Jump to content

Indalecio

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    792

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Indalecio

  1. Posted · Edited by Indalecio

    I´ll fill a form too so the app can have a tile to play an in-quest Blood Bowl match because that would be kewl.

    For info, nearly all heroes and monsters from D1E are already in D2E if you didn't know already, but I´m sure FFG can design a D1E mode on the app taking 6 hours to play out. Just make sure you´ve charged your device to full before you play, lol.

     

    Joke aside, people here disagreed with me when I said that the app could potentially destroy the game as we know it - although I don't quite believe this entirely myself - , yet people keep popping in here saying that the app should be made even more distant from the original game. I really don't know what we are talking about anymore.

  3. Posted · Edited by Indalecio

    I'm not so sure. It is true that this app in no way hinders the ability of anyone to continue to play Descent how is or her group prefers. However, it may suggest a new direction for the development of new content for Descent. For example, I assume overlord cards have no place whatsoever in this app. If development shifts to content created primarily for use with Road to Legend, it's conceivable that there will be fewer overlord classes developed. This app need not mean the end of overlord content (the recent release of "Mists of Bilehall" in fact shows a lot of love for the overlord) but it's a legitimate concern.

     

    I think this app looks interesting, and I'm looking forward to its release. I've had the experience recently of playing Descent with someone who generally doesn't enjoy the overlord/hero competition. He dislikes playing as a hero and waiting for everyone else to take their turns, and feels victimized as an overlord. I understand his frustration, but we see Descent very differently, and appreciate different things about it. However, I think he (and others in my group) could really enjoying playing Descent using Road to Legend.

     

    As I've said before, the overlord/hero dynamic is the best part of Descent in my opinion- it's what makes Descent worth playing (for me). This app could be rich, engaging, and fun- but its very reason for existence is to remove the aforementioned dynamic. Therefore, if (a giant, potentially unsubstantiated "if") this app represents Descent's future at the expense of overlord content, that's just unfortunate. If, on the other hand, this app exists alongside "traditional" Descent content, then it's a welcome realm of new possibility.

    Thought I´d just drop a like on that post but I think it deserves quoting once more for emphasis. Besides the issue I have with app-technology in board gaming, Zaltyre pretty much summed up my concerns about the direction given by that move from FFG.

     

    Road to Legend really appears to me as being a brand new game, and not a simple variant loosely listed in a floating paragraph at the end of a rules book. There are too many core changes to Descent to justify calling this a variant or game mode. The presence of the app itself confirms that fact. Therefore, FFG have basically put themselves in a situation where they have effectively branched out from the traditional D2E development, so that's a rift by definition in terms of future content. Even if there will certainly be crossovers. But barring all overlord-content from a given Descent expansion is like barring 40% of all content (assuming 40% hero content and 20% for the rest like the tiles and quest mechanisms). It will feed the app with tiles, monsters, and all sorts of things, but half the game is gone. Then sure, taken from the perspective of RtL, new stuff will be added, but that stuff will not be compatible with the traditional game (exploration, monster AI).

     

    It has nothing to do with players' taste. I largely prefer traditional because I find mind-blowing to ever consider removing the OL mechanism, but you may prefer RtL for the full co-op or exploration, or you want to play both then it's all fine and all. But you cannot deny that both "games" will compete with each other in terms of future content, company focus (support, testing, budget), and even the community will be affected.

  4. Posted

    Well I realize some of the later comments are addressed to me and my criticism, and I don't want anybody to believe that I´m not giving these comments credit even if I don't respond to each of them individually. I don't think I have much to add anyway, and the intention is not to gangrene this thread (although it's defniitely been impregnated with my evil presence, ha!).

     

    At the end of the day players are free to do whatever they want with their game. There is no code of conduct in gaming in terms of deciding what people should or shouldn't do as long as they´re having fun. You and your friends can play Descent dressed up like Wookies, play the "Alone" version of Descent (one hero, 4 overlords), or even design a conversion kit for your Hello Kitty figures (not a joke, did that for another game).

     

    So yeah, we´re not trying to stop a moving train here, reality is a ***** and you have to adapt or die. So I hope many players will find this app useful. I´m sure it will be well-designed and appealing to many. As an app as such (with no consideration to its application), I can see myself having fun looking at the options. Just not during our game sessions. Human interactions are not prohibited by the sole present of the app, but IT'S STILL NOT THE SAME THING. That's the last time I say this.

     

    I will still be around and play as much Descent as I do today, for the joy and despair of all :)

    Tintaglia and Gridash reacted to this

  5. Posted · Edited by Indalecio

    Indalecio, you might not realize it yourself but most of your arguments are of the slippery-slope variety. Furthermore, you mention that "you prefer" the old type of descent, which is a valid albeit moot point since it is your opinion alone. Your comment on this making some of the gamers "look bad" was a joke I guess.

