Jump to content

Unknown X

Members
  • Content Count

    60
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Unknown X

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

428 profile views
  1. I did get to try out Gloomhaven myself and while there absolutely are certain elements I find interesting, I also have to say that in the end, I prefer Descent Coop. The Card system did positively remind me of games like Mageknight and thus, I was a bit surprised that in practice, I actually found it rather unsatisfying. Maybe it is because of the different levels of resolution, but in Gloomhaven, the different cards mostly made me feel annoyed by the degree of "gamyness" they entered into the equation. While there is a fun part to trying to puzzle out the most effective combinations of actions for your turn while keeping future turns in mind, it adds an amount of restriction that does not feel thematically appropriate. Descent gives me all those abilities with their fatigue and exhaust limitations and that really feels a lot like a classic RPG. The Gloomhaven cards kinda remind me of how many things in 4th Edition DnD just felt too artificial. I also feel that the "running out of cards" adds a sort of timer element that just does not really work well for me. It reminds me of the first Print on Demand Coop Modules for Descent as opposed to Road to Legend. On top of that, the looting also ended up being a lot more restrictive than in Descent with its search tokens. When it comes to leveling up, I am also rather reminded of how in Descent, many bemoan that the overlord only gets to add new overlord cards which he only can use so often - or at all. While Gloomhaven has a card system I do think I like better because it does away with a lot of the "luck of the draw", it has a bit of a similar problem that you do not add as much consistent stuff as you do in Descent. Of course, other things make up for that to a degree, like adjusting your attack deck, but, still, I am not quite won over there. ...also, I do think Descent is handling things better for NOT having the situation that one character can be out of the game while the others are still playing. And speaking of that, Gloomhaven really is odd to me in that much unlike Descent, the characters are rather similar in robustness to the monsters. Yes, you can use your cards to avoid damage, something we missed on our first playthrough thanks to the way the rules were structured, but that only exacerbates the issue of running out of cards. I also am not too much a fan of the restriction of only being able to start with certain characters. None of the Gloomhaven starting choices really appealed to me that much. And I am not so sure about the ones that unlock later. Things like the "consistent changes" in Gloomhaven, stuff that gets unlocked over the playtime regardless of who is playing also are not really that much my thing. It feels like it is trying to emulate a video game with unlocks in a way I am just not sure I really care for that much in a boardgame. In the end, there are a lot of really interesting ideas in Gloomhaven and I still would definitely play it, but, whether it is experience of play or the difference in the game, i definitely am having a lot more fun so far playing Descent. Most of all, I actually really do like the fact that Descent offers the option to play against a human opponent. Whether Road to Legend or Gloomhaven, playing against the game in the end just is rather "erratic". It is a bit hard to really plan, you are not even supposed to know usually what all the possible monster actions are. In contrast to that, I can actually try planning my turn in Descent with the possible Overlord actions in mind, so it is just more fun from a strategic point of view. Going forward, I would rather see Descent play to its strength, improve game balance and give us a fair and fun way to play both against a human opponent or together against the app. The current game has its issues, but I do not think games like Gloomhaven are what I would want to see being emulated.
  2. Absolutely! It seems to me that there is a misguided focus on trying to avoid possibilities of the players to "cheat". And that is completely missing the point that the entire game is build around the idea that players roll for monsters, make decisions for monsters and control many things. The game trusts you on fairly reporting your attribute rolls, on keeping track of monster health and so forth. If people want to cheat or cheese things, they can. So instead of trying to avoid that possibility, just focus on ensuring a smooth play experience. Nothing is as frustrating as having the game force a misclick or such on you.
  3. I am rather pissed about this change. We had to stop in the city because one player had to leave and we were all getting tired and I quit the game in the expectation that we could pick up where we left, shopping for items. We now will be wasting one week to get new items and NOTHING IN THE GAME tells you this is the case. If you make a change like that, maybe it would be advisable to make some clear indication? Sorry, but since the game already depends on trusting the players to be honest, there seems no valid justification to implement such a "balancing feature". Players can cheat anyway, so please rather focus on avoiding unwanted hangups like that where people get stuck!
