griton

Members
  • Content count

    496
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About griton

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Location
    Chicago, Illinois, United States
  1. Yeah, also putting it in the basic rules section would've probably helped quite a bit.
  2. I disagree that Descent's skill checks are more straightforward than IA's. With new or returning players, one of the most common questions is along the lines of "Ok, you just said to test X, what does that involve again?" or "Tests are done with which dice? Where is that info?" Whereas in IA, you tell them to test their attribute and they can see on their sheet what dice they roll for it, and the test itself will call for what's needed (that is assuming that it isn't always just "get a surge") Try to keep in mind that just because you're familiar with item A and not with item B doesn't mean that A is straightforward and B is not. I'd also argue that IA's is still just as simple: "Roll Dice on sheet, check for result" versus "Roll Black + Silver, compare shields against number on your sheet, remembering that this is the one case in the game where rolling lower is better". To me, it's more intuitive, and the "masturbatory calculations" that you seem so against aren't actually needed. If someone wants to theorycraft that and produce tables with percentages, they can, but it's not like people are doing that in their heads with Descent anyway.
  3. What's interesting here is that this could theoretically give large monsters more free spaces from expanding than they would normally get from their own interruptions. (There's no rule on interruption limits except as implied by the fact that each monster only gets one other action besides the Move action being interrupted).
  4. I like this. Could be house-ruled into Descent by adding an Endurance trait to each hero. I think this works well with the new KO rules to re-introduce player elimination without making it too easy to eliminate a hero. Are the revival rules the same, though? I don't see them listed as a difference. Improved self-healing is something you often see when you don't have dedicated healers (the way D2 does). I did see some healing in the demo I watched, but it did seem like it was a side-benefit to an ability, not the focus of the character. I also believe the "Endurance trait" is the equivalent to the Stamina value in Descent, so a new value wouldn't be needed. As far as integrating this into Descent, I think it'd only work if you were playing a game without a dedicated healer. I think it would also require the more strict knock-down rules that IA has, though (twice down and you're out) to maintain that balance. In IA, overhealing to stay topped off is going to be a decent strategy to make sure you don't risk getting knocked down, because the penalty is much higher than it is in Descent. Interesting. Actions are the primary economy of the game, so this change will probably have significant impact on how things play out. Monster groups with many units will be inherently powerful for letting the OL activate more figures at once, but they will also presumably be weaker figures. An interesting factor to influence the "zombies suck" conundrum. If this is the case (I'm not 100% certain it is), this really just puts more emphasis on fewer, more powerful (higher cost) groups because if you only have one group, it gets to go every time a hero goes. Unlike in Descent where groups try to be balanced between each other (with strengths towards different situations) by adjusting the number of figures, IA clearly has "this group/figure is more powerful than this other one, and we denote that by its cost". Remember that dice rolls are just a model and the "slight chance of being a miss" in IA is also factored into "defense (which isn't always considered physical armor) being greater than damage". I actually quite like this change as it removes that "ugh, my die rolls always suck" negative feeling from the attacker to a positive feeling on the side of the defender. It also is balanced by the rather significantly improved self-healing that everyone (or at least every hero) has. It's a different paradigm. In Descent, almost every test is the same (Silver + Black, roll under your attribute value). Modifying this can be a little clunky (subtract/add one shield, change the dice) or boring (increase/decrease attribute value), and there's not really a good way to determine levels of success. In IA, you have things like Might and Tech (I'm not sure what the 3rd one is) and each attribute is listed with dice. In the example I saw, the test required you to roll one surge to succeed. I'm not sure if that's the case with all attribute tests, but it definitely doesn't have to be as you could be required to build up to multiple successes (multiple surges, which can be done with different rolls or all on the same roll), or you could have tests that require damage symbols, or combinations of multiple symbols. To me, this makes for a much wider variety of not just skill levels, but skill tests, especially with different dice having different symbol distributions. So a skill of 1 Green die might be different than a skill of 1 yellow die, but they aren't necessarily stronger or weaker than the other; it just depends on the test being made.
