop caused so many headaches in our group it hurt. In fact, I'm STILL not sure I can explain how it works…. It was one of those 'nice in theory' ideas, but in practice it just didn't work at all. I wonder if we'll see flying creatures at all in fact, for just this reason (be interesting in seeing the razor wings, demons etc that had flying/swoop in 1ed).
  19. Galdor said: Hi, I have the Complete collection of Descent 1 products (the base core-box + all the expansions) If I want to buy Descent 2, why should have to PAY for conversion kit, when I have already spent hundred of euros? Why FFG doesn't give free the Conversion Kit to all players which have Descent 1 products? This is the same argument as backwards compatibility in games consoles. Sony took the stance of, if you want to be able to play your PS2 games in our new PS3, you've gotta buy one with backwards compatibility. I see no problem with this. They are different games (or consoles) - you wanna use your old stuff, you've gotta fork over the cash.
  20. Unclechawie said: Actually the rules DO state that the hero gets placed in the closest empty non-lava space. The issue is actually that it is a part of the knockout process. When the hero is knocked out his hero token gets placed in the nearest empty non-lava space. Then the OL places his monsters in such a way that when its the hero's turn to stand up, he is forced to stand up in the closesest empty space, which in this scenario is a lava space, thus immediately killing the hero as he can't move when he stands up. A thread on BGG has discussed the possibility of the hero simply chosing not to stand up. The rules for this do say "may" so technically the hero could choose not to stand up, essentially wasting the OL's actions and time, allowing his group a better opportunity to win the quest. But in the off chance that the OL is just a punk and decides he's lost the quest anyway and would rather just piss off a certain player, OK, the rules allow for him to be screwed over as well. A thread on BGG has discussed the possibility the the Hero just stays knocked out. The rules for this state that standing up is the only action a hero "MAY" perform. May indicates that he doesn't have to and thus he chooses to stay knocked out essentially wasting the setup the OL was intent on setting up. Other than that, another easy house rule would be that the hero token is placed in the lava where the hero was knocked out. When he stands up or is revived, he is moved to the closest empty non-lava space available. Ah, all this could have been avoided if they didn't let a space occupied by a downed hero be habitable…
  21. Blimey, got a bit frosty in here… Lighten up chaps, yeesh. It seems that the lava point is theoretically true, but until we've seen the map layouts with lava on them, and seen the volume of creatures needed for such a broken mess to happen, this may well be a moot point, who knows. Gotta say though, for an overlord to pull such a move, you'd have to label him a bit of a ****. Just saying.
  22. Scy800 said: Steve-O, you make some good points, and it may seem harsher, but as you said yourself, thematically I find it terrible. Though I wasn't too fond of the death rules in Descent, at least in vanilla, the heroes would lose after several deaths. As for the Advanced campaign, the Overlord would become stronger (gain more XP) and in (lieutenant) encounters hero deaths was the way the OL could win the encounter. Now the OL gets a card. Imagine: The big shadow dragon unleashes his fiery breath on the poor hero. Yep, you're knocked out. Just don't like it. I want the heroes to fear those wound counters on their hero sheet, it should have huge implications. Don't know how it will balance, but I am already contemplating removing the hero action of standing up. You're dead unless another hero revives you. If all heroes are dead at the same time, the OL wins the encounter. But I'll first play it with vanilla rules to see if anything else needs to be changed to balance this playstyle. I think I'm with you here. In fact, you could say that 2nd edition doesn't have death in it at all - instead you merely fall unconcious due to your wounds. The 'penalty' for doing so is, IMO, negligable. Course, you could argue that you're playing a group of *heroes*, and that death has no part to play, but without risk, some of the *feel* suffers. A shame, but nothing's perfect, eh?
  23. Fab9183 said: We'll see… until then I have to figure out how to play Mage Knight the boardgame without looking into the rulebook for every 30 seconds anyway It's actually simpler than it first seems. And those reference cards are extremely useful. Course, I've only played the 'walkthrough' game so far, I'm expecting more complexities in the full thing… *shudder*
  24. Game Challenge said: Coldmoonrising said: Well that was an interesting reply here, lol. Guess we can allude to there being chests, lol. Don't take my reply to be anything official! My username was formerly "SoylentGreen" but I registered a Con (Game Challenge) I help run in Fargo. So my user just looks different now. My color is simply because I help run a con… nothing more! I am waiting to see just as much as the rest of you if there will be chests! Watch him!
  25. Steve-O said: Well, I heard somebody say there were no chests in 2e (don't know how official that is, mind you.) I really hope this isn't the case. Who DIDN'T like opening a treasure chest previously? Plus, the mimic trap was hilarious (but sadly not as brutally powerful as the one on Dark Souls…).
×
×
  • Create New...