  4. From what I have seen from people posting card text, the Elementalist should have immediately gone back to the drawing board simply based on the fact that he gets TWO starting skills, both of which outperform the starting skills of other heroes. Yes, they exhaust and thus are a bit less strong in one way than those skills that can be used multiple times or offer a passive bonus, but in return, they can get 1-3 pierce, 1-3 damage or 1-3 spaces of movement right at the start. Tide at least can be countered through positioning, but in return, it is pretty great in the app where it gets to damage multiple enemies without the usual nerf to multi target attacks. And the skills you get make it only get worse while having little cost in terms of actions and fatigue. Pretty much the sole weakness of this class is the fact that you want to spend 2 to 4 fatigue per turn, but that honestly is not too much of a problem given how many other heroes and classes offer fatigue recovery options. I think we already have too many unbalanced options in this game...
  5. A) Big monsters with their more powerful attacks are actually rather good in a game where heroes can boost their defenses to much more easily shrug off attacks from weak monsters. Overlord cards boosting single attacks or giving an extra attack with one monster make this even more a factor. One more attack with a shadow dragon with flame breath is devastating, one more attack with even a master goblin archer is not even close to that. B) Reinforcement usually completely favors big monsters to a degree that would reverse any imbalance in favor of large group sizes. C) High defenses actually are a significant deal. A hero with relatively weak attacks can still reliably defeat a goblin archer but might do no damage at all against a double gray or single black defense die monster. On top of that, many heroes actually get reliable options to attack multiple monsters at once. You may be able to use positioning to avoid blast, but try doing the same when it is whirlwind or anything else that gives you more freedom to target different monsters. There are also many hero skills that trigger upon defeating a monster and those are a lot better against large groups of weak monsters. So if anything, we need to help large monster groups with reinforcement. And yes, I would absolutely support rebalancing heroes and monsters in general. It does not really matter whether you can "still win against them", the problem is that many monsters, heroes or classes just outperform others without drawbacks. I rather get tired of always seeing the bard or always seeing Andira runehand, Elder Mok and similar or fielding the xth group of bandits, Hybrid sentinels or Giants. It is okay if certain classes or monsters are a bit specific to certain situations, like Razor wings for quests where it is about moving tokens or geomancers being great in some maps but not so great in others, but please do not give us stuff that is just plainly better than the alternative or so strong you would not want to go without.
  6. Official it sure is then, I still think it is a pretty bad way to handle it, both for the reason the in other instances, multi target / affected figure attacks get treated as one event for triggers and for balance reasons. Getting +1 damage under specific circumstances tends to be a very typical hero ability for heroes with relatively balanced stats, we get Brother Gherinn as another healer with that for example but also Heroes like Steelhorn or others are an example. It is very rare to have a need to position heroes that far apart that Andira's ability does not apply, so it tends to be 1 damage per monster attack without any way to avoid it safe for not attacking at all - which is usually not an option. Even though that damage is out of your own control, it tends to be a lot more extra damage than for other heroes with damage enhancing abilities. ...say, how come it is (at least without the conversion kit) almost always the healers who are a bit on the too strong side? Honestly, I think I may just as well remove the Hero and Monster Packs with the troublesome components, since it is pretty rare for any single pack to come with enough heroes and monsters that would be sorely missed. Why that interpretation? It seems really weird to imagine that a blast stops hitting other figures. I also do not think there is any oprecedent for an attack being aborted during the deal damage step for any reason. You effectively add something to an already rather strong ability. Why?
