No. Legends is not the same game as Journeys, so the other games' components are not going to transfer over.

NGL, if they come out with something like Star Wars: Legends of the Outer Rim using what they learn from Descent: Legends, I would totally gobble that up. This with the SW IP sounds delicious, not sure if it would fly at the moment due to contractual reasons Honestly, I think they saw how IA was doing as a Co-op vs 1vM vs Skirmish game and probably picked up on the stronger desire for app driven Co-op games when considering the Legends project before diving into development. The Hasbro board game deal probably messes up with them doing that though, I know there was some funny business with it and SW:IA. Does Hasbro still have the contract for SW board games or did that get worked out with FFG? I know there was some funky classifications between "board game" and "miniature game" going on.

That is true, characters are drop-in and drop-out mid campaign, so if you had different save files, you could change things up at various points for one-offs.

Not at this time. From what was revealed in the designer discussion, its campaign only. They did kind of shrug it off as you can play the 1st mission as an introduction for new players. Hopefully, they will add a handful of one-shot quests to the app in the future, but it doesn't sound like it by release time.

That is Testing, where you seek out realistic solutions that you can do to take control of the situation and move forward. Its a good step! Edit: Acceptance would sound something like, "Well, Legends clearly isn't the game I was hoping it would be, being fully coop and app based, but I see that that is how the game was designed from its initial conception through development, so that's never going to change. It just isn't the game I am looking for, but that is okay, there are others that seem to want that kind of game. I'll just keep working on and enjoying my 2nd Ed. Journeys stuff with my friends and hoping for a proper 1 v Many 3rd Ed. of Journeys comes out soon." So, kinda like where you are with going on with 2nd Ed., but without the resentment and hoping that Legends fails. Accepting that the game is what it is and moving on.

Mordheim fans be like...

You are at Bargaining. Keep working through it, you'll reach Acceptance soon enough, man, You can slip back and forth on the journey though, so just be self-aware of the spots of Anger.

Who is they? I just see you speculating here in this thread as if you didn't know which is was going to be. If you remember the time stamp in the discussion I'd like to catch it, because I was listening to try to determine if they were going to be standalone big boxes or expansions and they did not specify yet to the best of my knowledge. But from what they did say so far, a similar release to Core Set - > Mists -> Chains would make sense, just with a more in-depth overarching story that can pull data from the previously completed campaign stored in the app (characters used, decisions made, events that occurred, NPCs that survive, die, etc.) and use those to flavor the 2nd and 3rd act campaigns. They also did refer to the Act 1 box as "this core set" at 1:16.30 which leads me to believe the others will be expansions.

My impression is that Act 2 and 3 will be expansions onto the base game. I don't see any complaints that its "milking" players to have to own the first. I mean, if you want to play the "Mists of Bilehall" campaign and then the "Chains of Rust" sequel, you need the Journeys core set. Core Set - > Mists -> Chains Act 1 -> Act 2 - > Act 3 This isn't a new thing, Journeys already did it before. Just more planning going into it game from the get-go, which will likely turn out a better story. I always like it when a writer starts a storyline with a goal in mind. Its like episodes of the original Star Trek when they were just an open-ended series vs Babylon 5 which had a planned out storyline from the beginning, and some space for filler in-between. The story feels more complete, rather than tacked on over time or rushed to conclusion when its suddenly getting cancelled by higher-ups.

Each act is its own full campaign, there is an over-arching storyline across all three campaigns with a beginning, middle and conclusion. Legends is going to be the progression of the Terrinoth settings story.

Expanding on this, apps allow you to do a lot more than you can do without one, when dealing with hidden information and back-end record keeping. One of my favorite digital boardgames is Armello. Fans of the game are always screaming that there should be a physical copy of the game made, but the developers have repeatedly shot that idea down due to it not working. As I've played the game over the years, I've picked up on the little things that happen behind the scenes and though, "how would you do that at the table" and the amount of bookkeeping that game would have is ridiculous. From things such as tracking certain combinations of what hero is holding what magic items, or has what follower when they step on a stone circle or forest tile, and if its day or night, and if that triggers a special event or not without telling the players (psst...the druids are actually hiding here this game), determining where the King drops random perils every night, without giving away what the peril is and if its appropriate combination for that peril to be on that tile, where Banes randomly spawn every night, resolving combat between King's Guard and Banes, etc., etc. There is a mountain of fiddly bits that happen without the players having to handle it. It really would break down if you took the computer out of the game. Mansions of Madness is also a decent example of what you can do when you have the app handling hidden information. From the interview, it sounds like Kara took what expertise she developed with MoM one-off stories, took the self-contained limitations off and ran with it for Legends' campaign. I look forward to seeing the results.

