amoshias

Members
  • Content count

    196
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About amoshias

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday

Recent Profile Visitors

94 profile views
  1. The campaign is almost over? Act 1 isn't even over by the time you have 4 XP.
  2. Nerekhall was impressive in exactly one regard - the quests were really good. I was pretty unimpressed by all the other cards in the box - a lot of retreads, typos, and bad ideas. (Okay, there are a few good monsters.) So the idea of something that focuses only on the campaign seems like a good idea. On the other hand, I see a bunch of problems with this. While I don't really care about the tiles themselves, not using any expansion content means that there's a ton of other great stuff that they're not using. The problem with that - to me - is that it makes the other expansions (ESPECIALLY the small boxes) seem like a waste. They're adding a bunch of stuff that is NEVER going to get used. And I agree that the price seems pretty steep for what it is - at $15 it would probably be an automatic buy, at $25 I'll probably give it a miss unless the reviews are absolutely incredible. For $25, it would be nice if they provided something a little more elaborate than the big-box campaigns, if that's all you're getting - a larger, more branching quest tree structure, more encounters, something like that. If there were 40-50 encounters - including some small number specifically tied to other expansions - it would be worthwhile. Alternately - and I think this is probably the way that they should go - I would be fine if they upped the cost of the small-box expansions slightly, but included a full campaign. As it is, though, I just don't see a whole lot of value in Manor of Ravens or future small boxes; I actually wish I had only purchased one of them, rather than the first two. If they had a campaign, the value would be there.
  3. The conversion kit was a great idea when the game just came out - however, there's now a wide variety of monsters available, and most of them are much better than the conversion kit monsters. Virtually every worthwhile monster has either been a. reprinted or b. is Kobolds, who are so overpowered they shouldn't be used. The heroes are the same way; most of the missing ones are either really lousy or overpowered. (The overpowered ones being Aurim and possibly Nanok, as well as Elder Mok who was reprinted and is still massively overpowered even after a giant nerf.) Edit - it might be interesting to make a list... what are people's faves from the list of non-reprinted monsters, and why?
  4. I 100% agree with Charmy that the Treasure Hunter is overpowered. Unless there's a large experience gap between the heroes and the overlord, the TH upsets the game balance way too much. I've become a fan of the Wildlander recently, and it seems that skills like Fleet of Foot and First Strike synergize well with Tinashi's hero ability.
  5. They are differently worded abilities; different words mean different things. Moving abilities are not the same as move spaces abilities. If Charge said "move a number of spaces equal to your speed" it would work the way your heroes want; it doesn't say that. Honestly, you've got the explanation 100% down. It seems like a real reach that your players would even try to argue it. They aren't worded alike, why would they work alike?
  6. I don't begrudge anyone their right to play their games however suits their fancy - but I honestly don't get why you'd spend the money on a game like Descent and then use it to play what is essentially a totally different game.
  7. Nope; the secret room isn't adjacent to the token on the board, heroes have to use a movement point to do something special ("Explore") to get there. (Secret Room rules, LoW rulebook, p5)
  8. You're missing my point, Charmy. No, this doesn't nerf Bearded Axe into uselessness, that wasn't what I was saying. But you COULD do that - nerf it into uselessness, take it out of the game entirely, and large monsters would STILL be bad. The existence of one Act 1 weapon is - no doubt - a miniscule contributing factor to large monster suckitude. Removing it will make them suck .1% less... but 99.9% suck is still a lot of suck. As an aside, your nerf doesn't make it useless, but it does make it an overpriced, uninteresting weapon. Far from a minor shift, you've turned it into a weapon which really, really REALLY kills little monsters, doesn't do much against big monsters, and is more expensive than any other Act 1 weapon. No, it's not bad, per se - but why would anyone want to play it? You don't get any bonus points for dealing 6 damage rather than 2 to a Kobold. Sure, once in a blue moon you'll get a lucky hit on a tough monster that rolls badly on its defense roll and one-shot it, but why would you spend 175 for that? There are tons of better weapons in the 100-125 range.
  9. This seems like a real reach of a question to me. The master monster you place at the beginning is Goligeth. Why would that make any other master monster also Goligeth?
  10. You haven't picked large monsters because, on the whole, large monsters are bad in this game. Small monsters are almost always better. Nerfing one particular weapon into uselessness isn't going to change that.
  11. This is weird to me. I've always viewed Descrated Tomb as essentially a freebie for the heroes - one of the ones that they had almost no chance to lose. You may want to suggest to your heroes that they reconsider their skills and items leading to the finale if they they think that Desecrated Tomb is difficult. Or, you may NOT want to suggest that to them :-)
  12. The problem is that in order for FFG to do that with descent, they would also have to clean up a bunch of cards to use proper templating and to use rules words consistently. This is really the type of thing you need to do from the start. This kind of reference isn't just for the players, it's also for the designers, so that they don't use one word in one place and a different one in another, or use an undefined term on one random card. That being said, I am a big fan of Zaltyre's efforts so far. I think he's got a great grasp on the descent rules, and anyone who has time should look at the Glossary and help out.
  13. Wait... so they're treated as heroes for the purposes of hero skills, except they can't receive Valor tokens? How does that make sense?
  14. My idea is "don't use attributes in combat" :-) Simplicity is one of the most important virtues in game design.
  15. Two and three players each have some problems. Two players tends to be balanced towards the overlord, three towards the heroes. Four players is generally considered to be the most evenly balanced. This is for a bunch of reasons, but mostly because of the fact that monster group sizes don't scale that well. It's easiest to tell with large monsters; two players are expected to deal with one minion. When facing three players, on the other hand, the overlord only gets a minor upgrade - a master instead of a minion. Masters are better, no two ways about it, but the heroes get two extra actions a turn - the overlord likely gets a few extra hit points and maybe a better surge ability. Going up to 4 players, the OL gets an extra minion, which brings things back into balance. There are a lot of other balance things like this. In general, I'd suggest that you move all the way up to four players for the full experience and the most fun.