    This small "dialog" was a joke indeed, but the point behind this layer of silliness was serious. It marginalizes the players sticking to the "old school" content or way of playing. Let's be clear here, the app is not just an accessory, it's going to be the most prominent component to the game, so new players will certainly see this as way more appealing than gaming without it. We might still be able to keep a community going playing the game as originally intended, but I believe a rift in the community will be created as a result of that. These are not only two game modes, these are different games, with - arguably - the same components.

    People are free to play games with apps for all I care. I think my point is valid regarding the fact people do not realize how this society is desperately lacking human contact. Board gaming is one of the very few havens around, and people like me or my friends have been litterally surviving thanks to that. Don't dismiss the value of having a moment of your life without the implication of the internet or a screen. Then sure, do what you want with that, we might have cultural differences as well.

    People are also free to play overlord-less versions of the game if they want. I think it makes most of the things that make the game interesting void, but again that's free to debate. I personally value integrity in game systems, because I relate to my own games, but again if people want to use board games as disposables then they´re free to do so.

     

    My tastes and personal preferences are not to be valued higher than the community's, but my opinion (which is again mine alone) deserves to be expressed whether people like it or not, that's what a community is for.

     

    You also mention that "resources might be shifted towards new game modes" (not a direct quote), this is akin to the slippery slope argument but it is also wrong since it's a luddite-esque argument and if the market demands it, the market demands it. If resources were to be shifted to electronic development of descent content, it's FFG's prerogative.

     

    I agree with that, but the community is also impacted by this decision. It affects us and how we perceive our hobby. It's no longer about buying a game regardless of who publishes it, it's more and more about what vision the company has, what the community looks like, the image of the publisher etc. My other joke about the rock star is a good example, for instance. We´ll probably be hitting cultural differences again, but I personally find hard to justify the use of products from a company that has been deceiving me. The normal approach would be to just ignore it and do something else, but Descent has also been a huge investment from my part so you can understand why I take things that affect my hobby so personally.

     

    I also think you are wrong in saying that it is a problem that less traditional content will be developed. Look at all the descent content out there, if you truly have it all and played it all then you shouldn't gripe about new type of content for, not in your words, 'other' players. Apparently these 'other' players aren't as privileged in having content suited for them, and they deserve it as much as you do. It's wrong to categorize it into old and new, or analogue and electronic players because us players looking forward to this app and more electronic implementation of board games are not closer to modern FPS gamers on a "electronic-analog scale" than you are. It's not one-dimensional. This is a niche, as are all board games, and for many of us we look forward to seeing our niche demands being satisfied.

    Again I do respect the fact people have different views or situation than mine, but many of the reasons exposed are just not obvious to me, as I have made the remark about before. I´m trying to defend the game and prove that the app is not needed. If people need a playgroup then the app is not going to give them that. If people need full co-op, then why do people want to play Descent at the first place? I can give recommendations about very good games at it. If people prefered D1E then why not playing D1E? If people want to play with kids or newbies then why don't their adapt their playstyle? And if people want an app for a game like Descent, why not playing a video game instead?

  6. Posted

    I don't think FFG is trying to split the community or even move away from the traditional Descent Board game resource wise. As far as I can see this app will only replace the PoD Coops that were probably a very cost unefficient product. (low development cost, overall medium price but probably very slim profit margins, because components were a high % of the cost)

    What do you think of these PoD Coops, did you feel the same about them? (concerning split of the community)

    Thanks for your input in general, I agree with a lot of what you said, but I´ll react to some of your input, as follows.

    I did feel negative about the co-ops too, although not for the same reasons. My issue with the co-ops is mainly that they are one-offs and have extremely limited content. I have other games in direct competition with them, and in the current state of things the co-ops don't live up to the same level of enjoyment I can get by playing these other games.

    Regarding the app again, let's say that I am skeptical for two main reasons:

    1- The way it is promoted. Implications on FFG's focus for the product line, and impact on the community.

    2- It's an app on a tablet. Big no for me.

    There is actually a third reason which is:

    3- Introduction of a new game mode, for the implications it has on the product line as originally designed.

    However I´ll admit this point is a matter of taste. Some players like full co-ops, some players clearly stated the app would allow themto play the game more often, so there is no shadow of doubt the app could be good for a % of these players and I´ll not try to dimiss that fact. If we can get more players to play the game WITHOUT deteriorating the quality of the original product (e.g. still release content and have an active/passionate community) then it's all good for us and FFG.

     

     

    The way I see it is that the Coops as well as this app rely heavily on the traditional Descent products to function and offer new interesting content. Also FFG imo won't make much on the app, as it features a free mini-campaign and a full campaign will be 10$. Even if these 10$ are pure profit, I imagine FFG making much more profit on every other Descent product (minus lieut. and dice pack), so it makes no sense to stop releasing them as long as they sell. So I really see no reason for fearing that this app will shift FFGs focus on the Descent product-line.