You bring up some really good points. When you are dealing with storage, 3d terrain becomes a whole nother problem besides just having too many game boxes on the shelf. I know with Mordheim's buildings, I ran into the same issue back then. You ended up dedicating multiple shelves to just one game. I think the appeal of Legends foray into 3d terrain is going to depend on if someone has a history with games that use 3d terrain, such as wargames, for their response to it. Some folks may already have storage solutions in place, while others who don't are looking at this like "am I supposed to tear this down every time, what do I do with this stuff"? As far as GW's art direction The Bard even points out with the digital art used in the board us cut and pasted repeatedly in N:U, and also Silvertower. He even points out where they flipped a graphic and didn't bother to change the numbers/letters, so they were all backwards. It may be more colorful, sure, but I don't think its something to be raving about. Cost is certainly a valid criticism of the new game. While $175 isn't the $290 of other GW games that include 3d terrain, its more than many are used to paying for Descent core boxes. I personally like some of the games that are terrain and mini agnostic where you just have to buy a rulebook and use what you already own (Elder Scrolls, ), but not everyone has a collection of miniatures, 3d terrain, and dice already. I personally think $175 is a decent price point for a game with the number of models plus usable 3d terrain. I think the original Descent was like $80(?) which would be over $100 in 2020 cash, so its still a significant jump up with the better minis and terrain. I kind of think that there are people that agreeing and disagreeing with it probably means they did a decent job of finding that economic equilibrium with it, but only sales generated in the end will really determine that.

Yeah, I've been eyeballing Gloomhaven for awhile, but the cardboard pawn enemies really turned me off of it, as painting and modeling is a big part of the hobby for me. If your not a stickler for mini's, though, or can be happy with just the heroes its a good value. Had they used actual mini's for all the enemies, like the various editions of Descent, it certainly would have jacked the production cost up but it also probably would have been an instant buy for me. The boards themselves are rather plain, as well. I may pick up Jaws of the Lion, since its a much lower price point to get into the game.

I'm just considering miniature games with a similar amount of physical content (minis, card map boards, dice, tokens, etc.) That Necromunda is a competitive instead of coop doesn't change that 28 minis is 28 minis, cardstock map boards are cardstock map boards and such. I do agree that Legends lacking one-off games is a miss. I do think them adding some sort of the Delve-like shorter, random game would be a good idea instead of 16 quest campaign-only. There is replayability due to how the different characters have different options interacting with the dungeon and npcs themselves, and the in-between quest actions/virtue decisions/etc. of characters changing what happens down the road, but just being able to pick up and play different scenario and put it away would be nice. Personally, I don't like Blackstone Fortress's tiles. They look a bit too indistinct to me, but I think I get what they were going for. Had they included some 3d components, I likely would have been more willing to buy into that game as I am a big 40k fan, and Descent fan, and that looked like it could have been an amazing meeting place of the two, but "the dungeons" of the Blackstone Fortress just lack any character. The models are beautiful as always, though. Edit: Oh, and as far as apps, I don't know many people that lack a smartphone, tablet, or laptop; I keep hearing people say this like its a blocker, but is it really? Is there anyone here seriously considering buying a $175 tabletop game that doesn't already own at least one of these things, if not having old ones lying around in 2020?

So, minus the 100€ of 3d terrain, you would say the rest of the kit (28 minis + cards, rulebook, and flat mat) is worth ~130€ or roughly $150? Okay, sure. That still shows Legends is a reasonable price point with almost twice the minis and the 3d cardstock terrain, boards, etc. for $175 in total.