  7. Are you sure about this? Blast and other such attacks are all resolved simultaneously, you roll defense and attack dice simultaneously, I do not think there is a separate damage step. Also, we have a parallel case with Ancestor spirits. This is a card that is exhausted on the condition that monster(s) suffer damage through a class skill. It treats this necessarily as one single trigger. I think if you can on the one hand trigger a skill in reaction to several figures suffering damage simultaneously, it seems a bit weird if you would then treat each hero suffering damage as a separate triggering event for a similar thing. It says each time, if I am correct, I do not think those are two separate "times" for this to apply separately. 5. Deal Damage : Any damage not canceled by defense dice or other effects is applied to each affected figure. This is also one single step in the rules, so I think this is completely simultaneous. I honestly do not think it makes sense to have this be handled this way if Ancestor spirit and similar abilities all treat it as one triggering condition.
  8. My experience is that heroes will usually play extremely competitively. And that is the point of the game. It is not a Pen and Paper RPG and honestly I think that is exactly what makes it fun. Do not get me wrong, I play a lot of Pen and Paper RPGs, but combat tends to just be rather boring in comparison. It is usually much more focused on your build than your execution and I do feel that Descent manages better to make it interesting how you choose to execute your abilities, both as heroes and overlord. You can decide your turn order and carefully set up a great chain of attacks, you have a lot of tactical resources as opposed to the more strategic resources of most Pen and Paper gaming (where it is more about saving uses of your limited abilities and not like descent where there is the ebb and flow of fatigue, exhaustions and card draws in a single encounter) and that is fun. ...but you do not roleplay in combat here. The story and flair is for the narration that is mostly before and after. So you should do everything to defeat the heroes when they do everything to defeat you. The Overlord can do extremely brutal combos, you end up getting to choose tons of interesting monsters and if you want a persistent upgrade: Buy one Plotdeck with abilities that do not cost you threat to activate! Belthir allows you to power plotcards by discarding a trap instead, this makes you much more versatile. Valyndra allows you to power up all big monsters permanently, even though it is costly (but +1 damage on all attacks is very nice!). Trystaine Olliven gets three cards which do not cost threat, all of them focused on master monsters, one to get extra surges but risk the monster being defeated if you do not do damage, one to suffer damage to increase the power of an attack and one to activate a master monster during another groups activation. And all the Mists of Bilehall decks have a nice zero cost aility as well. The Infector and Enchanter decks as well as the Servants provide overlord cards that stay in play (though most of them still need to be drawn). There are a number of things that make the Overlord a lot more fun. And while the base set alone may be a bit less rewarding, you still get to choose a good number of solid monsters which can be used to good effect to make it harder for the heroes. Merriods can immobilize at range and completely shut down melee heroes, Shadow Dragons are actually very nicely defensive early on (if you do not have a strong ranged attacker, you will not have an easy time damaging them), Fleshmoulders can make big monsters last longer, Barghests can shut down fatigue based abilities at critical moments, etc. If you are willing to play as a competitive Overlord, you will easily completely shut down your heroes.
  9. While I think the wording indeed gives more credence to each turn being available, I think Elder Mok is still much too strong that way. Compare for example Quellen and Elder Mok. Both have the same 4; 10; 4; grey spread. Both have a recovery ability. Both are relatively easy to trigger (healing, which healers do almost every round and being near to a hero with fatigue, which is also very common). Now Quellen gets to potentially recover two fatigue, but with a much less easily achievable condition (a hero being completely fatigued), but Mok gets to choose whether he recovers life OR Stamina, which of course is very useful. You could also take the heroic feats into consideration for this of course. I think though it would be hard to make a case that Mok looses out here so much that he deserves a much stronger ability. There are very few things that mess with the Overlord's hand of cards, Mok gets to both see all of them AND discard one. And Elder Mok has a very easy time getting his ability to trigger several times. He can trigger it once when he heals another hero (only really hampered by occasionally healing himself) and each time a hero close to him rests, recovers fatigue through a surge or uses any other ability that allows him to recover life or fatigue. All of this really adds up. And with things like the Bard's ability, it gets even crazier, as it could now be two fatigue recovered each time he triggers it. Granted this is more a problem of the Bard just being a bit too strong, but I think Mok should not get this amount of recovery on top of a very strong heroic feat. With how some Healer classes work, I think it would be most balanced to have his ability working once per round (only on his turn just makes the apothecary an unworkable pick), but once every round is making him considerably stronger and I really, really do not like Heroes or monsters being made so good that other options are no longer worth picking. The more balanced things are, the more interesting choices you have. I would rather see all sorts of heroes being played than having Elder Mok being the healer in almost every game played (and that is not because he just is someone's personal favourite).
