Any official FFG answer on some common players concerns ?

[Any official FFG answer on some common players concerns ?]

The 1rst edition too made it possible to play at 6 with the Clash of king extention (wich i have), and i just compared both maps (1rst and 2nd) and they are identical in every way (with the COK overlay on the south region added in the 1rst edition). So maybe they changed something in the setup. But anyway, my problem is not with being able to play at 6, its with being able to play with 4 as this is the number of players my group have. And i hate scenario/secret objectives type of play, so the Feast for crow is not for me. I want to play the real thing with 4 players. And also, for now the extension is only in english and being from Montreal in Canada, i have 2 friends who cant read english, so they would not even be able to understand their objectives cards, so this option is not even available until they translate.

 

But i think i solved my problem. I just found a remaining storm of swords extension on sale half price for 30$ (in a small less known store who did not even seem to know what a precious thing they had). I decided to buy this this instead of the 2nd edition. The Storm of sword supplement come with a 4 player map that is appreantly well balanced (although, they removed the boats for this map).  According to several poeple i spoke on Board game geek, the 1rst edition with its extensions is better than the 2nd.  I like the claims system that add more depth. From what i read, only one thing is completly new on the 2nd edition and its the tide of battle cards for wich i have no interest as i hate adding luck to that kind of game. The rest are minor changes (the widling cards are slightly different, the house cards also, and the consolidate power can do a welcom mustering in the 2nd ed). The other thing they did with 2nd ed. is combine chosen rules from extensions, but now i own all extension. So buying 2nd edition instead of just the 1rst edition base box is much better, but when you have 1rst edition extensions, the choice become harder.  

 

So my dilemna is solved, but i still find that when a subject come back that often on forums, it should be officially adressed.

 

Have nice war people. Now i will have to convince my group to let go the focus they have on Eclipse and Cyclade to really try AGOT board game.

[Any official FFG answer on some common players concerns ?]

Thank you for your input. I will try to hook my friends up with my copy of the 1rst edition and then if it work, i will consider buying the newest edition. I have the COK extension. If the storm of sword extension with the cool claim system and  with the balanced 4 player map was still available, i would probably go for this instead of buying the 2nd edition, but unfortunatly, its now a "collector" item sold close to 200$ on Amazon or Ebay.

 

As for reaction from FFG, like i said, i  cant comment as i havent played the 2nd edition. You may be right, maybe they dont have to say or do anything, Maybe the game is good enough as it is. I dont know. Its just that there are so many comments and critics on the 4 players setup on different boards, its not a isolated phenomena (unelss one person have time to impersonnate different users on boards), that i thought it was worth for them to take a look at this. I mean, Microsoft took notice of the numerous critics on forum about their x-box one features and they adapted themselves (ok, thats not a cool comparison. FFG is lot more oriented toward their players than MS. I was trying to point how some marketing keep close interest to forum and boards, but i respect FFG a lot more than MS. Not the best of examples on my part).

[Any official FFG answer on some common players concerns ?]

First, i dont want to restart the whole balance discussion, I know there are several threads about this already, but my question is still somewhat related to this.  

 

I own the 1rst edition of the game + Clash of king extension. I like the game, unfortunately, I only played 4 games because my good friend who play with me doesn’t like it. Now we have a new gaming group (the couple we where playing with moved to Europe), but every time I am about to convince the others to try Agot, my friend destroy my efforts with negative comments. Its frustrating. So I have not played enough to comment on the rules or balance issue anyway, but I am still concerns from the very huge amount of comments on balance on all forum (ffg, boardgame geeks, and others), especially if i want the first GOT game experience with my group to be good.  In each forum, there are 5-6 threads about balance on the subject of the Lannister and/or on the 4 players setup. Honestly, if it was one or two post, I would disregard and say “its players who don’t understand the game”. But it’s a lot of post with 75%-80% of interventions saying there are balance problems. And the ones defending that there are no balance issue use arguments that involve knowing well the game to know what should be done when. But for me, a well designed game can be throwned to 4 unexperienced players and they will all stand a equal chance without knowing the scenario. If it take a game to say "hey, this house have a edge due to his map position, lets adapt ourselves", then its not a good game design for me. After all, when you play the game of throne, there is only one chance to win according to Cercei  .  And these arguments always involve specific stragegy : create alliance to stop Baratheon and having Stark, Lannisters and Greyjoy do specific things. This way of thinking a game was acceptable with pioneers board games in the 80’s like Axis and Allies, but for  2^nd edition of a modern board game, its not acceptable. You have to be able to have a less deterministic way to deal with game balance other than knowing well the game and following specific alliance patterns.