    I am more concerned than you are. They need resources to publish these app-friendly quests, they will also need people maintaining the tool (not only engineers) and answer questions. It's a % of the focus on the original Descent that is being moved to this new game mode.

    I also think releasing a game involving an app is more than releasing a new game mode. It's a statement made by FFG, a direction they are taking. If the app is popular, which I expect it to become, I don't see why FFG would find problematic to start releasing purely digital content, like tiles, monsters, or heroes. They might not need to release regular expansions anymore. This is where it starts to hurt the original game and its community. I would feel a lot more confortable if the app was promoted as a tool based on the physical game contents only, but the possibility for this kind of evolution can unfortunateley not be ruled out.

     

    So that's what the app is doing during gameplay (what the video showed): Showing you the room setup, when entering a new room and showing you the AI for the monsters once it's the OL's turn. Nothing else. You still roll the dice for the monsters, you still execute the AI by yourself, you don't need to input hero positions or anything the like (note how there is no hero symbol on the game board), it's just a very fancy questguide.

    I don't see what's appealing about this compared to drawing a card showing the tiles setup, or figuring out a monster's action by going through its AI action card. Like you said, the app is fancy, but that's really all I see here.

    Having a proper quest book feels way more immersive than scrolling on a screen to find the travel step or whatever. If it was Star Wars, then the app would make much more sense. Android, XCOM etc, these are good immersive worlds to condense on an app. But Runebound?

     

    Also the "no exploration" and so on controversies aren't real controversies anymore, because well you can still play Descent with exploration or without, with OL or without.

    This is absolutely a way to look at it. I only regret that the game loses some of its identity by making it that interchangeable.

    - Yeah we play Descent every week.

    - Oh the game with the app?

    - No we´re playing the original game.

    - Ah the version without the fancy app, without exploration and with the dude killing all your joy?

    - Yeah that's it.

    - You like to hurt yourself don't you?

    - [...]

    I mean, it sorts of make us look bad in comparison.

     

    I don't think that the app is the new direction of that game, it is an additionnal path that answers a lot of expectations and regrets. Where is the dungeon crawler flavor from my D1 ? why not doing a coop version ? why isn't any solo version available ?

    Because the game has its own identity?

    Because a decision was made as for how to make the game unique compared to the 100s of dungeon crawler around? Go to KS, there´s one there almost every week insipired by the greatest dungeon crawlers around, they´re ALL the same without exception.

    Because D1E was taking ages to play and had its problems?

    Because streamlining D1E helped FFG to get more people to play the game and removing some fat off an already complex game?

    Because FFG wanted to promote strategic decisions ahead of reaction to exploration?

    Because the role of the Overlord and the design around that role is one of the strongest piece of design in the board gaming industry? The Overlord (or bad guy) is generally making brainless decisions, or has very limited impact on the game overall. Descent brings life to that role.

    Because board gaming in essence is a social experience? Why would solo-mode get any form of priority? I get that not everybody is able to find a playgroup, I feel very sorry for these persons, but at the end of the day it's kind of incompatible with the very idea of a board gaming experience?

     

    why not bulding a campaign with all the stuff released ?

    OK this is a valid point and something I´ve also be wondering about. However the reason is simple, far from everybody here own all the expansions, making campaigns based on several expansions difficult to even use.

    But yeah that was my biggest complaint about the co-op expansions.

     

    At the same time i would love to play more D than i actually do, but to gather everyone once a week is quite an achievement. So when being less that 3 i wouldn't mind going for the app, particularly when the other player is more or less a newbie to the game.

    I play with three people including myself most of the time, two heroes per hero player and myself as the overlord. You don't need to be 5 players to enjoy Descent (although you need 4 heroes in my opinion).

    I don't buy the "more suited to kids/newbies" argument either. As I´ve said earlier you´re not forced to play cutthroat if you don't want to. The Overlord role is actually a great help in that sense, because he/she can help the heroes deciding over a course of action. he can participate in these debates, help the heroes find out what's possible or not, etc. When playing with newbies you can help them making informed decisions. You can hold a card in your hand because you want your opposition to feel like they´re achieving something, if winning is not the priority.

    The app does nothing in that regards. It doesn't help you to decide how to play, it doesn't help you making decisions, it doesn't back track if you made a mistake that everybody would find reasonable to replay etc.

     

    I see a lot of negative reaction here. It puzzles me as to why. Do people think this means FFG will discontinue regular updates, expansions, etc. In favor of digital content delivery? They would be killing their cash cow who's popularity has afforded them the opportunity to try something like this.

