Artaterxes

Members
  • Content count

    584
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Artaterxes

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday 02/20/1986

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    -
  • MSN
    -
  • Website URL
    http://-
  • ICQ
    -
  • Yahoo
    -
  • Skype
    -
  1. I disagree that Descent got more epic. I believe "epic" means character growth, and generally Second Ed had less of it. But both editions have much to offer. Let's compare the various modes of Descent, from shortest to longest, and their levels of character growth. 1. 2nd Ed One-Off: 30-90 min, no growth. 2. 2nd Ed Print on Demand Expansions: 1-2 hours, minor growth. 3. 1st Ed One-Off: 4-6 hours, moderate growth. 4. 2nd Ed Campaign (standard or app): 15-25 hours: high growth. 5. 1st Ed Campaign: 60-100 hours: extreme growth. So as you can see, simply add more time and the game becomes more epic. That's why fans of the original game say the one-offs were good because they always felt epic. Second Edition originally required the campaign to achieve growth, but later added PoD expansions for an experience similar to, but lighter than, the 1st Ed. There are many ways to play Descent and with all the content out there, everyone can find something. The trick is to remember that if you can't commit to a campaign, there exist options that offer some character growth in a shorter session - it just doesn't exist in the core box of 2nd ed.
  2. Try putting the Shadow Rune world map on the left and the Labyrith of Ruin world map on the right. Pretty cool, eh?
  3. I think Road to Legend favors the heroes on Normal and is balanced on Hard. With two heroes using the updated rule it seems as balanced (on hard) as 3 or 4 heroes. I always use random heroes with random classes, so I think the balance must be quite well done, favorimg heroes even more if you hand-pick synergistic classes.
  4. http://wallack.es/archivos/IAMsFantasyCardEditorSetup.exe This link should get you to the card editor. Sorry, a couple years late. Just noticed the post. Maybe others will find it useful...
  5. No, Relic *we* disliked. Well, I didn't. My "nongamer" friends did. I was trying to say that simple mechanics combined with a simple or generic setting makes the game accessible to anyone. A person new to board games likes roll and move in addition to an easy to understand sorceress or dragon or leprechaun. At least that was my experience. When I tried to introduce Relic, it just didn't go as well.
  6. I'll buy it instantly if they keep generic high fantasy. Talisman is so easy to play that everyone to whom I've showed the game immediately loved it. Same as Cosmic Encounter: generic aliens. A niche setting with identical mechanics would fall flat; Relic we disliked. So Talisman of Sigmar... will pass.
  7. That's a great way of looking at it. The apocalypse of the Harbinger is still ongoing and has not finished yet.
  8. I like the first alternate wording as well
  9. Just wondering if you like to use these expansions together considering, story-wise, Harbinger should be over once Cataclysm happens. I use both together (well I use everything together) even if it's a bit weird that another apocalypse is happening again.
  10. I myself do not use any because, in the past, I have used variants for other board games thinking I would improve the design. Then, I realized the designers did what they did for reasons I overlooked, and I ended up worsening the game. I've worked as a consultant on Talisman: Revised Fourth Edition and I understand the importance of having others playtest and check my ideas. Talisman is friendly to house rules and variants but I do not have the confidence to be the sole editor and playtester. Instead, I dedicate my time to improving the efficiency of delivering rules-as-written and making the game go smoothly. There is, however, a lot of good fan-made stuff out there.
  11. My suggestion is to have the most detail-oriented, hard-working player who has memorized the rules (usually the owner of the game) handle all the bookkeeping. In my group, if we play with all expansions, this responsibility is mine. As a result, I monitor the following: Remembering to move both the Reaper and Werewolf if a 1 is rolled. (I keep both sheets near me as a reminder.) Flipping the Time Card when an Event is drawn. (I keep the Time Card near me as a reminder.) Moving the Harbinger when an Event is drawn. (I keep the Harbinger sheet near me as a reminder.) Monitoring the current Lunar Events. (I keep Lunar Events near me.) Monitoring the current Omen, and remembering to retreat the Harbinger when an Omen is flipped. (I keep the Omen stack near me.) Drawing a dragon token at the beginning of each player's turn. (I keep the tokens near me and personally draw and resolve them for each player.) Keeping track of the current Dragon King. (I have all three Draconic Lord sheets near me with the crown and scales.) My "workstation" consists, therefore, of the