Jump to content

Sausageman

Members
  • Content Count

    354
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Sausageman

  1. Bleached Lizard said: Columbob said: Steve-O said: and he also requires a friend to come tag him. Other than that, the difference is purely fluff. Of course, there's no guarantee that conquest still exists/works like it used to, either. If the rules are new then I'm sure FFG has thought of something appropriate. For example, if the rules requires an "awake" hero to come tag a "KO'd" hero before he can stand up, then surely the OL will win if all the heroes are KO'd at once. Maybe there's no more score-keeping, just an all out brawl to see who's the last man standing. Well, according to the list of actions, a hero can stand up if he does nothing else this turn, so he doesn't need his buddies to tag him up. The article doesn't say "if he does nothing else this turn". It says it is the only action a knocked out hero can take. So if a knocked out hero does this as his first action, he is then no longer knocked out and can choose something else for his second action. So I'm wondering what the difference is between standing yourself up and getting a comrade to stand you up...? Easy - it might be more efficient for another character to get you up so you can take two actions, than it is for them to take their two 'alternate' actions. Perhaps down to spaces from enemy, or the downed character is more likely to get a kill, etc.Also, there may be some characters that get bonus' for doing that. Say a healer character that heals back additional wounds when they are the ones to stand up a character, for example.
  2. Mordjinn said: "Revive an adjacent hero who has been knocked out."No more dying!!! My prayers to the gaming gods have been answered. Thank you FFG! I wonder if this will be a straight copy (near as anyway) of Gears of War? It does beg the question though, how does the Overlord score conquest or whatever they may have instead? chas said: Also, the new hero turn card is brilliant. The X and O were useful for keeping track of who'd already completed their turn, but this will make play just a tad faster since no one will ever have to consult the rulebook for these things again. I hope they will also be printing all special rules that a card makes use of on that card (e.g. if you get a weapon that has Bleed as an ability, the card should list the special rule for the bleed effect), I found it slowed down gameplay immensely (and bored the hero players a ton) if you had to look up the rulebook every time you didn't know for sure what that rule did.I still don't like the defense dice, but considering how much smoother the game seems to flow, I'll be able to tolerate that. Completely agree. Not to mention the number of counters to represent those effects, I STILL get stun and daze counters mixed up... Writing the effect on the cards makes much more sense to me. As for defense dice though - I'm a little perplexed. Why doesn't the attacked roll those? Seems to needlessly lengthen combat to have attack roll then defence roll, when an attack roll could easily contain the defensive dice too...
  3. The worst thing about this is that we definitely won't see Descent 2ED until July...
  4. Old Blue said: Jafix said: I would guess that game mechanic will be still the same for chinese and american version. The only major difference between the two versions is that an hour after playing, you'll be hungry to play more of the Chinese version... Badum-tish
  5. GrumpyBatman said: This game looks really bad. What were they thinking? To each their own - I think it looks hilarious. One I'd buy? Maybe not. One I'd play when a little drunk - definitely!
  6. I suspect the cry for rules is so we can proof-read them for FFG and (hopefully) catch any issues before it's too late to fix. Would hate to see an early errata for D2 like, well, for every otehr FFG game I can think of...
  7. Jafix said: - Ok, great hole in my speculations, there are three character sheets with yellow gem on them (widow Tarha has a yellow gem) i hope that with new previews, this hole will be leaped over Perhaps the gem is nothing to do with class - maybe it's a measure of what the overlord gets when he kills a character...
  8. HighHanded said: What could those monsters be? A two headed giant of some sort? It's an Ettin - "First Blood pits the heroes against a rampaging ettin (a man-eating, two-headed giant) and his goblin minions"My guess is the others are indeed a Goblin Archer and a Goblin Shaman, with a wolf being the final figure (Goblins and wolves go together all the time - though they usually ride them... ) Overall, I think the minis look good, nicely detailed. Hope the larger bases are actually flat this time... Going by this preview, I'd say the date of late April/early May that was floated is probably inaccurate, but not by much - I reckon we can expect it late May/early June.... That would be groovy.
  9. Are people really annoyed with FFG for not drip-feeding us with information on this game? Or is it simply that we so desparately WANT more info on this game, that we constantly go on about it? The latter is easily forgivable, but seriously, if you fall into the formers camp, you need to relax. Just think of the amount of video games that are announced months and months (often years) before they hit the shelves, often with NO new information until just before they come out. While I'd love to get more information, and have pretty much read and digested EVERYTHING I can find on it to date, I'm certainly not about to march on FFG with torch and pitchfork in hand...
  10. Might be quicker to order from the UK/somewhere else in Europe and get it shipped over. Might cost a few dollars more, but depends how desperate you are...
  11. It was on Gameslore.com's release announcements this week - so I ordered it immediately. I'm happy to confirm that it's now sitting in my house, waiting to be sleeved up, so it's DEFINITELY out in the UK. Still waiting for them to get the PoDs mind....
