Jump to content

CaelanCross

Members
  • Content Count

    25
  • Joined

  • Last visited


Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    CaelanCross reacted to Julia in The Violinist's Personal Story   
    It's not in the rules, but in the latest FAQ, pag 37:
     
    Q: Several personal Story Cards require an investigator to place a Clue token on the card each time the investigator draws a certain kind of item. Is a Clue token placed on the card in cases where the card type is drawn but not taken? For example, if Amanda Sharpe is using the Curiositie Shoppe’s special ability, she draws three Unique Items and then purchases one. For this does she gain three Clue tokens or just one?
    A: It would count as only one. The intention of these Personal Story cards is that a Clue token is placed on the card each time an investigator draws and keeps a card of the appropriate type.
  2. Like
    CaelanCross got a reaction from The Professor in The Violinist's Personal Story   
    I just assumed that seeing as how she starts with 2 unique items and that would mean she'd succeed before the game even started
     
     
    Thx for the replies everyone,
  3. Like
    CaelanCross got a reaction from thitan in overlord so weak and errata beat up in a dead body   
    It's ironic that you would make a statement saying that "my arguments aren't rational or thorough enough," without actually addressing any of the arguments I have made or offering any points of your own about why I might be wrong except "I don't agree."  
     
    So lets take a step back for a minute and look at this rationally: the basic premise behind my complaints have been that "I do not find the game to be well balance" and have pointed out a number of reasons why I think that is... For Example,
     
    1) the rules are often vague and confusing, especially when it comes to movement, and can lead to very strange situations like heroes effectively teleporting into the "nearest available space," monsters getting flung half-way across the map, line of sight firing around corners and through walls, characters being able to move even when their supposed to be immobilized, and large monster performing ridiculous move-actions where they "swing their piece for extra movement," etc; but most importantly of all you can easily find yourself in a situation were a character has an ability you can do absolutely nothing about just because the exact wording of the text can lead to loopholes in the rules 
     
    2) the quest objectives are poorly thought out; my group has encountered many occasions on different maps were the result became a foregone conclusion after the first turn bc a specific character ability or monster choice can completely trivialize an entire map, the results of a previous map can make it next to impossible for a player complete their objectives, or just because the rules favour one side over the other the way they are written.
     
    3) campaigns can all to easily snowball out of control; if a player gets off to a good head start it can literally dictate the course of the rest of the campaign
     
     
    Looking back at some of your posts the arguments I have seen you make is that a) you don't think the that one side is more powerful than the other, b) that there isn't any consensus between players, c) that it is all a game of chance and d) therefore there are no balance issues with the game; is that right?
     
     
     
     
    I have never argued this point, I don't believe one side is superior to the other either, what I have said repeatedly in more than one thread that the problem with the game was that it was wildly inconsistent and that somebody was always dominating the opposing side.  The simple fact that there might be disagreement in the FFG community as to what exactly is wrong with the balance between players in this game does not mean that there isn't a problem, just that some people have only experience part of the problem and that is the experience that they are sharing with other people. 
     
    You are right that luck will always be a factor in a game involving dice, and I don't have a problem with a match climaxing with an all important die roll; it can be a lot of fun and add to the tension.  What I find frustrating about descent is that 70% of the time win/loss seems to be determined during the set-up not the game play.  
     
    Do the rules/objectives favour me on this map? did I pick that one character or monster that is perfect for this scenario? how much treasure did we gather up to this point? did I make a mistake it part 1 that I am still paying for?... these  are the questions that dictate victory in this game, not my ability as a player to adapt and overcome challenges or my opponent's ability to do the same.
     
    So with all of that having been said, has your group been having a different experience?  Have your quests been hard fought matches where you never knew who was going to win until the very last turn?  If not, maybe it's just a difference in our definitions of a "balanced game" means, because an equal number of overwhelming victories for both sides is neither fun or well balanced to me.
  4. Like
    CaelanCross got a reaction from AltWren in overlord so weak and errata beat up in a dead body   
    It's ironic that you would make a statement saying that "my arguments aren't rational or thorough enough," without actually addressing any of the arguments I have made or offering any points of your own about why I might be wrong except "I don't agree."  
     