  5. This is one of the more interesting features, IMO. "better" is subjective. It's now also more complex. Remember that LoS (just as all other rules) are just models for attacks, and there are trade-offs with every different model. (I'm not necessarily disagreeing as I think it does improve some of the fiddly cases, but I still think it's subjective and my thought on it is just my opinion.) I may have misunderstood this from the demo, but I believe it was just that the heroes collectively get 4, independent of the number of heroes, not one per monster group. This may also have been clarified somewhere that I haven't seen. I have never understood why this is considered a good thing in a competitive game. It just takes away from the replay value because if it's balanced the 1st time, then the heroes have an advantage the 2nd time around, or if one of the players is also an overlord with another group. It also puts rules interpretations squarely on the shoulders of a single individual, and we pretty much all know how many times rules questions come up in FFG games, and I doubt IA will be significantly improved in that regard. This is great for storytelling games that aren't competitive, which is perhaps what they are doing with the campaign mode and providing skirmish mode as the competitive aspect. It would explain some of the concerns people have with the heroes having an easier time in the quests than it looks like they should (in the Descent paradigm). Not necessarily. They may have felt that it was a better fit for the paradigm / overall system for IA, but that the current rules for Descent 2e are still a better fit for Descent 2e. You have to be really careful when looking at individual, isolated changes and not taking the whole system into account. (e.g. D1 LoS or stacking Blast in D2 would change things drastically because of things like the reduced map size.)
  6. But there are NO abilities that say both of these things, so there is no contradiction with rolling at the same time. It's a balance thing. Cards with the same effect but with different timing are not the same strength. Being able to see if you need to or not is a power boost. It would, but extraneous wording is something FFG has always had a problem with. It's almost always better to follow them literally, even if it seems that there may have been BETTER wording, it doesn't mean that the current wording is incorrect. There isn't anything in these paragraphs to imply that they happen sequentially, though. They are broken up because they are for different players and are different things that happen, but the rules in MULTIPLE places, specify that rolling happens at the same time. italicized text does not always imply "flavor". In this case, and elsewhere, they are examples, which should be treated as just as important as rules text, especially when they are so explicit about them. At this point, you're just being stubborn and trying to twist the rules to create a justification for your initial misunderstanding. Nobody's saying you SHOULDN'T do it the way you are doing it if that's how you want to do it, but especially with the examples and references that you've pointed out, there's no case for saying that the rules agree with you or that there's a contradiction. The only contradiction is when you are inferring things that are not implied and are explicitly stated to the opposite.
  7. In my experience, this won't change much with these kind of players. Any time you target her character (even if it's the strategically sound choice), she'll still likely feel that you're being mean.
  8. In the English rules, it's not "in addition to what's listed in the Quest Guide", it's "as listed in the Quest Guide".
  9. Be sure to post your answers on this thread: http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/863073/ffg-sez-thread-link-wiki-1st-post-unofficial-answe Though I would probably break them down by question so it's easier for the moderators of this page http://boardgamegeek.com/wiki/page/Descent_Second_Edition_Unofficial_FAQ to sort through them. (As opposed to all the questions together followed by all the answers together)
  10. Just don't read the title as Immobilized and instead think of it as "Restricted Movement". Don't change the mechanics. Done. I swear almost all of the "problems" with immobilized are because they named the card incorrectly, whereas if people just read the rules for the card, everything would be fine.
  11. Sorry to be a bit late to this, but this is because you've misinterpreted the errata because you don't have the original. IIRC, The original had Palamon with a Silver+Brown defense and the Errata replaces the Brown die with a Silver one. It may have been more clear if it said it replaced "Silver + Brown" with "2 Silver", but the result is still the same if you start in the correct place.
  12. You could always see if anyone in your area is heading to Gen Con and willing to sacrifice a little luggage space for you. I'm not familiar with this CSI you speak of. Have a link?
  13. This is so going to conflict with all the rules of Terrinoth style; preventing people from symmetrical fashion. A shame, really. In more seriousness, I can only find that this rule applies to playing Overlord cards, not triggering or equipping items, so you still *could* use two shields with the same name. Shield-bearing fashionistas rejoice!
  14. I find the first part of this paragraph surprising. I find that a 3 hero party team has a large advantage in this game. They have exponentially added to their skills, attacks, abilities, etc., while they OL has received modest monster upgrades (if any - depending on the traits involved). I think there's also a decently big difference between 1 player playing 3 heroes and 3 players each playing 1 hero. Mechanically, 3 heroes probably has the advantage, independent of how many players there are, but realistically, it's going to be more difficult for a single person to remember all of the abilities that every hero has and come up with the same level of strategy compared to 3 people able to coordinate and bounce ideas off each other.