Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by griton

  1. Do you see where I'm coming from? I'm not really trying to fight it because I think my way is better, it just seems like there was no reason not to include something that specific in the official rules text instead of just in the example text that shouldn't technically be required (though obviously examples do well to help explain a process).

    Yeah, also putting it in the basic rules section would've probably helped quite a bit.

  2. I still see zero reason to switch defense dices to attack dices when it comes to testing attributes. Why make such simple and effective mechanism complicated by using a three-symbol dice when there are already equipment pieces, skills and whatnot modifying the test result? Is attribute testing all of a sudden perceived as being too straight forward? What is wrong with it, I wonder?


    I largely prefer the simplicity of the defense dices over the presumed variety of the attack dices bearing in mind what the latter brings to the game, which is basically stone nothing unless you want to masturbate with the idea of another unnecessary calculation in the game. One of my core expectations of the game is for it to be relatively fast paced so I would really find it dreadful to be stuck on a freaking dice roll every time we need to calculate the dice pool of the target. This is one of these things, along many other points concerning IA where I can only contemplate and ask "why? what does it bring to the game?"


    It would also make decisions for purchasing/playing attribute-related OL cards impossible to make. At this point why not rolling a D6 to see if said card succeeded or not. That seems infinitely superior to slowing the game down for something that should remain a basic thing to do.  

    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. FAQ: http://boardgamegeek.com/wiki/page/Descent_Second_Edition_Unofficial_FAQ


    regarding nimble from the FAQ


    Q: Is "Nimble" an interrupt? When the Wildlander wishes to trigger "Nimble" when a large monster moves adjacent to him, must the Overlord first expand the large monster (like against the "Knight's Guard")?

    A: "Nimble" is considered an interrupt, and a large monster would need to expand before the Wildlander would complete its movement. As with other interrupts, it's not eligible to perform against large monsters unless the large monster has the space to expand in the first place.

    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. 9. Endurance is the new healing/rest mechanic. You can use Rest action to get back Strain (in Descent Stamina) equal to your Endurance, each point above heals 1 point of Health

    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.


    10. scaling and balance is now done by giving players more activations. So if the Overlord has more enemy groups then heroes the heroes get to activate more times

    11. there is no Overlord turn and then Heroes turn. The Heroes get to activate one hero and then Overlord activates one of him monster groups, then another hero activates and once again the Overlord one monster group, and so on until all heroes activate. After that the a game round ends. Still at the activation You can do 2 actions similar to D2e

    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".



    4- no X on the attack dice, so no miss


    That's weird. An attack should always have a slight chance to miss, unless it is clearly stated to ignore X because the attack is automatically a hit. Or maybe blasters and light sabers always find their way through? Makes no sense in Descent anyway.

    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.


    8- there are only 3 skills (in Descent there are 4: Knowledge, Might, Willpower, Awareness) and the test are now made with attack dice


    About using attack dices: for what reason are defense dices not good enough?

    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. 4. no X on the attack dice, so no miss

    5. on the defense dice are symbols that cancel surge and one symbol dodge that cancels all damage

    This is one of the more interesting features, IMO.


    6. LoS rules are better because now You need to trace two lines from one corner to two corners of the target space, the line must be strait an can’t pass through blacked squares (in Descent You needed only one such line to say that You see the target) 

    "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.)


    10. scaling and balance is now done by giving players more activations. So if the Overlord has more enemy groups then heroes the heroes get to activate more times

    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.


    19. all about the missions knows only the Overlord. He knows what is behind what door and what awaits the Heroes on every map. Heroes only know what objective to complete.

    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).



    I never played it, but people have told me that many of these elements were taken from Descent 1e (hidden quest information, threat, reinforcements, large monster movement, etc). That means that they tested some of these elements in D2e and found that 1e may have worked better.

    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. There are abilities that say "before defense dice" and abilities that say "after attack dice."

    But there are NO abilities that say both of these things, so there is no contradiction with rolling at the same time.


    Think about it one more step ... why would you exhaust your shield on an attack that missed.

    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.


    Wouldn't putting "before dice are rolled" for all of those instances reduce confusion and help streamline the game's terminology and language? 

    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.


    2. ROLL DICE


    The sub-steps of this phase are written as individual paragraphs:

    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.