    I see it as pretty simple... if you have a regular gaming group and are happy with what is offered by FFG. Don't use it. Don't worry about it. Why should you? Just don't use it. FFG is not going to stop producing physical content. If that stops then there is no platform for the digital content.

    But I would argue that there are probably more consumers of Descent who are not happy with the amount of time or opportunity they have to play this great game than consumers that do. I am definitely one of those and I know there are more. Way more in my boat. Most people with families simply don't have time to game in a group. So any time that is available is usually spur of the moment and that doesn't mix well with getting a group together. FFG is seeing the trend that the market is taking. There are more people interested in our hobby now than ever but not everyone has the same allocations of available time that the old guard does. FFG is simply looking for ways to generate more enjoyment for consumers of one of their AAA brands. I hope they do the same thing for Imperial Assault!

    I fail to see how this app will make the game go faster or smoother. It's not even the intent? While it does technically replaces one player (the overlord), you do realize running him by the app will seriously dumb down the AI and make the game a lot more flat.

    Tintaglia, DAMaz and Straangeer reacted to this

  7. Posted

    I think the ability to choose between playing with a OL or without is such a good idea by FFG.

    This is especially great for kids and bringing new players into the game/genre.

    So kids or new players shouldn't learn to play games with competition between players?

    Descent is co-operative. It's just you have a person playing the opposition. Why would this concept be harder to handle in a board gaming context? Wouldn't a clever overlord (which usually is also the rules master) be able to tailor his/her choices and actions to the hero opposition, making it a good experience to everybody?

    mattflow reacted to this

  8. Posted · Edited by Indalecio

    Been trying to digest the news since this morning, but I am still chocked by the announcement. I am truly wondering what FFG are doing here again. What is their vision of this game? Is it to split the community in two, the old school guys and the new generation way of playing? How can you possibly reconcile that? Making the public broader by surfing the wave of trendy apps definitely feels like a purely commercial approach. Opening the wallet for data with a finite lifespan is not always trivial either.

     

    I´m going to ignore this completely, for the better of the tradition me and my playgroups have been trying to hold on to. Once every week we leave our computers, phones and tablets to come and sit down, chat, speak to each other and play a board game. That's not being old-school, that's being considerate of the environment we live in and try to take some distance sometimes from the omnipresent audiovisual. Games with apps is just the opposite of what we are trying to do. So yeah, Descent was the name of that experience and from now on we´ll have to try to ignore that FFG are trying to throw it in a completely different direction. A bit like some music star you have been a huge fan of until that person claimed something completely contrary to your beliefs in public. Yeah that's how I feel right now.

     

    App-based games are also cool the first few times, and then you realize that you rely on electronic to save your progress, roll your own dices, draw your own cards, then you need to update it, make sure you have power in it so it doesn't go poof in the middle of a game, etc. Cannot people do other things than click on things? That's my view of board gaming with apps, feel free to disagree for all I care FFG.

     

    Then, even worse than that, I find mind-blowing that because of this announcement we suddenly have a few major problems with the game, like: the role of Overlord is now controvertial. Exploration has always been lacking. We did not have any tool for organizing expansions and campaigns, etc. Seriously?

     

    I predict a Monopoly Descent next year and even a Yatzee version. Keeeewl !

     

    Now it's fine if people feel more confortable not having an overlord, but then play another game. Why would FFG need to feel forced to provide an overlord-less version of the game? I design a game and then I break it into pieces to satisfy the masses? Don't designers have any respect for their own product?

    KtuluCaller, Scharpes, Straangeer and 1 other reacted to this

  9. Posted

    About apps in board games, let us say that one of the reasons why I'm a board game adept is because I realized I could have a hobby which didn't imply me watching a screen all the time. I like that moment of privacy from the everyday, and I can also share it with friends or family without thinking about how many hours a day we would be sitting in front of a screen. Don't get me wrong here, I am not an anti, but I do try to avoid the exposure in order to preserve that tradition of having to go through a hardcover rules book, drawing cards or rolling physical dices instead of letting a program do it, etc. There goes the line for me.

    I also have a computer packed with tools and information about the game, so that's not incompatible at all, but at the time of playing none of this is with us, bar the occasional search for rules online, or a picture of a card that I happen to have missed to take with me.

    I get that the app does not replace human decision, but automating the execution of these decisions does replace an element of gaming that I personally enjoy doing.

    And if the app is the core of the game, like in XCOM or Golem Arcana, then I just wonder why not playing it as a pure video game. Back in the days there were these games with pre-recorded voices, CDs or even VHS and we all found them ultra cool, but it was kind of a hybrid experience, it often fell flat and game flow was not natural. I do think modern and well designed apps can remedy the issue, but they will still bring that automatisation I would have liked to see or even touch. Even having cards defining the AI of the monsters is nicer.