  12. Mestre dos Magos said: In my opinion, no amount of cunning on the part of a game designer would be able to replace a human overlord with an AI system. 100% agree, and something I've said previously. Only a human can intentionally awkwardly throw a block trap down to make it impossible for a character to reach their destination with the amount of movement points they have left. Only a human will ignore the heavily armoured, heavily wounded character in favour of the unwounded, but armour 1 character, as they know, efficiently speaking, they will inflict more damage. Etc etc etc Basically, if you want a co-op, all vs the game arrangement, why not play Gears of War of the D&D game? Descent is harking back to the old Heroquest type of game, where one person was the evil Wizard/GM/Overlord, and everyone else rallied together to defeat him. Changing this fundemantally alters Descent to a different game... In my opinion. Oh, and reading earlier posts in this thread, apparently I can't type. Nearly everytime I said 'of' I meant 'off'. And there's the odd 'so' instead of 'do'... Honestly, for a native English speaking, that's p*ss poor...
  13. z22 said: Aaediyen said: As long as the rules are concrete they can take all the time they want. We were playing Sea of Blood tonight and I had to fudge a bunch of house rules with the Kraken luitenant because it is just a complete mess. We played Sea of Blood twice before putting it away for good due to numerous rules issues and lack of support from FFG. I had hopes for a better rulebook than The Road to Legend but in many cases it was as bad or worse. We canned our Seas of Blood campaign too. When I first read through the rules, it seemed like they'd cleared up all the rules issues issues, but playing through it, it became apparent that there were far more there. The kraken, as mentioned, was a complete mess, but just the see 'stuff' in general was borked, and having the start of every dungeon be a fixed island seemed like a great idea, until you realise the abusive trees are there for every dungeon.... *sob*If we ever do another campaign, we'll use Road to Legend again, for sure. There are just too many issues with Seas...
  14. Frank6 said: http://boardgamegeek.com/article/8596107#8596107 .. with miniatures. I like the new style very much. So, to reference the conversation on BGG, why the change of art style? I don't hate it, but isn't changing the style separating Descent 2 from other Terrinoth based games? As someone said there, this looks more like Cadwallon with a sprinkling of WoW...
  15. Beren Eoath said: I just hope that after so much waiting the game is perfect. That there will be no such situation like the one with Forbitten Alchemy to Mansions of Madness. That the rules are perfect and well tested and that the components will be 1st quality (about this one I'm sure - it's FFG). I doubt FFG can afford to screw up to this level again - both in terms of reputation as well as financially. I can live with End April/Beginning May. As long as we start seeing previews soon to whet out appetites.
  16. Steve-O said: I realize that Descent doesn't have any rules to prevent melee heroes from using rune stones, but I prefer to think of that as them not wanting to add extra restrictions for no good reason. Thematically, a tank character MIGHT have some training or some natural talent. It's one of those things that CAN be explained if it needs to be. The fluff seems pretty clear on the idea that most people who use runestones get trained how to do so. Well, perhaps we will see restrictions like this in the future - and not just for rune weapons. The two-handed flail that you 'must have in melee to use, or the magical bow that you must have in ranged and in magic to use, etc. Like you say, they may have doe this so not to bombard us with restrictions, but I see this as a way to bring in more powerful items that the heroes need to work at to be able to use. And thematically, it makes sense to me too... Truth be told though, it's only really the magic side that bothers me. I can't really think of anything tangible that seperates a mage from any other character type. I guess you could argue that their inherant abilities do this, but I guess I'd like to see things that can only be used by heroes with certain proficiences. And hell, now they've brought in classes, who's to say there won't be...
  17. Steve-O said: Personally I'm hoping they've cooked up something a little more organic for gear this time around, but that remains to be seen. Maybe it's just me, but I'd quite like to see 'spells' this time, too. In 1ed, a 'mage' was anyone that picked up and used a rune...