    Now whats super kooky to me is the italicized example right below that that gives the flavor(see what I did there?) that it all 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. 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)

  8. This is one of the things that irritates me about Descent. The difference between which things are affected by Immobilize and which are not is very fiddly, and you have to read everything very carefully to make sure you understand how it works.

    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.

  9. I'd call that a successful quest and encourage everyone to try playing it like this, however, do note that the updated questbook also gives Palamon two grey dice for defence, instead of one. A change that may have been made owing to the ambiguity of the placement of Palamon's movement errata.

    It's also a bit strange that the extra grey dice for Palamon is still not included in the errata, and if I were to hazard a completely unfounded and likely incorrect guess, I might lean towards the idea that the second dice is not included because the errata by itself (suggesting he can move every turn) already gives Palamon too much of a buff.


    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.

  10. I would love to buy this, but its 14$ for the coop expansion... and 21$ for shipping to the EU and then the EU will add another 20% in taxes and probably another 30-50% in fees :(


    Not going to pay 50$ for this, its too bad this will never get to europe since its a print on demand.

    You could always see if anyone in your area is heading to Gen Con and willing to sacrifice a little luggage space for you.


    Like I said before, I was waiting for one of the places with whom I do an enormous amount of business to get it.  I have ordered it from CSI for $11.99 with no shipping charges.  Far better than $20-$30.  :P

    I'm not familiar with this CSI you speak of. Have a link?

  11. The only exception might be if you had two shields of the same name equipped at once. Because then you'd be using two cards with the same name in response to the same trigger (the one attack.) So, lesson learned: if you want to equip two shields, make sure they have different names. =P

    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! 


    My boyfriend and I play Descent with only 2 players (me as the Overlord and he usually uses 3 heroes). To be honest, I haven't found the balance that different from 3 heroes or 4 heroes. I think the strategy element is what makes it great, because instead of having two or three other people to bicker with about strategy moves, you only have yourself with your heroes. I guess it depends on the level of strategy both people are willing to put in, though. :)


    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.

  13. You aren't allowed to pick duplicate roles in your party, so there shouldn't be two healers. In a four-hero game, you'd have one each of warrior, healer, scout and mage.

    This is a common misunderstanding from reading the rules the first time, but it's usually because people confuse the archetypes and classes (as they are very related). But the only restrictions are:


    From the core Rulebook, p. 5, Under "Hero Setup"


    3. Choose Classes:


    A player may not select a hero class that does not match the archetype icon shown on the hero's Hero sheet. Furthermore, a player may not select a class that has been chosen by another player.

  14. Maybe I'll start with the heroes... maybe just the ones I like. :)

    That's always the tempting route to go, but I'd probably recommend starting with the smaller monsters you won't care about as much and doing your favorite heroes later, after your skills have improved.


    Perhaps I need to pay for one of you artistic Gods to fly out to Vegas for a few months, and pay you to paint all of my minis for me.

    I've known of people to do this, but expect to pay a good deal for it. It's a hobby for most people, and takes a good amount of time. Once you start calculating rates for skilled labor, also considering it can take far longer for most people than those specifically trained to just do fast batches on cheap minis. For this, I'd recommend just sending out a few at a time (in contrast to my above comment, probably starting with the heroes you want first).

  15. Right, but it still can't be used to grant a monster an extra attack unlike Frenzy can it?


    You can have extra action, or do another sweep with giants, or any action possible in fact


    Here's the reasoning: The rule you're thinking of where Monsters can only attack once is limited to "once during its activation" (See p. 11 of the core rulebook). Since this attack is happening on a different activation (Rylan's), it is no longer limited by this restriction.

  16. While it's a bit late for doing things the same way I do, is that after a player's first session, I allow them to call a mulligan on the campaign and trigger starting over. (Scrapping something where nobody is having fun is better than dragging it on)


    It definitely sounds like when they started the campaign, they didn't think much about synergy or attribute spreads. However you decide to continue, for the next go, I'd definitely try to convince your hero players to take a closer look at their party composition instead of just going with what each person thinks is cool.


    If you do keep going, your heroes should definitely try to consider whether attempting to win a quest is worth it or if they should just make the treasure hunt their top priority. And if they realize part-way through that they can't win, adjust tactics accordingly to make the most out of the encounter. 

  17. Every quest with the exception of the Interlude and Finale is designed to be playable as a standard standalone, an epic qquest or part of a campaign, read your own rulebook if you do not believe me.