 

I want to believe (Fox Mulder, get out of me) in this game. I like the concept. I so like it and I so want the next gaming experience to be perfect, that even if I went back to school and have very limited budget, even if I owned a underused copy of the first edition, I was ready to spill the 60$ to buy the 2^nd edition hoping the game would be improved, even slithly. But then, I read and I read all these comments about 4 players setup (wich is my gaming group average. We are 5, but there is always 1 person who cant make it).

 

So here is my question: with all these comments that run since 2011, have FFG designer made any comments? Whether its to defend their game and explain their design or to acknowledge a flaw and propose solution, are they any “official” answer ? I have to say FFG have excellent customer service for their products. When I bought my 1rst edition, I had some white troups missing in my box. Within a week after my email to them, I received the missing components in Montreal, Canada. Similar thing happened with my Warrior Knight game, I had 4 identical black knight instead of 4 different and within a week, bam my problem was solved. Very recommendable customer service here for the after sale on the material. But what about the other content, the game design ? Any official answer already posted, or can we expect one ?

 

I really want to spend 60$ to rebuy this game, but my voice of reason tell me to listen to the very numerous comments about game mechanics unless somebody at FFG comment on this.

 

nb : i read all the house rules propositions, but my head spin everytime with the "block this area but not this one" and "switch this house for this house". House rules that are too complex kill a game. I want to know that FFG have a though and playtested a elegant and simple solution.

[Thoughts about balance in descent]

I only played a couple of games, but all with 3 players total (so 2 heroes and a Overlord). I was on the heroes side. So far, we played the intro scenario and the fat goblin (not sure of the name, but the one with the 4 hostages). The OL made a mistake by overpowering his troops in both scenarios by reading the 3 players setup, but we still managed to win both, altough by a edge.

 

FFG create great games, i own AGOT the boardgame and war of the rings 1rst ed and Warrior knights and my friend own Descent. But they have a reputation for having problem with game balances (budget cut in playtesting ?), so i was not sure about balance in this game, but i think Descent balance is good enough.

 

What helped my cause :

 

1- a bit of luck. In the fat goblin scenario, the OL was moving the 3rd hostage when we won. So if by any luck he would have found the hostage on his first two tries, obviously, he would have won. My friend who play the OL rerun this scenario a second time with another group and he told me he won easily, but the first hostage he moved was the good one. So there is a luck factor that can give a edge to either the heroes or the OL.

 

2 - I have a really big experience as a RPG master and player. So i know a few things on min/max. In RPG (like the d20 system), some classes are more powerful, but the role play aspect create the balance. But in a competitive board game with no role play, where you cant "perform" or "bluff" your way out of a situation, min/maxing powers combination and party combination is very important. In d&d, the cleric is one of the powerful classes who can fight, cast and heal and Descent is no exception, so i convinced my heroe partner, a experienced board gamer but who never played any tabletop rpg, to play the cleric and i think i was right from what i saw. And i knew beside him, a "blaster" (a mage) would be a must. Altough i changed after for the ranger for flavour, but i had a easier time with the mage to be honest. So i am one of those that think that a bad heroe combination can give a edge to the OL. A thief/ranger combination in a 2 player game is hard to play. So in that sense, giving 4 heroes to two players give more chance to have a good combination, i have to agree with you. At two players, you have to choose very wisely your combination.

 

3 - As in all games with cards effect that you draw on a random basis, the balance is always hard to evaluate. Except for games like Dominion where everybody take their cards on the same source, games with effects cards make games really unpredictable. there will always be this one or two killer unbalanced card in a deck and a lucky OL will draw them. But thats my opinion on game with cards.

 

4- i switched one scenario with my friend to do the OL and borrowed the game to run it with my rpg group and i won all of my 3 games, but by a edge everytime. I must admit, i found it a little easier to be the OL, but not much. I had very good hands of cards everytime.  

 

 

Overall, i think its not perfect, luck and cards can change a game, but i find it pretty much balanced. Everytime, the winner had it by a edge. I agree that with 2 heroes, the choice of characters is very important and that some combination give better chances. So experienced rpg in min/max will understand how to get the best out of this. But i am still pretty impressed with balance on this game, something that FFG usually have problems with in other board games.