Jump to content

Sausageman

Members
  • Content Count

    354
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Sausageman

  1. Bleached Lizard said: Agree with the above poster (not the one quoted above - the actual post above mine). ALL the dungeons in 2E are unique, so I don't know what Sausageman is talking about. What they've actually dumped are the random, thematically nonsensical dungeons of 1E, which my gaming group disliked precisely because they were so random, made you feel like you weren't on any kind of real adventure and didn't tell any kind of story. I meant the 'legendary area' dungeons. The three dungeons that you could only enter once per campaign level. And the rumour dungeon levels to boot. Basically anything that wasn't on a card. I think my issue here is that the two campaigns are very different. First ed had you wandering across a very large land, encountering what you encountered. Second ed seems to be smaller in scale (and time frame), and which is why it's not really comparable - and probably the reason I'm having some difficulties accepting the culling of various things/mechanics. I really liked the 'Runebound with dungeons' feel of Road to Legend. I don't think Second Ed will be ANYTHING like that…
  2. Gotta say, I'm loving the Necromancer. Probably my favourite class seen so far. A pet zombie. Awwwww….
  3. IronRavenstorm said: Also, what do you think about the pros and cons of Mage Knight??? My group is looking into maybe getting it for the collection. I just want to know the good and the bad about he game before I cast my vote. The major cons of the game are really the complexity level (there is a LOT going on) and the downtime in a four player game. I don't intend to play it as a four play all that often in the future if I can help it. And as for the complexity, that's alleviated somewhat by the walkthrough - and I definitely noticed turns gathering pace the more we got to grips with things. The pros however were numerous IMO Lots of character customisation (like, LOTS), loads of scope, and it really felt you were on an adventure. Hiring henchmen, learning skills from the local monastery (or ransacking it and burning it down), dungeon delving, exploring ruins, wizards keeps, you name it. I'm really looking forward to playing more of it. It's extremely different to Descent though, more akin to, I guess, Runebound if anything.
  4. Steve-O said: I doubt there will be anything called "Advanced Campaign." I could see them releasing a larger overworld map, if there were enough people complaining about how small and insufficient the one they're providing is. I could see them expanding the campaign experience in a lot of ways, really. But nothing so bug as to require an adjective like "Advanced." The reason the AC in 1e was called "Advanced Campaign" was primarily because there was already a "campaign mode" in the 1e base box, which most (if not all) fans considered to be woefully inadequate for a number of reasons. Road to Legend rebuilt the entire game experience in an effort to give fans what they wanted, and they needed to brand that game mode with something that properly reflected the complexity involved as well as something which clearly differentiated it form the "basic" campaign mode that already existed (just in case anyone cared.) The 2e campaign mode appears to take the best of 1e AC (IMHO) while allowing more room for narrative growth (how well that will work out remains to be seen.) But bottom line, they've got an adequate campaign experience here that hasn't been tacked on at the last minute. I'm sure they'll find ways to expand the campaign play as 2e evolves and grows - both based on fan feedback and on their own plans for the game - but I don't really see them rebuilding the entire game play experience to same degree as RTL did for 1e. So, I don't think they'll need to throw around terminology like "Advanced Campaign." I think a larger overworld map (and more involved movement) was basically what I meant. It's one of the parts I kinda liked from RtL, it FELT like you were going on an adventure - especially with the unique dungeons and rumours out there too. It's a bit of a shame that they've dumped those actually. I'm still super psyched by this update, and literally cannot wait to get my hands on it. Though I did play the Mage Knight board game over the weekend and I REALLY liked that, so the benchmark has been set…
  5. Royaldoy said: I could care less about combinations. A quest is a quest in any order. 20 total quests is 20 quests. I agree, that's not many, but, it is twice more than the previous 1st edition box came with. Sure, size is different, but it is FFG, gotta expect heavy expansion support.I'm wondering if an advanced campaign box wil come out in the future, tbh. The way you travel around the map doesn't feel as 'adventurous' as it did in RtL/SoB. I'm wondering if that's something they'll bring in later. Oh, and I think you mean couldn't care less /pedantic
  6. Steve-O said: There's also the question of LTs. We know they exist in 2e (and there's even three new ones to boot), but I don't think it's been made clear exactly how they will work. Yeah, I'm wondering this too. With (we assume) no overland map, are they just going to be 'signature' monsters in a dungeon? I hope not, because that's kinda dull…
  7. Unclechawie said: The OL will also gain experience with which to purchase additional cards to modify his deck (minimum size of 15 cards). I thought it was FIXED size of 15 cards. Meaning, when you buy new cards, you replace an older one? Have I gotten this wrong? I must confess, I'm with the original poster here. Claiming the monsters get upgraded is strictly true (from the information we have so far) - they will ALWAYS be tougher in the 2nd act, just as part of the game. This is not an 'overlord upgrade' he pays for with xp as it was in first edition with the different monster classes being upgraded. I mentioned this in a previous post, but it doesn't seem like there's anywhere near the variety of advanced campaign upgrades that there were in the first edition. It's possible that these haven't been revealed yet, or the full AC hasn't actually been fleshed out yet and will come in a later expansion, but I will be *slightly* disappointed if this is it. Don't get me wrong, I still think this looks excellent, and I'm purchasing it as soon as it's released, but I really loved the customisation of first ed. The classes seem excellent in this edition, and I hope it wil scratch my customisation itch, but I am fearful the overlord won't really have a lot to choose from (this *could* be because the campaigns are significantly shorter of course…)
  8. I really like the healer class a lot. The spiritspeaker powers look really interesting (thoguh personally, I'm not a lover of the tribal/shamanistic archetype). Um, when the hell is this game coming out? I WANT.
