Jump to content

dementia13

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    24

  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Posts posted by dementia13

  3. Posted

    How do you access the older archive? I keep Googling around (and searching in these forums, but all forum searches are useless) but nothing comes up. I remembered getting an email a few weeks ago about how to update my old submitted quest, but I can't find it in my inbox and all the obvious search words aren't bringing it up.

  5. Posted

    I would love more new material for Descent... as long as it's quality stuff.

    I remember all the people burned by the Quest book that was put out over a year ago. My group was also very disappointed in the poor testing that went into Road To Legend - we spent months playing the Sorceror campaign only to get to the end and realize they could just snipe the mirrors from the hallway and they were in no danger whatsoever.

    I love Descent, but it's very clear to me that the people making it aren't interested in putting out a quality, well-tested product, so until I hear that there's something new for Descent that's really good and well put together, I'll hold off.

    But negativity aside, I'd love a new book with quests in it. No new boxes are necessary. We already have tons of material. Just need new, inventive quests. Then again, I guess I should just put my money where my mouth is and make my own...

  6. Posted

    This is such a disapointment. I was very much looking forward to this product and I couldn't wait to buy it. I saw it in my local (Toronto) store yesterday and was about to pick it up, but had to leave so I decided to come back later. Then I came to these forums. Guess what I won't be buying now?

    Honestly, I'd love to assume people are just being sticklers and that they're overexaggerating, but after the obvious and blatant flaws in Road To Legend and after the general lack of support and/or proof-reading I've seen in FFG products, I can't help by think the worst. That all of the above is true. That several quests are buggy if not impossible to play.

    Really, FFG, what is going on? You have an entire legion of people here on the forums who would have been happy to proof read this thing and play test it FOR FREE (and sign wavers, I'm sure). As far as I understand there should be no excuse for releasing such a buggy and incomplete product.

    I'd love to buy it. But I won't until I hear that there's a significant errata that fixes what should have been a complete product.

    Lastly, guess how this makes me feel about Sea of Blood?

  7. Posted

    Thanks for updating this thing - it's very helpful. 

     

    While I'm glad we got an update to the FAQ, I'm disapointed that FFG seems to have ignored most of the questions forum members spent a long time putting together for them. 

     

    Yes, I'm happy for what we've got - but I think we should have got more.

     

    Nevertheless, thanks a lot for keeping this thing alive!

  8. Posted

     We encountered this problem in our campaign. Yes, it seems you can just stack comets close to your keep, thus, totally lobotomizing the heroes for the final keep. This is lame. I didn't do it, and I have yet to buy anyone's argument against it - there's a difference between balance and poorly planned mechanics, in my opinion. 

  9. Posted

     Hey folks, 

    You're right, it WOULD be a good idea to play it first before commenting on it - it's just that when I looked at it and saw that they totally removed all the starting clues, I figured it would be quite difficult. After all, using clues for re-rolls is very helpful.

    This reminds me of some of the scenarios in the previous league. The poor grammar and poor mechanics of some of the earlier scenarios led me to believe that there was one person writing these things at FFG, not testing them, and not giving much thought to how they would work or how much fun they would be. 

    Essentially what I'm saying is I don't want to waste time on a poorly planed and designed campaign by one dude who's more interested in just getting these things out there as opposed to creating a well-rounded and enjoyable experience. 

    HOWEVER, I am hopeful that on this second go-round FFG will get it right - it sounds like this scenario isn't as tough as I assumed, and I'm hoping that it's a reflection of what's to come. 

    We've had much more fun with the game just playing a straight Kingsport or Goat of the Black Woods than those last few scenarios. As long as the new scenarios are adding to the play experience and really taking advantage of the time you invest, then I'm down. 

    Maybe we will give it a try tonight after all.

  11. Posted

    Hey folks,

    Just saw the new scenario, and to be honest I'm not looking forward to playing it. Don't know if our group will.

    One of the major put-offs of the previous campaign was how INSANELY difficult the scenarios got. While I agree there is a fine line between "challenge" and TOO challenging, it seems that this scenario, like many of the previous ones, clearly crosses it. 

    On the one hand, yes, it's more of a sense of victory if you win, but in little bit of time we have alotted for Arkham, I would much rather have more fun playing regular games than getting discouraged by impossible scenarios. Why not instead of trying to make the game "more challenging", try to make it more fun. Include new, imaginative ideas that don't necessarily just make it more difficult? My vote is to up the fun, detract the difficulty. 

    Anyone else agree?

  12. Posted

    Any thoughts on The Word of Vaal?

    In our last campaign my heroes insisted that this item should work through a closed door, but I said it wouldn't. I can't recall the exact wording on the card, but it does make the issue somewhat ambiguous.

    Speaking of, is Word of Vaal okay to use with Dark Charm? That is to say, Vaal specifies "enemies", so when you Dark Charm a hero who has it, do his allies suddenly become his enemies, and are thus valid targets?