    So lets take a step back for a minute and look at this rationally: the basic premise behind my complaints have been that "I do not find the game to be well balance" and have pointed out a number of reasons why I think that is... For Example,
     
    1) the rules are often vague and confusing, especially when it comes to movement, and can lead to very strange situations like heroes effectively teleporting into the "nearest available space," monsters getting flung half-way across the map, line of sight firing around corners and through walls, characters being able to move even when their supposed to be immobilized, and large monster performing ridiculous move-actions where they "swing their piece for extra movement," etc; but most importantly of all you can easily find yourself in a situation were a character has an ability you can do absolutely nothing about just because the exact wording of the text can lead to loopholes in the rules 
     
    2) the quest objectives are poorly thought out; my group has encountered many occasions on different maps were the result became a foregone conclusion after the first turn bc a specific character ability or monster choice can completely trivialize an entire map, the results of a previous map can make it next to impossible for a player complete their objectives, or just because the rules favour one side over the other the way they are written.
     
    3) campaigns can all to easily snowball out of control; if a player gets off to a good head start it can literally dictate the course of the rest of the campaign
     
     
    Looking back at some of your posts the arguments I have seen you make is that a) you don't think the that one side is more powerful than the other, b) that there isn't any consensus between players, c) that it is all a game of chance and d) therefore there are no balance issues with the game; is that right?
     
     
     
     
    I have never argued this point, I don't believe one side is superior to the other either, what I have said repeatedly in more than one thread that the problem with the game was that it was wildly inconsistent and that somebody was always dominating the opposing side.  The simple fact that there might be disagreement in the FFG community as to what exactly is wrong with the balance between players in this game does not mean that there isn't a problem, just that some people have only experience part of the problem and that is the experience that they are sharing with other people. 
     
    You are right that luck will always be a factor in a game involving dice, and I don't have a problem with a match climaxing with an all important die roll; it can be a lot of fun and add to the tension.  What I find frustrating about descent is that 70% of the time win/loss seems to be determined during the set-up not the game play.  
     
    Do the rules/objectives favour me on this map? did I pick that one character or monster that is perfect for this scenario? how much treasure did we gather up to this point? did I make a mistake it part 1 that I am still paying for?... these  are the questions that dictate victory in this game, not my ability as a player to adapt and overcome challenges or my opponent's ability to do the same.
     
    So with all of that having been said, has your group been having a different experience?  Have your quests been hard fought matches where you never knew who was going to win until the very last turn?  If not, maybe it's just a difference in our definitions of a "balanced game" means, because an equal number of overwhelming victories for both sides is neither fun or well balanced to me.
  5. Like
    CaelanCross got a reaction from AltWren in overlord so weak and errata beat up in a dead body   
    I think the above sentence perfectly sums up my entire Descent 2 experience so far... someone is always getting bent over the kitchen table in this game; the victim might change from day to day or map to map but it is always going to happen and despite what I have been "hearing" a few people say, I don't believe it's the result of luck or skill, it's just the way the game was made.
     
    Call me old fashioned but when I play a competitive game with my friends I want to see a hard fought match where "the best man wins" bc he was either lucky or brilliant or both, but in this game it seems like that between the silly mechanics, often poorly thought out quest objectives and mountain of variables with hero/monster abilities leading to potentially game breaking exploitation (i.e. OL card combinations letting them keep their whole deck in their hand or heroes earning 500gp a map) that the winner is decided before we even set up the board.  
     
    Maybe that works for some people and they don't mind waiting for their turn to stick it to the other guy, but it's just not a situation that I am finding to be very fun.
  6. Like
    CaelanCross got a reaction from Kunzite in How do I stop this B*tch?   
    And by that same token, if feats are meant to be heroic a villain's schemes are meant to be nefarious, and an OL hatches is schemes through his cards; plus, none the cards I have ever read just say "no, no you don't get a feat" it's "if I have the appropriate card in my hand that I purchased with xp to counter the party's abilities: roll an attribute test or I stop you," so succeed or your strength test and your hero gets his burst of adrenaline, fail and you get what I like to call dramatic tension  
     
    All BS aside, flavour is all well and good but game balance and well thought out mechanics are what make a game playable or not.  Whenever you have a character with an unstoppable ability that can completely change the dynamic of a campaign all on it's own, any sense of game balance just goes right out the window; especially in a game where there are so many other balance issues that it just can't handle the extra strain.    
  7. Like
    CaelanCross got a reaction from Kunzite in How do I stop this B*tch?   
    I do actually have access to the expansion but I choose to use the basic deck without even looking at the new cards bc it was my first time as OL and I knew the old cards from my own experience as a hero; maybe that was a mistake bc now that you have brought it to my attention I was just looking up the expansion and have just discovered a little thing called "Curse" 
     
    Thx Kunzite, the group I'm up against has crappy lore and zero ability to eliminate conditions bc the healer is a spirit speaker, so I'm going to check out any monster that can curse ASAP
×
×
  • Create New...