    Look at Loony Quest, which is essentially a video game made board game. You could have had an app showing the levels but no, they chose regular paper, and see how great the experience is.

    To be fair I have no idea what the exact scope of this tool will be so I am not trying to dismiss it here, although I do admit I have a skeptical eye in it.

    But yeah, they could have released this functionality in a complete different way. I don't see what this app would do that a regular game system wouldn't be able to. Except the difference is that having it inside a black box that is the app sorts of kills many discussions about rules and mechanisms. It's easier to maintain an app than to provide new rules, but players won't be able to choose which rules they want to play with. So there are some pluses and minuses about that.

    About exploration, I was persoanlly not seeking it nor did I miss it. There are other games around doing it very well. Exploration is not a bad thing per say, but it conflicts with the idea that descent is a strategy game where objectives are laid down before you start, where you can plan for doing things etc. that to me is what made Descent interesting compared to these other games.

    leewroy reacted to this

  10. Posted

    Well the name Road to Legend is such a great name anyway so I'm not surprised they use it again, especially since it carries the value of a great product since 1ed.

    I think it's great, but I won't be using it. I love the role of the overlord too much to give it away.

    Then I try not to think too much as for how much this evolution of the game will damage the existing coops, but there is no shadow of doubt that it completely obsoletes them.

    I personally am not a great fan of apps in aboard game, as it replaces human elements of board gaming that makes the experience enjoyable. But it's definitely in line with the modern trend board games are taking.

    Volkren and Straangeer reacted to this

  12. Posted · Edited by Indalecio

    Yeah, I agree with you that at least, using plot decks would not swing the balance in one way, unless he doesn't do some insanely stupid things (e.g., trade XP for Threat and then not use cards). However, as a hero player, I'd probably insist on also putting rumors in, in order to counterbalance the boon for OL (maybe only those from the H&M packs).

    I guess this is also specific to our playgroup. We're playing with friends as heroes against my wife who is an OL. And she plays to win, no, she plays to win. Like, trying to optimize every single monster move and attack and taking eternity to activate a single monster group. And also, unfortunately (I think this might be a national trait) but the story part doesn't get valued a lot in our playgroup, so I have hard times reading aloud lore parts with guys hardly hiding smiles etc. So therefore I don't think that our group would benefit of the thematic component either.

     

    We used to skip the fluff completely, as FFG hasn't directly made it easy for us non-native English speakers with their choice of word, and to be honest the story is just like any other kind of high fantasy (e.g. nothing new about it). However we recently started to force ourselves to read it systematically and so far we haven't regretted it. It gives an additional element of theme to the quest. No more "who's that guy" or "why are we here". I still don't think it's vital, but if you have somebody around able to read it in a way everybody can understand then it's all good.

     

    I play to win too, but I´m happy to lose as long as did my best :)

     

    Our current overlord is not gonna like the fact that his Bol Goreth deck dropped even lower. But since he has barely used any cards from it anyway, I think he knows its pretty bad! :P

    Well, at least your plot deck guide is going to make sure that doesn't happen again in future campaigns! :)

     

    Bol'Goreth is a fantastic figure and I wish his deck was better.

    I don't know if players will actually stick to the advices given in that guide, the ratings themselves on each individual card are not highly disputed, but the overall strategy is being discussed, and it turns out people may have radically opposed experience because of differences in playstyle and opposition. Anyway, this is still some kind of a review/adjustment period so I wouldn't consider the guide as being a true 1.0 until I have addressed most comments.

     

    I would love to see the same for the heroes from you. I've seen some stuff on BGG, but that was in the conversion kit era, and a lot of heroes have changed quite a bit since then.

    Same goes for the shop items - seen only base game overview, would love to see expansion items as well.

    It could all be done, with time and dedication :) Right now I´ll stick to addressing the comments regarding the plot decks guide until it gets some stability. After that I was thinking about doing a guide to overlord cards.  Bear in mind Overlord business is my area of "expertise" so I wanted to focus on these parts out of own interest. But like I said, one project at the time. And it will really depend on the community's reaction to my current guide, if people think it is useful then I´ll think about doing some more. If people on the other hand think the guide is only one man's opinion and does not reflect the community's consensus about the game then it might be pointless.

  13. Posted · Edited by Indalecio

    I have changed some if the ratings and shuffled around the deck rankings.

    In particular:

    - Belthir is a 3 stars deck now instead of 2.

    - Alric and Raythen got two stars instead of 1.

    - Bol Goreth and Rylan are now at 1 star instead of 2.

    - Queen Ariad is a 3 now instead of 4.

    - Serena is at 2 instead of 3 now.

    I am still considering the idea of dropping Zarihell to 2 stars and Kyndrithul to 4 stars, but I'm not sure yet. I don't value Zarihell' deck as good as some of her 3 stars counterparts, and I must admit Kyndrithul's deck efficiency has not always been at the top.