  10. The thing with Jorem Tolk... He is a very special case... Because he counts as neither hero nor monster, there is actually a lot of stuff you cannot do to him, including monster abilities and overlord cards (aside from those that specifically deal with attacks)... I really do not like the quest with him because of how confusing and weird those rules are... I am thinking if I shall make some houserules for my own games to upgrade Magus (Both the Word of... Cards also need a buff), I am just not quite sure yet how it should work... The issue is that it is non trivial to make them better but not end up also having to change a lot of other cards like Explosive runes...
  11. And this is why Rune of the Phoenix rather makes Rise Again from the Magus deck redundant... It is extremely useful in any Boss Monster scenario to the point that it shifts the difficulty of any such quest quite a lot. It makes me really wish they would errata the Magus Cards, because it is overall one of the weakest decks in the game... ^^ ;
  12. I want the following: 1) A hero collection with the remaining 12 heroes and maybe some hybrid classes. We have had content more or less purely for the overlord, so this should be fine as well. 2) A small box expansion with a healer and a mage and some more exotic location like ice and snow, desert environments or a tropical jungle, with monsters that fit the theme and an interesting new overlord class, maybe one focused more on persistent boni like the enchanter. 3) A final big box expansion with a seafaring campaign, adding the remaining hybrid classes and possibly experimenting with some interesting permutations to the base system that, unlike the tainted cards, can be used with more of the existing content.
  13. Best class decks, I would say Labyrinth of Ruin. Labyrinth of Ruin has a very good healer, the apothecary, who gets to provide "mini potions" that can be stored for later use, he can remove conditions, buff heroes and he also is a prety good attacker. The Beastmaster is actually the kind of "better necromancer" to a degree. A warrior with a wolf familiar, which is more mobile and can support heroes close to him. The wolf does not have the multi target capacities of the Necromancer though, so it is not like he is better in every regard. Though it is the only other hero class that behaves pretty much like the Necromancer. The Treasurehunter is very strong, almost too strong. He is the best scout in terms of searching and he has a very high single target damage output. Some of his skills depend on him keeping all the search cards for himself though, which is pretty much his only rather minor flaw. The Hexer is interesting, a mage focussing on cursing the monsters with disadvantageous effects, but this makes him slower than heroes like the Runemaster. I still would say that he is at least as good as the other two non core mage classes. Shadows of Nerekhall is a pretty close second though. The Bard is possibly the best healer of them all, the Shadow Walker is also very strong (my favourite scout class), though I would say the Skirmisher (pretty much a more speed and finesse versus strength and endurance focussed version of the Berserker, specializing in fighting with two melee weapons) and the COnjurer (a mage that uses illusionary doubles) are okay but more average. I would say, Shadows of Nerekhall is better overall, so I would maybe recommend it more.