    Yes, in a campaign, the strategy is of course more complex than just winning ONE quest, but in the default setting of a single quest, that indeed IS the strategy, all of it, so pointing to all those things is, frankly, a bit of a waste when talking about this quest as a standalone.


    I think you may have missed something and may want to tone down the animosity a notch and reread the rules yourself before telling other people that they need to. It looks like you've got a number of incorrect assumptions which are clouding your judgment.


    1. Maybe I missed something, but I can't find anywhere that Interlude and Finale quests are designed differently (compared to Act I/II quests) with regards to being used as standalone (Epic Play) quests vs normal (Campaign) quests.


    2. "Epic Play" IS playing just a single quest outside of a campaign setting. (Core Rulebook p. 19). It includes what I think you're referring to: the Basic Level of power (no extras), but also includes Advanced and Expert Level (more XP and gold). Playing any one-time quests outside of a campaign is considered "Epic Play".


    3. Campaign Play is the default option, not single quests. This is why all Campaign quests mention granting XP (instead of it being as a footnote under "If playing as a campaign") and that "Epic Play" is listed as an "optional rule". (Same place as above, p. 19)


    Also, try not to assume what designers intend or not, it usually just makes you look bad, especially if you start trying to argue it without anything to back you up. (Do you know for certain that the designers designed every quest around non-campaign play? I doubt it. Maybe they did, but none of us are one of them and can't be certain of that.)


    Lastly, saying "Read the rules yourself" without either quoting them or pointing to specific locations in the rulebook just makes it worse, especially when someone does read the freely available rules (there really is no excuse when they publish all the PDFs on this very website) and points out where you were incorrect, because had you looked it up in the first place in search of that reference, you might have changed your mind on your own.

  18. They way I look at it is that the OL is one person, whose thoughts (assuming you aren't like me and think out loud  :P) are always secret (or at least have the potential to be).  Why then, if they want, shouldn't heroes be allowed to conference in private?


    In fact, I have played many a time when 1 physical person ran all 4 heroes (because there were only two of us available).  Is that not, point in fact, no different than 4 people going in the other room for private strategizing?

    It depends on how you look at it. Public conversation can be the counter-balance to the fact that multiple people have eyes on the situation and can collaborate. A single player playing 4 heroes doesn't have that advantage.

  19. Actually, this is one of the things that frustrates me to no end about some of FFG's games in general, and Descent (First and Second edition) in specific.

    I have often thought that the biggest draw back to these games is (and please note that this is just my OPINION) the PERCEIVED lack of:


    1) Play testing - not just the base game, but all interactions between expansions, new classes, new skill cards, new shop items, etc.

    Keep in mind that very few companies make games to the same scale as FFG, which are often both heavy in theme and rules. If you look at the big picture, FFG is actually pretty good about handling a lot of eventualities, but you have to pay close attention to the wording of their rules. (Hence why so many questions can be answered on forums by people who do). Unfortunately the scope of their games just leads to not being able to catch everything.


    Yeah, they get some things wrong and have situations that do occur that are weird or ambiguous, but I think it's much more about the scope of the games being difficult to catch everything than them not trying.



    2) Defining key words - several of my group feel very strongly that FFG would benefit IMMENSELY if they would simply create an appendix to their rules which contained a section of Key Definitions of Terms.  For example, in Descent First Edition, there was a debate that existed for about the first three years of the game as to what constituted an "empty" space.  Eventually, and official FAQ ruling came down, but this could have been avoided by just defining the term up front.


  20. @Griton ... I know you have been an active participant, so please don't take this the wrong way  :D


    Welcome to FFG.  I can't begin to tell you how often, with some of their games, that they make rulings, then revise the rulings, then re-rule on the rulings, etc.  It can make your head spin.  All you would need to do is look at the evolution of FAQs as it pertains to Descent First Edition, and it would make you sick how often there were flip-flops, changes of direction, rulings on rulings, etc.  :P

    Heh, oh I know. I've seen it a bunch.


    And really, there may not be all that many situations where it matters too much. (A lot of the examples in this thread were hypothetical). I guess in the case of the Heavy Cloak, the Overlord wouldn't have to declare how they were spending surges before the Hero had to decide whether or not to use the Heavy Cloak.


    I'm starting to think that I may have been conflating "After Dice are Rolled" with "When you attack" / "When you activate", etc.

  • Create New...