    Charmy and Atom4geVampire reacted to this

  15. Posted · Edited by Indalecio

    I couldn't just let this pass without saying big thanks to you, Indalecio. Sure was a hard work, and help a lot those who are not familiar with plot decks (myself included). :D

     

    Thanks man. It is always hard work playing Descent :rolleyes:. The writing took some time, but it was fun to do too.

    I actually tried to post a Review thread on BGG with the same link to the list. Thinking that the review was the list itself, but needed an anchor to the forum somehow. Well, it got rejected and all they gave me as an explanation was a pie chart, showing 50% poor structure, 20% spam and 40% lack of relevance :D And yes, that makes 110% total but that's probably normal :D

     

    Needless to say, I reposted it as a General thread instead. I was thinking it could give the list some additional traffic and possibly getting some non-FFG posters to come and comment.

    leewroy reacted to this

  17. Posted · Edited by Indalecio

    I was able to convince a group of heroes to give up on a campaign (not my intention) before the interlude by combining the Alric deck with the Infector class. They just had the worst time killing monsters and were drowning in infection tokens. Things might have turned around in Act 2 where a few shields per attack makes less of a difference- but they never got that far. 

     

    I had a few of these too in my older days. My players could give up just that easily. Patience is key :)

     

    This is for sure a great work, but makes me not wanting use/play against plot decks at all, after what I've read.

    I think the game is already too much of a complex system, in the sense that there are way too many variables to keep it balanced every time. I just don't want another variable which can WILDLY swing the balance one way or another. Especially, provided the fact that this mechanic was introduced originally to simply justify milking some $.

    The same would probably go for rumors - I'd rather play them as mini-campaigns/standalones.

     

    I totally understand you. However it is my opinion that FFG has done a better job at designing plot decks recently. The most recent decks feel more balanced and useable. Great abilities also cost more, but the decision is still yours as for using them or not. Nothing is "broken" as such, but it also comes down to you as for evaluating if ability X is worth price Y. If you keep triggering bad abilities at great cost, then it will help the heroes a great deal because of these fortune tokens.

     

    Concerning balance, purchasing cards does not affect it if you don't plan on using these cards. If the game strongly favors you as the overlord, then you can well choose not to play a card, after all, if you really wanted not to push your edge to a point where your opposition would just give up. However be warned, though, as your heroes might not be as concerned as yourself, they will most certainly buy the cool gear and get these uber skills at some point. Why wouldn't they? Your evolution curve is far from being as good as your heroes, so you are very likely to appreciate the extra help later in your campaign in form of these plot cards. Deliberately choosing not to pick a plot deck is a setback and the decision is also irreversible.

     

    Then I would also say that D2E is already a complicated game even without the plot cards. If you´re playing an already complex game then adding plot cards is probably not going to increase that complexity by a great deal. Thematic-wise a plot deck also gives a face to your Overlord. I mean, it's not like you are your agent or vice-versa, but it gives some theme to the overall threat you represent.

     

    Wow, great work Indalecio! Nice presentation as well. :)

     

    I'm a huge fan of Basic I as I feel it is a much more reliable deck than II (indispensible cards like Dash and Frenzy), so my rankings would be different than yours.

     

    It is a testament to game balance that Basic I and Basic II both have their admirers. I think it largely comes down to playstyle.

     

    However, that doesn't detract from the good insights and advice. I agree with most of your individual card rankings too, even if the 'overall ranking' would be different for me.

     

    The biggest difference is Bel'thir. I think he has a great deck. You highlighted all the cards that make him so good and rated them high, so I don't get the '2 star' rating. Yes, he has plenty of bad cards, but most of the decks do. Really, my rating is based on how good the good cards are. It doesn't really matter if there are awful cards.. just don't use them.

     

     

    Thanks mate.

     

    The ratings refer to the deck as a whole, but a deck with very good cards in it will hit a higher rating even if half the cards in the deck are crappy. Mirklace's deck comes to mind, just to give an example. However I take the threat economy aspect into account, and also things like if cards interact with each other and so on. So if you only have two good cards in the deck then you won't go very high on the rankings. I sort of value decks giving you several good effects, giving you some flexibility.

     

    I fully respect that yourself or other players would come up with different ratings at deck level, although I think many would still factor in the fun in their review, which I think is not relevant for this type of analysis. So I´m expecting some big fans of Rylan Olliven to come and dismiss the whole list because their deck landed last on the list :)

     

    Regarding Belthir in particular, I agree that the fact I value Basic II as strictly better than Basic I affects my rating on this deck. Other factors are the low number of really good cards, and the fact the base card is a bad one. There is also the fact that you depend on card draw a lot to be able to trigger these effects. the vast majority of all plot cards are situational, but with this deck you are very exposed to card disruption and luck in general. We could discuss if Belthir deserves a 2 stars or a 3 stars (nothing is final on that list), I don't have decimals so it could be that I´d give him 2.5 and value him higher than his peers on the 2-stars scale, but what made me opt for this particular rate is the fact all 3-stars seemed superior to him.