  14. Posted

    Wow, thanks a lot Thundercles. I'm sure Kevin Wilson wil greatly appreciate such an organized and easy-to-read list. Kevin, please keep us posted on the status of the FAQ, even if it's a simple, "I've seen your list and will get to it when I can." Just want to make sure all the hard work everone is putting in will actually go towards improving the game. Thanks!

  15. Posted

    - Sorceror King's Keep - Final Room - Mirrors can be sniped, OL has no recourse
       The heroes can (and will) simply sit in the hallway and snipe at the mirrors, easily destroying them all without ever having to enter the room. This neuters what was otherwise a fun final battle concept. Alternatively, if they get locked in the room, 8 mirrors seems a bit much (when the Avatar can do a Battle action and attack twice). By way of suggestion, what about forcing the heroes into the room, but only having four mirrors?

  16. Posted

    Thanks for the response, Kevin. Also, thank you for confirming that RtL got the play-testing that it required. Yes, I understand and can certainly forgive problems that slip through. My main concern was whether it had been play tested at all.

    Corbon, thanks for that detailed breakdown - it sounds like you've got quite a killer party on your hands. I suppose it comes down to your group's playstyle, but my group never found it advantageous to rush into a room, as it would certainly mean at least one dead hero (recall that the Sorceror King makes Skeletons very deadly). Nevertheless, perhaps we should try the "rush into the room to prevent spawning" in the future? Note, we have not been playing with AoD, so maybe that makes a difference?

    Lastly, Paul Grogan, thanks for starting up the new questions thread - hopefully this will help streamline the process for Kevin, and make it so that the largest issues are addressed.

    Thanks all!

  17. Posted

    Agreed, Xandria - I just don't get why FFG isn't making better use of their community when it would be done for free, it would help improve their product, and it would invite more enthusiasm for the game.

    As for some of the issues above, why was CB unbalanced? Here was our scenario: it was late in the game, early in the Gold phase, and because all my four cities were seiged my Lieutenants were chasing the heroes. We got to a point where two Lts were AT Tamalir, waiting for the heroes, with the other two able to get there in a turn. So this meant that I, as the OL, could choose to battle them four times in a row (assuming they lost). So if I want to "win" (i.e. following the rules strictly, and not asking if something is broken) we reasoned that I could easily do the following: fight heroes with first Lt, immediately I get to use treachery and pull my CBs. They can take one out of my hand with Earth Pact, but I still get one. I use this immediately to hurt a hero. Because all my monsters are upgraded, and becasue the Lts are beefy at this point, I have a good chance at winning. If I do, their turn ends immediately. Next turn, I do the same thing - take another item away. At this point, I can virtually neuter one hero, making him useless. That's a huge detriment. Turn ends. Next turn, again. And again. Basically I could have taken four items out of their party, essentially totally neutering two players or harming them SEVERELY, and there is nothing they could have done about it. This is why we house-ruled that Lts no longer get treachery - there's no point, it's overkill. We also house-ruled that CB can only work on equipped items, so at least there is a way for them to protect themselves.

    As for dungeons, obviously this comes down to how you play as the OL and what your heroes are like. I would consider myself and my heroes to be very advanced board gamers (having been very into Descent, Arkham, Twilight Imperium, and lots of others). In the Copper campaign I would get through my deck at least once each dungeon level (so three times per whole dungeon, sometimes more). The Sorceror King favours Eldritch, and I constantly had skeletons with Sniper out to kill them and force them to inch through the dungeon slowly. In Silver, usually 2-3 times, and in Gold, unfortunately, once max. However, that still leaves A LOT of room for CB.

    As others stated above, if the heroes are chasing down the Lts they have no time to upgrade and/or do anything else, and if they're spending all their money on maybe re-purchasing what I CB'd, they don't have money for anything else.

    It's unbalanced. And unfair. The latter is okay - it's alright for something to be "not fair" if the other party DESERVES to suffer the consequences. But if something is unbalanced, they are being punished for something out of their control.

    Which brings me back to my original question - and again, I don't mean to be insulting or hostile, but I'd love some sort of official response from FFG: was this game play-tested? If so, would you be willing to offer a bit of insight as to the process? If not, what can we do to help you fix this problem FOR FREE?

    My main concern here is identifying what I feel to be a serious problem, but one with a very easy and obvious solution, in the interest of fixing it in the future.

  18. Posted

    Well, this is something - I'm glad to see I've incited a discussion, but I certainly don't want to start an "us vs. them" battle.

    Big Remy, I see your point. And no, I don't mean to insult FFG or Kevin Wilson - I don't have any game design experience myself and so I would like to give them the benefit of the doubt. That the game was designed and tested in good faith.