  14. I think Mists of Bilehall and Chains that Rust are pretty good, despite the lack of extra heroes, for the very different campaign style it brings. If you want something more focused on the overlord trying to defeat the heroes instead of racing for objectives, it really fills a niche. Hybrid classes are also very nice to give you extra options and the monsters are interesting and useful, though very focused in terms of theme. Though I would say Nerekhall, which also offers a slightly different campaign style with some secret information (with some interesting guessing games when it comes to strategy) is likely the best for more campaign material. Plus, Nerekhall has good heroes, a nice new overlord class, okay monsters (though let me be frank: none of them are regular favourites outside their mandatory missions in our group, so I would not say that they are outstanding) and quite some interesting items. In terms of small boxes, I would say Manor of Ravens is by far the best for the overlord. Both new monsters are really good, it has two very strong and relatively unique overlord classes and a fun, though maybe a bit too overlord leaning mini campaign. I think Marshall in return can be a rather strong class, but NOT one for new players. If you do not know what you are doing with the Marshall, you may very well end up wasting your potential and fail to actually hinder the overlord at all, which is the big focus of this class. Bounty hunter seems okay to me, but I have not seen him in action properly... I think Labyrinth of Ruin is a bit lackluster for the overlord (None of the monsters is really that outstanding, the Arachyura is pretty close to the Merriod, better in some cases, worse in others, the Carrion Drake mostly seems to be good for being a slightly tougher monster for fulfilling objectives and carrying tokens with its five speed and flying and lackluster attackpower while the Goblin Witchers are highly depended on whether Curse is actually useful against the heroes and mostly shine when they can be paired with some other monster which allows the overlord to actually make propr use of their ability to move heroes), Basic II is interesting, but not really that big of a factor and I think the campaign is not really that well balanced, with missions like Fury of the Tempest being extremely slanted. The allies are interesting, but they can easily fall behind in power and can only be used here... The hero classes are almost all pretty strong though (Logan lashley is the only Hero though which is really popular, it seems), with only the Hexer not being seen as above average. Trollfens selling point are mainly the relatively good infector deck and the new classes, the monsters are weak and the campaign tends to be too easy for the heroes. Lair of the Wyrm has the great hybrid sentinels, the interesting but maybe overshadowed punisher deck, two solid heroes and classes, but a mini campaign / rumors that are the least balanced and thought out. Hero and monster packs honestly are a matter of taste, they do not offer as much content as other products, but they are very nice to round out options.
  15. Hmmmh, it does not sound then though like Balance was a problem there. Unless the finale somehow was totally onesided, this actually sounds like a good case in favor for acceptable balance. Hmmmh, you say heroes are too strong but at the first matches, the overlord seems to be pretty strong already? This, confuses me a bit... may there be an issue of the overlords just going too easy on the heroes at the start and then never really recovering? But even the base game plot decks are rather good. Belthir adds a lot of versatility and enhances already strong cards, the Baron is often said to be one of the strongest decks (but I think he has few if any zero cost cards, so maybe he is less good for beginners at least). I think the newer ones are overall more powerful though, at least in terms of zero cost powers. Erh, which class do you mean by "hunter"? Given that it is onefist (a warrior), i think beatsmaster could be the only class that at least somewhat fits. I assume you are not playing this in English? Though it does not sound like it is all about optimal teams then. Frankly, I think your overlords are doing something wrong if heroes can both exploit mobility AND kill the monsters quickly. There are a good couple of tough monsters which the heroes should take a good while to kill. Furthermore, the monsters should usually be placed so that heroes can maybe quickly decimate one group, but not more than that (and then they should be low on fatigue). Other monster groups should get to do hit and run tactics or otherwise force the heroes to expend the resources to get to them. You should be able to quickly defeat heroes as well and ideally make them waste actions and have even less fatigue. There are many monsters which, with the right cards, can wipe out an entire party if everyone is already a bit weakened (Hybrid sentinel targeting a low strength hero with critical blow and dark might can potentially do 7.77 damage on average to up to four heroes). This to me sounds like how a friend of mine plays the overlord, he rarely saves up cards for big combos and he throws monsters into the fray too quickly and positions them so that they can often be defeated way too quickly. Of course sometimes you can just have bad luck, but if it is that consistent, it really sounds like you may not be using what you have to it's best effect.
×
×
  • Create New...