  9. Bleached Lizard said: If that were the case, the Knight's sword would have Pierce. Hey, I'm just playing devlis advocate - I actually think pierce will do the same as it did in 1ed too - though doubt we'll see the likes of 'Pierce 4' that we did in the earlier edition. I get the impression that there will be less armour in general, so stands to reason there will be less pierce to go with it.
  10. With the campaigns being shorter and the assumed lack of an overland map, I'm struggling to see how these lieutenants will be integrated - at least to the degree they were in the first AC. I hope there's more to them than them appearing in different encounters. I love the way they had teir own things to do in the previous AC - sacking cities or collecting items on behalf of the overlord.
  11. Spivo said: hehe, there's an old Danish news clip, with roleplayers debating with christians. At one point one of the roleplayers says: "Seriously, the only difference between you and me, is that I actually know it's not real". That was classic… *applauds* That's awesome. Seriously, people who believe that garbage that was written there are mentally ill. I've been roleplaying a LONG time, and I have never ONCE participated in a satanic ritual as part of the game. Not even sure I've done it IN GAME… And casting a spell usually consists of a player saying 'I'm going to cast X spell' not reeling off scripture and summoning evil spirits…. They are nutters.
  12. Bleached Lizard said: 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. One step levelling up (at the interlude) isn't, sadly, as good as what came in RtL and the Copper/Silver/Gold/Diamond grading. There actually doens't seem to be anywhere NEAR the amount of customisation as existed in the AC in 1Ed. Are we assuming that the campaigns are designed to be significantly shorter?
  13. 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…
  14. Jafix said: Well, iam afraid that Berserker for example, will not be able to equip or fully use Bow. When you look at "Sling" weapon card on last preview, its stated "exotic" under its picture and also, there is a green gem symoblizing that it is a ranged weapon. My guess is that there will be some kind of weapon limitation or weapon type oriented skills or cards (If your weapon is exotic, you gain 1 surge etc.) That's assuming there aren't exotic melee weapons of course. Taking the 'D&D' approach to exotic, katana would be under that banner too. I haven't seen anything suggesting any reason, other than theme/colour, why certain weapons are restricted to certain characters. It's not a huge problem, but it would be nice to have 'signature weaponry' like Descent 1 characters had (who, for example, would give the Yeti a magic weapon when he had 5 melee enhancement dice??)
  15. RogueRegault said: The line of sight rules don't bother me since they're fairly close to the 4th Edition D&D rules. The new dice, however, bug the heck out of me. The attack dice have been far too reduced in variety for my liking. I would much prefer keeping a Melee themed and Ranged themed basic die, along with the "better for range" and "better for damage" enhancement dice. Now the only thing to differentiate weapons is the surge abilities, and from the looks of things there's a strong chance you won't get any surges on an attack.If they were going to change up the attack dice I'd have preferred if they'd removed the Miss side and added some sort of defense stat you had to roll range against when making a melee attack. Therefore melee weapons using range enhancement dice would hit more often to compensate for less damage. I completely agree - I already mourn the loss of the 3 different attack dice. On the plus side, I guess it makes it cheaper to make, which means we get more for the same price, or the same for less cash. Neither is terrible IMO. It does seem like, with so few dice, most will be rolling basically the same to attack with now - with only skills and surge abilities (and hero abilities where applicable) differentiating the attacks. Plus, as they've removed the three attack skills (melee, range, magic) and their enhancement adding, I don't see why everyone won't use the best weapon they can get hold of now - regardless of whether it's thematically applicable (my warrior has found a bow. Ok, I don't benefit from my One Surge = +1 damage melee attack skill now, but who cares - this bow is much better than the sword I had AND I can shoot at range…) Bleached Lizard said: 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? I'm tempted to do as someone suggested above, and not allow LoS or movement through these. I've always seen diagonal obstacles as continuous 'walls' (possibly a throw back from something in Heroclix), and it never sat well with me being able to squeeze through the gap or 'thread the needle' through it to shoot someone.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. Why can't a Dwarf Slayer get their honour back? Lets say, for example, they single handedly aved a Karak from being over-run by minions of Chaos, saving thousands of Dwarvish lives in the process. Would the Dwarven nation not be prepared to give them a second chance?