Reaper sheet, Werewolf sheet, Harbinger sheet, Time Card, Lunar Events, Omen stack, and if playing with the standard Dragon ending, the dragon tokens, Draconic Lord sheets, and crown. Although I am doing a lot of upkeep, the game proceeds very smoothly. EDIT: Also, I do not play with all expansions at once with every group. With every board game in my collection, I begin with the base game only, and add expansions over time. I add the expansions in release order and ask the group how many they wish to add for the next game. This allows players to be familiar with the rules and vastly reduces the amount of questions when many expansions are added. It also allows players to see how the game has evolved. For instance, players may appreciate best the Harbinger and Cataclysm expansions after they have played the expansions as they unfolded through their development.
  12. While the original Road to Legend is a wonderful game, I think Second Edition does a good job at using a linear series of quests as a campaign. It's very difficult to replicate the sense of scale offered by the original game using the existing mechanics of Second Edition. Attempting to replicate the original would end up feeling watered-down. Rather than have Second Edition fall short, I think it should take a different direction and focus on creating good campaigns of its own style. That way, people can have choices between the two editions based on how they like to play. (Edit: For example, while I agree real-time map travel and strategy is attractive, it might be difficult to do this and keep the campaign a reasonable length.)
  13. Sorry, but I think my post is still relevant. I'll try to explain it in a different way. 2nd. ed uses a wider range result (2-6), tighter damage, single-use surges, and random defense. Combat results are much harder to predict, and so a hero or monster could fail an attack for many reasons: - insufficient range, - not enough damage, - too high defense. 1st. ed used a narrower range result, higher damage output, stacked surges, and fixed defense. So you could calculate more easily the combat outcome, and very often a hero would say, "Yeah I'll kill that monster in one hit." Since you could predict the range more easily, it was unlikely to get a range failure. Since damage was higher and surges stacked, you could easily roll enough to kill most monsters. So, instead of failing an attack for several reasons, usually it was just one: - rolling an X. The X was basically the only thing that prevented both sides from calculating their plans perfectly. And to be honest, it was a little unrealistic. Why would a hero, otherwise able to take down an ogre in one hit, suddenly miss? Why does his accuracy never improve? I believe 2nd. edition addressed this problem by inventing multiple ways to fail an attack. Missing due to the above three reasons makes the combat feel tighter in 2nd. ed. More realistic, I would argue. My point was that in 2nd. ed, since there were already all these steps taken to attempt to make combat more realistic, why on top of that, include a 1/6 chance of a critical miss? If additional chance for a miss is needed, perhaps it could have been done differently. For example, in Imperial Assault, as others mentioned (although I have not played that game), it seems an "X-like" result is available for many, but not all, opponents. Others have suggested missing an attack based on an attribute-comparison, etc. There are other ways around it. My point was that a 1/6 chance of a critical miss may not have been necessary in 2nd. ed in addition to the multitude of other ways to fail. However, as I did not design the game, I can't say why it was included. As for which combat system is "better," I think that's purely a matter of taste. I think we can all agree that having multiple or more realistic ways to fail an attack (as done in 2nd. ed) is more interesting than having an X result affect every hero and monster in the land.
  14. The X was originally used in Doom: The Board Game, and its successor Descent first edition due to fixed armor values. There were no defense dice back then. Both the heroes and the OL could strategically plan their targets because they could more reliably calculate the expected number of wounds to be inflicted. In addition, the damage and range were kept within a tighter probability range. Look at the blue attack die in 2nd ed. The results for range are 2,3,4,5,6, all with equal probabilities. In the original you could have 1,1,2,3,3 - much tighter. Selecting your targets and predicting dice results was much easier in Doom and 1st Ed. The X helped from keeping these targets dying all the time for both sides. In 2nd ed, the defense, damage, and range results are way more widespread, and it can be argued that the X result could have been removed in the original design of 2nd. Ed, but I wouldn't mess with it now.
  15. Didn't Cataclysm come out just before the cancellation notice? Did that game even sell enough to make a profit?