  18. Frog said: I'm hoping there is some kind of overworld map like Road to Legend. This is the thing I want to see most.
  19. Mordjinn said: Frog said: I'm cool with the video-game style respawns of the original. If they make it RPG like deaths...then that would drastically change the nature of the game (conquest points etc.). I'm cool with more RPG elements, but in the end I want that Diabloish gameplay in tact. If you're for the Diabloish gameplay then we agree to disagree. I see absolutely no good sides on the die-resurrect-die-resurrect -system. To me (and my group) it is silly and childish. I see no reason why the nature of the game would drastically change with the hero death system being changed. Overlord still tries to kill the heroes and the heroes try to complete the scenario alive. The propblem with this is you'd have to start awarding/accruing Experience Points in other ways - especially as the Overlord. The game (and it's a board game, not an rpg - so abstract things like 'I convinced the Lord to reliquish his land for the good of the people = 10xp' thing just can't happen) centres around killing and being killed for progression. Change the game to drastically alter the mortality of heroes, and everything changes with it. Mordjinn said: And if I'd have my way also the nature of the game should be changed drastically anyways. I would like to see more winning conditions for both sides than just killing the last boss/the last hero. How about instead of just killing the heroes the OL needs to get the pieces of his infernal machine to safety. Then he has to allocate resources to that too instead of just single mindedly killing the heroes. And maybe also the heroes would have better time if there more to their adventures than just killing and murdering and maiming and... well you get the idea. Some of the 1st edition quests had an attempt to go this direction (some prisoners etc,), but to me they all fell short and became small gimmicks that didn't really bring anything new to the experience. Also you always needed to kill the big baddie in the end, there was no way around it. This would HAVE to be the case if the previous rules change happened. You're almost suggesting the heroes need to accomplish X and the overlord Y (and hopefully not 'kill all the other'). X and Y are likely at cross purposes to each other, so the combat element gets introduced, but each side has a definite goal to concentrate on. It's an interesting idea, and one I'm not totally opposed to. Death in these sort of games has previously been 'it', and just because Descent 1e had a resurrect mechanic in it, doesn't mean the 2nd has to (I suppose). In closing - I'm totally on the fence
  20. Steve-O said: Philipopotamus said: "The overlord chooses 1 of his monster groups for the quest, then makes an attack with each monster of that group,....." So, the overlord seems to have something like different monster groups. So it's theoretically possible to have the first edition monsters included in a group. Makes sense. The conversion kit would probably include "monster group cards" (for lack of an official term) that use the monsters from 1e. Hopefully organized into logical groupings, but time will tell. I'm guessing each "encounter" in a given "adventure" will get at least one monster group, thus allowing the OL to spawn prebuilt sets of monsters from among whatever he has available for any given encounter while playing. All speculation, of course, but it does track with the sort of improvement I would expect FFG to come up with considering the criticism 1e took for not really using expansion monsters outside the expansion they came in. This sounds like it should do the trick quite nicely. And if certain players are unhappy with the groupings FFG gives them (because they don't think skeletons and beastmen should roll together, or something), then it should be simplicity itself to come up with homebrew groupings that match the player's desires. I'm guessing such groups will replace standard spawning (since I seem to recall hearing that spawning as we knew it was out.) In theory, this means each monster group should (hopefully) be balanced to put up a fight against a standard hero party, thus dealing with spawning and scaling in one fell swoop. (If my speculations are anywhere near correct, of course =P) So so we think we're gonna get groups ala the campaign (Beasts, Eldritch, Humanoid), by 'power level', or both? Like you say, pure speculation, but an interesting topic, and nice to see that it looks like FFG have given it consideration.
  21. Kartigan said: Yeah I'd like something like that to. Maybe if a tier system is too abstract a point system might be nice. Like spawn 8 points worth of monsters and each monster had a value. This (or the tiers ) is exactly what's needed. At worst, they might bring in a Rune Wars: Banners of War 'figure replacement' scheme, but I don't think that's good enough for the volume of creatures we're talking about...
  22. Awesome, really glad to read this, and it's exactly what I was hoping for. Really looking forward to seeing what they do with this. It's the game I am most looking forward to at the moment. The one thing I really hope they do is address the variety of monsters in each dungeon, and the frequency of certain ones turning up. As I may have mentioned before, but I'd like to see monsters given a points value, or tier systemm rather than just '4 skeletons and 1 sorceror', so the overlord can determine which creatures appear, and can also 'theme' levels to have a certain feel (i.e. lots of undead, lots of spiders etc). A spawn card that said 'Spawn two 'tier 2' creatures and one 'tier 3'' or something similiar would be easy enough, and stops the crazy combinations we get at the moment, AND means new monsters easily fit in... Alas, I suspect this is too late already...
  23. I've just written this in another thread, but though it warrants it's own. Do we know, or do we have any theories on where the emphasis of 2ed lies? Is it in the standalone, one of games/maps, that seemed to be where 1ed had it's loyalties, or do we think it's in the campaign side? For me, Descent was ALL about the campaign. Recurring characters, increasing of power levels, smaller dungeons playable in less than 3 hours - all of these were a massive draw. If we wanted to play a one of Descent game for an evening, we could easily recreate a 'dungeon' from the campaign game, with three levels drawn from the available ones. I really hope the campaign is more robust, and clearly where they want the game to go. I'd be interested to hear if there are people out there that do not and never intend to play the campaign varient...
  24. noodles said: I guess I just haven't played it enough to see the flaws that are being pointed out. My only criticism, other than the length, is that it's too hard for the Overlord to win. I've played about 10 times and I think the game is brilliant. I think you've been unlucky - I've encountered just as many unwinnable situations for the heroes as I have the overlord. These usually occur in the campaign though. I really hope the emphasis for this game has moved more toward the campaign side. The one-off maps are all well and good, but really, they're easy enough to splice together with the dungeon cards from the campaign. I'd much prefer a more robust campaign. Road to Legend was full of brilliant ideas, and really was THE game I've been looking for since I was a kid. Polishing and refining is all I feel is required. Leave us to worry about one offs...
  25. Mestre dos Magos said: It all comes down to one thing: will FFG get any profits from it? I wouldnt rule out the possibility of those minis coming back into packages, specially if Descent 2nd sells well (which I think has a good possibility) They need to be wary of this though. If someone buys the conversion kit, then ends up duplicating on some of this stuff because they are released as part of another expansion later on down the line, they'll be (rightly so) a little miffed... The only true way of doing this is to make two kits: Conversion kit as written now Conversion kit containing all of the above PLUS all plastics - this would retail at the $200 mark I reckon
×
×
  • Create New...