     

    Nice work, very interesting read! I'll have to hide this info from my heroes!  :P

     

    But I have one question, you state:  I would also give two tokens to the same person instead of splitting them.

     

    It was my understanding that you have to give the fortune token to the hero with the less token, so how is it possible to give the two token to the same person, except if the other heroes already have a fortune token (and in this case, splitting the token or not wouldn't change anything)?

     

    Thanks a lot.

    Yes you are correct, I don't know what came to my mind when I wrote this. I meant what I wrote, but I forgot the fact other hero players would also have theirs. Ah well, I will change it, thanks for pointing that out.

    DarthButchbrune reacted to this

  18. Posted · Edited by Indalecio

    Obviously I´m expecting a lot of similar reactions, which is why I also strongly advise to read the introduction on top of the list, for the readers to understand my reasons behind the ratings.
     
    Now this is the thing: I cannot possibly know about your particular skill level or playgroup level, nor do I know about your own playstyle, the choices you usually make when playing the game, and so on. Your ratings could be different than mine based on your own playstyle, taste, and whatnot. So what I´ve done is that I have set the fun factor aside completely (although I do sometimes mention about how fun a card is, but it would never be reflected on the ratings), and I then came back to what choices and strategies usually maximizes the Overlord's choice to win an encounter. It does not mean Dragon's Greed or Skulduggery would perform badly 100% of the time, but what I mean is that they are strictly worse choices than other decks at the time you make that choice. You simply don't know yet if the cards in Dragon's Greed can go off during the campaign. It's a gamble you take, as opposed to other types of decks where you more or less know already that they will perform okay regardless of the situation.
     
    Then I´m not going to give much credit for a card with a suboptimal effect just for the reason that in one situation occuring once every blue moon said card would kill me a hero and net me the quest. You cannot think like this. As the Overlord you cannot afford to invest for the long term, every card has to matter right here right now, and your resources for aqcuiring them are scarce. The same applies to plot decks. Sure, you can invest wildly in cards you´re never going to use, but the threat could be used to trigger the cards that really matter.
     

    I dunno, when I did a playthrough with Dragon's Greed, it was quite powerful. Giving Huge Monsters Health and attack bonuses while making them immune to Pierce makes them serious time eaters. Sure you can pick Golems, but if you don't want to?


    Well I gave some rather good/average ratings on many of the cards in this deck, and by definition this deck is one of the best at helping these 2x2 and 3x2 monsters you are using during a quest. But my problem with that deck as a whole (this is important), is that hero gear completely outclasses the small boosts given by these cards, outlining again the benefits for using small monsters instead of two fortresses of a monster. Large monsters do have their uses, I´m absolutely not saying that you should avoid them when picking your open groups, but a boost on a small monster group is by nature more efficient than a boost on only two monsters. It's mathematical. If you´re playing blockade encounter after blockade encounter then you surely will have a use of these Pierce-immune and defense-enhanced monsters, but heroes will also find solutions to your ever-recurring strategy. And if they don't, then they´re probably not that good, or unlucky on the item cards draw. Dragon's Greed gives ultra-localized boosts also so they are less obvious to capitalize on, while other decks like First Legion for instance spread the love to many more figures. Dragon's Greed is also an expensive deck, so that automatically reflects on my review. Giving away re-rolls to the heroes also increases their chances at defeating your supadupa-huge monster. Then if your heroes aren't equipped at the task then sure, no wonder why these cards can be effective for you. But we´re back to how well your hero players handle this deck, which I believe is actually quite easy to shut down completely if picking the right skills/gear, and strategize around mobilty to get the objectives done instead of forcing a kill on a big monster. I´ve also seen master Golems go down in three attacks at beginning of Act II, so putting all your eggs in the same basket might prove unsuccesful.

     

    Many of these decks could work better than advertised on my list. However the crux is that you have to make your choice as for which deck you would want to play BEFORE knowing if all factors making your deck a well-functioning one will show up during the campaign. This is where there is a huges distinction in my rankings, as my highest ranked decks don't care about that at all, they are good regardless of situation, and the good cards in them are universally good, and cost efficient. So sure, Dragon's Greed could potentially perform better than Burning Ambition for a given campaign, but the choice of picking the former would still be worse than the alternative of playing the latter. That's what the list is intended to demonstrate.

     

    Then like I said, I strongly encourage all overlords to test all of these decks for their own appreciation. However if you want to play competitively, then you know when you are making a mistake by taking a low-impact high-risk and high-situational deck.

