Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About ronin3338

  • Rank

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    Fort Worth, Texas, United States
  1. We've played a few times, and we've got the mechanics down pretty well, but there are still a lot of questions. On top of that, the Far Harbor scenario seems to have some errors, and was much more of a pain to play than any of the others (so far). Has any kind of announcement been made for a FAQ or Errata? I hate having to look up a question in the forums in the middle of playing every time something comes up.
  2. Sadly, no… They do have ziploc bags for each army though, which is nice. I did have to use 3 snack sized ziplocs for the tokens, but I'm a bit of a freak when it comes to organizing my game pieces. Really, we don't miss the tray for storage, but the flat cardboard "graveyard" is a disappointment. I'm considering getting a shallow container to use for a graveyard so the pieces don't just pile up and/or get scattered. The ziploc bags would work fine for the invaders unless you're using the invader cards. Rummaging in the bag for units seems like it would be annoying during the game.
  3. I love the new bombers - hated the old jets. I love the new VTOLs, but I also liked the old helicopters. I like the new tanks, but I think the old ones looked… more… tank-y? I like the new APCs, never liked the old ones. I like the infantry from both games, but I kinda miss the partisans being in the crouching pose. Overall, if I swapped any pieces I would use the old tanks, but probably mix in the old partisans somehow just to get them on the board.
  4. That's been my experience as well. America is the toughest to play, requiring more long-term strategy and dealing with three fronts, and typically has the advantage. I don't feel the Invader Cards unbalance the game, especially given the city/resource requirements. That being said, there's always the option of playing without.
  5. Personally I don't feel they're overpowered, given the requirements on most of the cards are difficult to achieve. In our last game, each of the invaders only ever drew 3 cards, and noone played all 3. Invaders did win, but it was a knuckle-biter, and it could be attributed in part to some bad dice rolls on America's part, as well as drawing "Clear Skies" as on if his first partisan cards, and "Major Airlift" on turn 3. That being said, my group played the original a lot, and so far we all enjoy the new game. I think the Invader cards are an additional advantage, but since the game leaned toward America originally I don't believe it to be unbalancing. Besides, if you don't like them, you can always choose not to use them, or only allow their use by a new/handicap player to help them against more experienced opponents. I would like to see the FAQ come out and confirm what we've decided: If an Invader card is in play, but the invader loses control of a resource/city that is required, what happens to the card? We've ruled it stays in play, but does not have any effect until the requirements are met again, but perhaps the card should be discarded? Long story short (too late!): We like the cards and feel that it does not unbalance the game, and are a welcome bit of angst to throw at America.
  6. Parathion said: 20. If multiple figures with Fear 1 are attacked by an area attack, how many surges must the attacker spend to overcome the Fear ability - one for the whole attack, or one for each figure with Fear 1 that is affected by the attack? I would change that to: If an area attack would affect multiple figures with Fear, how must surges be spent? Are surges required to be spent for each figure with Fear, and if so, will the attack affect those who are "paid for" or does the attack fail if there are not enough surges for all of them. Alternately, will it suffice to spend surges to allow an attack against the figure with the highest Fear rank, which would then affect all of the figures?
  7. In thinking more, I think I'd rather see an expansion that could be added to any (vanilla) Descent game. I'm thinking of an expansion that has generic indoor and/or outdoor encounters. It would have a "room" tiles, maybe with a centralized large one, and probably no "hall" tiles. There would be cards to add to the OL deck to generate these encounters, and they could spawn either new monsters or monsters from whichever set/sets you are using. Also add a few new terran types. Maybe even throw in rules to create random dungeons/scenarios.
  8. Really? And here I've been licking all my map tiles trying to find out which ones are vanilla... Seriously though, the impression I've gotten is that when someone says vanilla, they mean the core game only, without WoD, Aod, or ToI. Like SoylentGreen said, context is your best clue.
  9. That's funny... I suggested the same thing in the "What would you want from a new expansion?" thread. I guess great minds really do think alike...
  10. I wonder if they would consider doing some expansions as an "add-on"... Instead of a whole theme, like Tomb of Ice, maybe they could do smaller expansions of, say, more monsters or terrain tiles. For example, if you had vanilla Descent, and just wanted to add some monsters to it instead of a whole new "campaign", you could get a box that has some of monster A, monster B, and monster C, with a master of each, the stat cards and spawn cards for the OL deck. For a terrain pack, you would get, say, Lava tiles in the different sizes (not all of them, but a few key sizes) and some trap cards to go in the OL deck. What do you think?
  11. That would be a good idea... I've seen books (kid's books) that stand up like an easel, maybe a format like that?
  12. Personally, I would have rather had it be spiral bound, so I could fold it over and lay it flat on the table. Even a softbound (which I would take to Kinko's to be cut and re-bound) would have been preferable. I would love to have it, but I can't see spending the money for a durable binding when I would prefer to fold it. Does anyone want to see more books like this, but with a more user friendly binding?
  13. I would like to see an expansion in a different setting. I chimed in on another thread about this, and I think the consensus was that a desert or jungle idea would be great. More monsters (suitable for the setting) and hazardous terrain tiles would be great as well. I'd also like to see more quests, and rules/guidelines for making your own. I know the editor is out there, but I'd some idea that it's reasonably balanced before I start playtesting.
  14. Dr Zesty said: They look very nice... can show photos if interested. Yes please!
  15. I wish that I could put up the map from the quest... As OL, I attacked with the beastmen, and held the archers out of normal movement. Even without Charge, the guardian was able to attack the slowest character, who lagged a little behind. They could not all run the next turn because the archers still blocked the way, which allowed the guardian to close and finish off the slowpoke. In both games, the heroes were not able to activate and use the glyphs in area 2, so the dead hero had to return through the starting glyph. Easy pickings for the guardian, especially since this was the weakest/slowest hero to begin with. We're thinking of house-ruling that either OL cards can't be played on the guardian, or he doesn't appear till the 2nd turn. Hmm... maybe he can't be killed by normal weapons, but if they do enough damage to kill him, he is stunned?
  • Create New...