  19. Graf said: The new expansion for Rune Age is introducing two new Terrinoth-races (dwarfs and orcs). As Rune Age uses the same races and units as Runewars, this might also be a preview for new Runewars races. In other words: If there should ever be a new expansion for Runewars, it is highly expectable that this will be the new units. http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_news.asp?eidn=3245 Exactly what I thought when I saw it too. This is great news.Whether this means Runewars will be expanded to a 5/6 player is another matter though…
  20. On that note, I'm not really sure why the old 1E red die had range on it at all. It was a melee die, nothing else… It's only a minor complaint. There's FAR more to take in on the new preview…
  21. Bleached Lizard said: My deconstruction of the dice (what we''ve seen so far) can be found on BGG here: http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/793554/trying-to-figure-out-the-distribution-on-the-dice I think the complexity of the dice from 1E (which is quite a dull form of complexity) is being replaced by simple dice that can be manipulated by complex skills (which is a much more interesting form of complexity). Fingers crossed this is true… I didn't see an issue with the 'dull complexity' though. You KNEW that if you rolled the blue dice, you could get good range, but the damage wouldn't be so great (and arguably you aren't putting yourself in harms way, so why not have this negative), but if you rolled the red dice, you had the potential to wallop someone (with the downside being if you missed, you had an enemy stood infront of you about to hit back). The white dice was the wild card with decent damage, though not as much as the red, decent range, though not as much as the blue, but lots of surges to trigger magical effects. I liked this, meant characters 'felt' difference. And from a 'game' perspective, it meant there was less fighting over dice…. Making there be only one default attack dice is an unwelcome over-simplification from my perspective. A shame, it's the first thing I've seen of this 2nd edition that I haven't really liked.
  22. Unclechawie said: From the pictures we''ve seen, the above list is indeed correct. From the looks of it, the Blue die is going to be used in most, if not all attacks, as every monster and weapon card we can find has the blue die printed on it. It essentially replaces the 3 different attack dice. Hmm, not sure I''m in love with that idea. I liked the fact that the basic attack dice had different damages on them, and different potential ranges. What use is it for a melee warrior rolling 6 range but no damage► Something like that wasn''t possible previously with the red dice.
  23. It could be anything really. The common trait will be low level healing, for sure, but we might find the two are: One as a high amount healed to a single target, the other low levels but area of effect One predominantly heals, the other buffs - giving regen abilities, making them hit harder, damage mitigation (roll an additional brown dice this turn, for example) etc. One works on wounds, the other works on fatigue (though I really don''t feel this is as useful as wounds itself). May even find that one is able to create potions somehow…
  24. Bleached Lizard said: GrumpyBatman said: First, I did not particularly enjoy Descent. The time commitment versus fun ratio was not what I was looking for in a game. The RtL peaked my curiosity so I tred it again with the same feelings of disappointment. I hear D2 is faster. My question is does anyone have a lowdown on the campaign system? I would be interested in trying the new version with the quicker playing time if the campaign was interesting. Everything anyone knows is contained in the preview articles. Probably best you just read those. Or to put it another way, we really don't know much at all yet. I don't *think* there's a 'world map' like Road to Legend introduced, but that may be something they're keeping secret for now. Personally I'd love that, I think that idea was excellent and gave a real sense of scope and exploration.
  25. Kartigan said: Eulerkun said: I'm all for the release of the conversion kit, but I never purchased 1st edition. I only played. Does anyone know if Fantasy Flight plans to release figure sets from 1st edition? Bear in mind that you can buy the conversion kit and play with it using proxies or figures from other games. Sure the actual figures would be ideal, but even non-1E owners can use the Conversion Kit if they want a bunch more heroes and monsters and don't mind having figs or proxies that don't match perfectly. I don't have all the promo figures from 1ed, but will buy this conversion kit so will have the cards for them. Be nice if I could buy the figures from somewhere...
×
×
  • Create New...