Jump to content

player1465698

Members
  • Content Count

    125
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

About player1465698

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    -
  • MSN
    -
  • Website URL
    -
  • ICQ
    -
  • Yahoo
    -
  • Skype
    -

Profile Information

  • Location
    , London, United Kingdom
  1. I'm pretty sure it was clarified somewhere sometime that range is still counted from the hero, sinceit doesn't say otherwise. Given that it's such a poor skill otherwise, I think it's more than fair to have it as a house rule though.
  2. This surely has to be a case of someone settling a rules dispute from their group by agreeing to raise it in the forums, despite knowing full well that they are in the right.
  3. Wouldn't say there's any really obvious choice. Bit more info for you here My personal choice would be WoD then ToI (but AoD then ToI would be a close second)
  4. Interesting. So heroes can't trace line of sight to monsters hiding behind a Deep Elf, say. Can't say it's come up in our games, but I'll remember to use that next time.
  5. Yes please to a copy. It sounds very applealing and has the sort of changes I would have liked, but ultimately playtested balance is what it's all about so Im not sure I'd go for it.
  6. phelanward said: (yes, Corbon, with the exception of morphing or the RtL Golem) Just to save Corbon some time....the actual definition of a melee attack is an attack with the melee icon next to it (red sword, the same as the icon next to the melee traits) Agree with everyone else on the subject of yellow dice having wounds and surges. Hellhounds don't do much damage at all, but at least they do it to multiple targets.
  7. If what you want is to use expansion material in an advanced campaign which wouldn't otherwise be used, you might like the optional changes to the Road to Legend dungeons I made a while back. The purpose was to try to imagine what Road to Legend would have looked like if the designers hadn't been instucted not to use any exapnsion material, and to give every expansion prop/obstacle/effect at least a token appearance (thematically wherever possible). In effect, over half of the dungeons ended up being a bit jazzed up and there was a boss for each of the 25 monsters instead of the 12 original ones. http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_foros_discusion.asp?efid=4&efcid=1&efidt=17579&efpag=0 Annoyingly the forum won't let me go back and edit it as I remember there were a few changes... changing the Dragon's lair to a Frost Wyrm's Lair, for example was pointless as I recall... putting multiple priests into The Summoning was an accident waiting to happen... but I think the others all worked and made for a much more interesting campaign. I have intended to extend this to the Sea of Blood dungeons and had some ideas on several of them when I looked at them, but have never really had the time to do it thoroughly.
  8. These familiars are granted by a Wizardry skill card, and follow the rules governing familiars. Mata and Kata’s speed is 6. Mata and Kata are both represented by markers that may move independently of each other. The familiars can each be given or pick up and carry one item (including potions). They can give a carried item to an adjacent hero (or each other, whether they are adjacent or not) by spending one movement point. If Mata and Kata begin their turn in the same space, they may move together. While moving together, they may pick up and carry one chest, treasure pile, or runekey. If they wish, they may still carry one normal item instead. Mata and Kata cannot enter the same space as another figure while carrying a chest, treasure pile, or runekey. Mata and Kata may separate at the beginning of any of their turns, but if they do, any chest, treasure pile, or runekey they are carrying must immediately be dropped and left where it is. Has anybody tried using the new rules for M&K? Worth getting in an advanced campaign now? Think these are good rules to use in standard games? Yes, I know that there is no reason to say that they should be used in standard games, but since they're almost strictly worse than Bardic lore, I feel that giving them a boost is no bad thing. Or does anybody think differently?
  9. The_Immortal said: I have some ideas on what might fix SoB, but it's pretty hopeless as things stand. Care to share them? I've just added a thread to the homebrew section for any suggestions.
  10. There've been a lot of, sometimes heated, discussions of this recently to various separate threads. I wanted to discuss a couple of points, specifically what house rules might make this expansion worth investing time and money in ... without opening the whole can of worms again and thought the homebrew section would be a good home for this. As I understand it: SoB has a lot going for it but is ultimately broken against any Overlord who seriously tries to win. It could be playable against an overlord who plays Lieutenant more like a GM "for fun" rather than in the competitive way which marks Descent as such a good game for Overlords in the genre. Lieutenants are almost unbeatable except in very contrived circumstances, and are practically unkillable. The fact that they do not have to return to their starting location makes forcing a Lieutenant to flee a mostly fruitless victory. Some people find that SoB's sea encounters and island levels in general to be impossible but this is more contentious. Others find only a couple of extreme examples to be terrible (but no more so than shades in Box Canyon, say), but are generally fine, if not easier than a Dungeon level. Other factors (Home port, a better structured map, Divine favour, Amended final battle, Treasure maps instead of Legendary Locations) in general seem like they would make for an improved campaign from RtL... if only it were winnable. Does this sound about right? I'm really hoping that FFG is devoting some serious testing into how to make this game playable... but in the meantime, does it seem as though this would be a good game if only the Lieutenants were houseruled into being beatable? Current suggestions seem to run along the lines of forcing Lts back to their starting location and counting the Revenge exiting the far side of the map as a hero victory. The Immortal mentioned that he had some ideas... care to share them? The main discussions, although there have been legion... seem to me to be those below: Long argument on whether there is anything good in SoB at all. Lots of opinions. Corbon concedes after several attempts that the campaign is unwinnable against an Overlord who seriously and aggressively pursues victory through Lieutenants: A current discussion on BGG.
  11. Antistone said: There's an obvious reason why they might think that writing "additional" would be clearer (i.e. to distinguish a gain from a replacement), even if it's supposed to work on a Run action. Therefore, it doesn't necessarily imply anything else in this case, even if it does in other contexts. Oh, and a +1
  12. YellowPebble said: I'll come in on the side of those who think "additional" implies existing attacks. +1 YellowPebble said: Let me first state that I don't think the designers actually intended the ability not to be useable on a run action. +1 YellowPebble said: I do, however, think it's poorly worded. +1
  13. Text on the card: as long as it's at least 3 spaces away from the nearest hero So there need be only two spaces between them. Adjacent = 'one square away'.
  14. We've tried the same variant a couple of times. Basically, instead of being a 'Sudden Death' when the heroes to 0 conquest, they have to play with a man down... and then two men down... until they can get enough conquest to bring them back. It often heralds the complete endgame just a few turns later but allows for the chance of a comeback and prevents an unlucky loss in the first few turns from two kills against Laurel. I also seem to recall that it made for a much more satisfying finish as Nanok struggled heroically on his own down the corridor for that next glyph until being finally overwhelmed, instead of the usual "oops... Runewitch died again. Game Over". Or you might just equally hate prolonging the agony of defeat. +1 to SteveO on really not caring about Fog of War in a game like Descent. But if your players enjoy it, good luck.
  15. On the whole, I think it all works together well. The Feats are a very good addition which (loosely) balance out the Treachery. In terms of the larger number of Spawn cards in the deck from expansions, I would really recommend the Advanced Campaign Reinforcement rule which is perfectly useable in regular games and which helps stem the additional number of Spawn cards in the deck. (Basically each spawn after the first per area costs 15 threat extra to play. See page 17 of the advanced campaign rules) Perhaps a way of thinking about the expasions and balance is that they give you options so that if you're not finding a perfect 50/50 balance, you can adjust it. We wouldn't play a JitD quest with feats, unless perhaps we also wanted to try it with only two heroes and no Treachery. We certainly wouldn't play a WoD quest without feats, the Reinforcement Marker and most of a day to kill. Other features such as skills, heroes and treasure don't significantly affect balance especially since they are random anyway. The JitD Fighting skills are still probably among the best.
×
×
  • Create New...