    What I'm mainly getting at here is the idea of play-testing. While I agree 100% that it's crazy to assume EVERY scenario was tested FULLY, I do think at least one basic run-through should be mandatory. And for anyone who has looked at the Sorceror King's keep, it's very obvious what the heroes will do. And as I said originally, if they DIDN'T do this, but instead were locked in the room, there is no way that they would survive, what with me getting one battle attack from eight different sources. My original suggestion was just to force them in the room, but make it only four mirrors.

    Anyway, back to my original point, as stated below:

    Paul Grogan said:

    I'm still playing my first Descent campaign, and we have only played about 12 dungeon levels, but already some of them have been odd.  Take the Monastery (27) for example.  I'm pretty sure this also either wasnt playtested, or what is printed is wrong as I cant see any way that the leader ever appears.  Last session we played the level with Flametongue the Dragon.  The heros made it through the level without taking a single wound!

    Either way, if something is broken, maybe it needs the collective power of us to fix it. happy.gif

     

    The issue I'm trying to get to the root of here is: was this game tested? Were all of the maps/scenarios tested? Even once? That is where I've got a beef - I just don't get why this would be a problem, again, especially with such an active and friendly fan-base. When I said it I meant it - Kevin Wilson and co., my group would be happy to volunteer our time as play-testers. And I'm sure there are dozens of others that would as well - this would help you and it would be fun for us.

    I'm just wondering why the game wasn't tested. Or, if in fact it was, can we get some sort of explanation as to the process? Perhaps there were so many OTHER issues to tackle that certain things slipped through? Although, again, how some of these very glaring things slipped through is puzzling.

    I love the game and plan on playing it more - and yes, I agree that house-ruling is the best and easiest way to fix a problem, but some you can't anticipate until they're already done.

  19. Posted

    I just find it so puzzling that, by all appearances, this thing wasn't even play-tested. Not even once. What is that? I mean, I'm pretty sure that there is a play-test credit in the book, not to mention the fact that you'd think a company like FFG would have mandatory play-testing as part of their design process.

     

    If man-power is a problem, FFG, me and my group would be happy to play-test your stuff for free. Kevin Wilson, you out there? Care to offer some explanation? Honestly, I'll buy "we were rushed and had to get it out the door and couldn't test it", but what I just don't get is why you wouldn't want to solicit help from a very willing and active fan-base.

     

    Cheers!

  21. Posted

    Hey folks,

    So after nearly half a year of playing, we finally finished our fist RtL campaign last night - by the way, if anyone has the link to the old forums where people submitted their campaign stats (wins, losses, etc.) I'd be happy to contribute.

    The heroes won out over the Overlord (me) in the final battle. Overall we all seemed to have a fun time with the game, but we all agreed that the severe balancing issues in the early and late game were a major problem. We house-ruled to nerf Crushing Blow (only acts on equipped weapons, cannot be used by Lieutenants), and for future games will take gold costs away from buying skills and upgrades, as otherwise they will NOT be getting purchased.

    But the one big issue I wanted to discuss was the final room in the Sorceror King's keep - SPOILERS.

    Upon first reading the description, I got excited - here was a great concept that seemed to have been executed in a challenging, interesting way. However, as soon as the door was opened both the heroes and I discovered a big problem - there is no reason for the heroes to enter the room. They can just shoot at my mirrors from the corridor, then back out and get out of my LOS/range. And since I don't have a hand, there is no time element whatsoever, so they are guaranteed to wipe out all of my mirrors. Granted, I did get my first round of a battle action in - when they opened the door - but this nevertheless left me feeling disapointed.

    Granted, I am well aware that Descent is a VERY unbalaned game, but this one mirror "bug" seems really obvious. I really don't see how something like this could slip through - even a single play-test of the dugeon would reveal such a glaring bug.

    And on the other hand, if the heroes HAD been locked in the room with me, I'm still getting a battle attack each turn from one of EIGHT sources. That means that by the time they've destroyed all the mirrors, including my first round of attacks, I will have gotten at least six attacks on them, if not eight, and that is most likely at least two dead heroes guaranteed, and suddenly it's not balanced yet again.

    While I doubt we'll ever do it again, if we did, I would suggest we reduce it to four mirrosr, but make it so that all the heroes are teleported into the room and cannot leave, so that I can attack them.

    For the other Sorceror Kings out there, how did this go for you? Any thoughts?

  23. Posted

    Thanks for the comments all. 
     

    However, I do think the comet rule is pretty lame - is it within the "rules"? Sure. But, in my opinion, the rules are quite broken and unbalanced and in severe need of doctoring.

     

    I'm the OL in our game and I'm thinking I'm not going to use the comet rule for the final keep - what's the point? I can reduce EVERYONE's fatigue to zero right away - making the game a forgone conclusion. As for "they should have stopped the OL sooner", I don't buy that as I don't see what they could have done when I've got four lieutenants running around seiging cities.

    Thanks for the thoughts, though.

×
×
  • Create New...