     

    Still I (and the group) enjoyed it much more than Merick's plot deck for example :)

    I should make a disclaimer about our (beloved) Belgian readers and their crazy tastes in matter of plot decks ;)

  19. Posted

    How dare you! :D Skulduggery was one of the better decks I played with so far :P

    Touché :D

    I wanted to give this deck the review it deserved, lol. Anyway, besides playing the deck "for fun" (I don't think much fun is to be found there but anyway), playing it to solely counteract Treasure chest is just a bad reason in my mind. Give the TH his treasure chest and pick a cool deck instead. More fun for everybody :) otherwise it's like Magic where you side in your countermeasures, but the game is not exactly enriched by it..

  20. Posted

    I have now compiled a guide to plot decks on BGG.

     

    I wish I could have done it here instead, but the Geek List format on BGG clearly overshadows the forum possibilities here on FFG, so it was not that hard to decide which one to opt for. Being able to comment on each individual item on the list is really useful. Adding new items to the list is also very easy instead of having to reserve posts for future content and editing all over again.

     

    I stated the background and context of the list in the header information for your information, so I won't reiterate it here, but you are very welcome to make comments on this thread if it suits you.

     

    Link: https://boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/205588/guide-descent-2ed-plot-decks

    Zaltyre, player1812282, Scharpes and 3 others reacted to this

  21. Posted

    Take a Sip - Universal Hero Skill (0 cost)

    Take a Sip does not require an action.

    Exhaust this card to take a sip.

    Put a Booze token on your hero sheet.

    If another ability or effect would allow Take a Sip to be interrupted, then treat the 10 closest spaces on the map to yourself as Water spaces for the remainder of the encounter.

    Starting with your own skill cards, roll the attack dice for every word on the card until you have rolled as many X results as the number of Booze tokens on your hero sheet.

    For each X rolled, ignore that word when resolving that skill until the end of the game session.

     

    If your hero sheet ever contains 30 or more Booze tokens, whenever you would put a damage or fatigue token on your hero sheet, take two of these tokens instead.

    If your hero sheet ever contains 60 or more Booze tokens at any time, then treat the 30 closest spaces on the map as if they were Hazard spaces. Your hero is defeated and cannot re-enter the game for the remainer of the session. Also, put an Infection token on your hero sheet.

     

    Refresh this card whenever another hero player exhausts the Take a Sip skill card.

    Refresh this card whenever you roll the X on the attack dice.

    Refresh this card whenever you lose an encounter.

    Refresh this card whenever you are first to act during the heroes round.

     

    Remove all Booze tokens from your hero sheet at the end of the session.

    Zaltyre reacted to this

  22. Posted

    Cry Havoc does not state "whenever Belthir moves", the attack effect is only valid during the movement imposed by the Cry Havoc action.

     

    If you gave Belthir the Ravage ability (to attack twice per turn, using Frenzy or Onslaught), then you could interrupt Cry Havoc's move to attack a figure in the middle of that move, before resuming your movement.

  23. Posted

    It's hard to see where the line is with this. Because how do you define "for your own purpose"? I have a lot of files on my computer that I made myself, some of them including scans of cards, some of them with some written information (sometimes full paragraphs are copied) to help me maintaining our campaigns. I have never shared these files through an internet platform, however what if I gave one of my player a copy of some of these files? There is only one copy of the game shared between the players in my group (well, it's mine, but my players won't buy the game since they can play it wth me). If I decided not to be the overlord in the next campaign (against all odds, really ;) ), could I give my overlord files to that player without breachnig the copyright?

  24. Posted · Edited by Indalecio

    If someone thinks for too long and you get bored, my advice would be: start talking about other topics than the current game like you'd do at a dinner table ("Have you seen the latest Star Wars" or whatever). That way, you don't get bored and you might even throw your opponent's concentration off. ;)

     

    That's the radical opposite of what I would be suggesting  :D You need your players focused on the game at all times otherwise going off to some unrelated topics all the time will inevitably drag your games by a fair deal. I´m not saying you should slap a player for making a short break to mention about the Star Wars movie (this said do it if you´re the overlord, and do it twice because it's SW), but you need to move on at some point. I mean, 4-6 hours is incredibly long. For a campaign-based game you need to be able to chain the quests faster otherwise your campaigns will take many months to complete. If you complete a campaign sooner then it means you can play a new one faster and explore new combinations. Being stuck on a neverending campaign doens't give you the same experience.

     

    Then sure, if you can aford these 6-hours long sessions and can play many times a week then why not, I can respect that. But I don't think D2E was designed to be one of these long dungeon crawl games like D1E was. The shortness of the encounters is part of the blueprint for D2e.

    Ispher reacted to this
×
×
  • Create New...