Warhammer Quest: Blackstone Fortress MSRPs for $150 for 2d terrain tiles and 44 minis. Necromunda: Dark Uprising includes some 3d terrain on top of 2d boards (like Legends does) and 28 minis and runs $290 So...yeah, honestly. Seems to be pretty reasonable with today's games. https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Warhammer-Quest-Blackstone-Fortress-2018-eng https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Necromunda-Dark-Uprising-EN-2019

Well, the post you quoted me from was mostly talking about GW's game design decisions, but as far as my comment that 3d environments are a good thing, here is a shot of something that can be done now in Legends (please forgive the grainy screengrab) This is a shot from GMGs playthrough of Rangers of Shadowdeep Incinerator Scenario (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohUwW1sx7yg) Basically, you have to make you way across the field from the right hand side and fight your way up the stairs while the floor falls away behind you into a pit of lava. Honestly, I was hoping that they would have gone this route with Legends (3d terrain on an open board) but I get that the dungeon tiles are kind of baked into Descent's DNA, so seeing how they did a bit of both was a nice touch for me. As someone who loved playing Mordheim back in the day and these days plays solo/coop dungeon crawlers, seeing Legends go this route with multiple levels is a welcome change.

Yeah, I also got the feeling that they really wanted everyone to know that Legends was absolutely not the replacement for Journeys 2nd Ed., and that they intend Journeys to be the competitive game going forward. Which, if they can focus the game content on that 1 v Many idea, instead of trying to balance around both vs AI coop and vs 1 competitive, it could make for a better end product.

@SteveG700 Legit complaints. Even in first edition, monsters were just to get in the way between the players and chests where you could score loot. Overlord players allow for better challenges/ fights as you can apply tactics that an app AI cannot, however its still an attrition game, as the players overpower monsters and you really are working to bring them down enough times to trigger a hero loss. 2nd Ed made it a point to reduce the game length from 1st Ed, which even as someone that loved 1st Ed, I have to admit the games were horrifically long sessions. This did result in constantly prodding the heroes to move quicker and be more calculating with their actions. Tick-tock, tick-tock, gotta keep moving forward... I do think there is a better chance to get away from that with Legends. In the stream they specifically called out that there will be more exploration and interaction with the gameboard, instead of a dead sprint to the end of the dungeon. So, they acknowledge that issue with 2nd Ed, and are trying to move away from it. Looking at the mechanics moving away from fatigue/health attrition with the card-flip mechanics and giving more actions per round (1 move + 2 others), it does seem like they want players "doing more stuff" instead of having to be very careful about not wasting any actions. Instead of losing an action and resting to get rid of fatigue, you do stuff to get rid of fatigue. It sounds like a nice twist.

Really? You think this (Necromunda: Underhive circa 2017) was an improvement over this (Necromunda circa 1995) ? I mean, if so, okay, but yeah, personally, I think the 3d cardboard bits and multiple levels are a pretty **** nice addition to Descent, and that GW went the wrong direction with their game. I mean, their models have gotten beautiful, but otherwise... Here is a nice unboxing/critique where the author gives a breakdown about how the art design by GW has actually been getting worse with the newer edition of Necromunda https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TLWQSFWB2k

No, its not. You can have negative opinions about a game, and offer constructive criticism, but at this point you've already posted in other threads that "you hope the game fails"; you are quickly approaching being a troll. If you have constructive criticisms, please offer them, but if all you are going to do is post "game is already dead" nonsense, please refrain.

Its smoke, for the Bandit's "smoke bomb" tactic.

There is another upcoming stream that they mentioned that will be a gameplay demo, that is why they didn't dive deeply into it this one. I didn't catch the date, but they mentioned it so its already planned. Since what they did mention about the combat, interaction with map pieces, and narrative is all in-app, we should see a decent demonstration of it soon.

Yeah, I think the Centurion was approaching that, but its makes sense for a centerpiece BBEG, and they kept a fairly solid looking base which will be more practical for play.

Working the base into the model is a good idea. There has been a great increase in the quality of mini's over the last decade, and getting more dynamic poses that incorporate elements of the base is a current trend. Here are just a couple examples from GW of their less crazy designs and then you know, you get the more complex stuff... basically, we have progressed from this to this and FFG trying to keep up is a good thing. RIP Felix