Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by DAMaz

  1. Very nice! 5$ is really not much (like 1$ per trail, so imo totally worth it even if you play each trail only once) and I'll buy it because of how many hours of fun the RtL app already provided to me while being mostly free. I appreciate the intention of widening the ways to play the game, yet I always found the draw of Descent being that combat is more like means to a different end and not the center of every action. While RtL so far completely changed this (minus a few stages in the Delve maybe), it had enough story and context to make the expirience richer than "beat up the bad guys", something I don't quite see in this DLC. Then again it is supposed to be really short, which might be advantagous if you don't have so much time and crave Descent. Can anyone with a little expirience elaborate how long these trails take compard to your typical RtL quest?
  2. thx a lot If you don't have your tiles sorted by numbers this speeds up the RtL setup significantly.
  3. If you play really competitive, there are a few heroes/classes I would rather not pick: Heroes: Ashrian, Grisban, Dezra the Vile Classes: Spiritspeaker Imo all the other heroes and classes are fine or at least viable. The strongest heroes and classes probably are the Liar of the Wyrm heroes and classes and the treasure hunter class, but I consider only the treasure hunter to be really problematic and bordering OP. If the heroes perform really bad it's alsways possible to limit your monster selection to thematic fitting monsters or not play your OL cards. You can also grant them more gold and/or maybe an extra shopping step if they are really unlucky with items or got a long losing streak and the quests start to feel one-sided and unwinnable.
  4. It's true, the geomancer is particularly strong, because he doesn't "waste" an action to summon a stone (as he gets an attack with the stone when he summons it). Just keep in mind that the bonus surges don't apply, when you are attacking with the stones (I did play this wrong as well). and yes the app is really easy (even on hard) and FFG shouldn't have put the hint that you are supposed to pick a synergetic hero-party on hard (this pretty much ruined the first Kindred of Fire campaign for me). Imo they should've just written that it's for people who allready know this game as well as what is actually different in this mode. Another way to up the difficulty is to force activate the monster-group that makes the most sense instead of letting the app randomly choose and play a little bit smart (for instance don't double move ranged units, or only move and retreat with ranged units).
  5. I really enjoyed the added setting, characters and a more immersive feel of the world because of all this text. The fact that it actually wasn't just a generic bit of flavor, but an interactive story made it that much easier to connect and care about the world, which was imo a bit of lacking in Kindred of Fire. I don't feel like the text was excessive and if you don't care about the setting, you can skip through the text anyway, it's not like the story is essential to the gameplay. I also liked that the story and choices were concentrated at the start and at the end of the quest, they didn't interfere with the gameplay, yet managed to portray a nice frame for what you are about to do and what you did.
  6. The truth is that IA is badly balanced as I found out on BGG when I discussed my frustration with the game on those boards. There is a thread on BGG that tracks the win% for all the missions and only 2-3 story missions and a few side-missions (including the introduction) feature a win-loss rate that isn't 2/3s to 1/3. Especailly if the Rebels win the introduction, they have to play 2 story missions that are lost with a chance of around 70%. Adding to that the IP classes are badly balanced as well. Subversive tactics is said to be the most OP deck, only getting managable in late game (when all your losses probably make winning unlikely) and Military Might, which is also OP, but only really starts to get imbalanced in the latter half of the campaign. Also BGGers run a few play-by-forums campaigns where people play the missions the 2nd time (meaning the secret information becomes a non-factor there) and it seems to be much closer this way. All in all IA is badly balanced and I think this game shouldn't be recommended for the core-campaign if you don't plan to GM this game (and play the game as intended), as long as there is Descent 2ed. If you want to play a fair game at the first go, you have to pick the least interesting IP class (meaning no choices in IP-classes and basically 2/3s of the IP content being unusable). The story-part of the campaign basically features one excact path that isn't unwinnable for the rebels, yet I even played the hero-favoring finale and won it as the IP in 3 (out of 11) rounds despite gifting the rebels XP and gold as if they won every mission and searched every crate (yes I played also with military might, because I thought only subversive tactics is OP). So if you respect the design-decision of secret information, this game has practically one fairly balanced playthrough that comes with an finale that is an automatic win for every decent IP, no class-choices for the IP and no second playthrough. I really don't understand how no review mentions this glaring problem with the game. True and not true. While there are no natural choke points in IA you can utilise like in De2ed, there are programmed choke-points also known as doors all the time. Doors can only be opened if a rebel is in the 2 spaces in front of the door. This means the IP places all his units on and near these spaces, requiring the Rebels to kill them. The Rebels can only prey to the dice that they kill the monster with their first action, so they can actually move onto that space before (courtusy of alternating activation) another enemy moves onto the space and the hassle starts again. True in theory, but in practice there is not much difference. All the large, massive and super-large monsters in the core set either shouldn't move (the Gunner), don't need to move since they are ranged, or are mobile or massive that lets them freely move through blocked terrain and whatnot. The only melee large creature (Nexu) doesn't only have 8MPs but also an action that let's them count 3 spaces and attack, basically being even easier to navigate than the Descent monsters even with the shrinking rule.
  7. Are we playing the same IA and Descent? In IA I as the IP had no problem dominating the Rebels every mission despite making intentional suboptimal plays in critical situations and giving tips to them constantly and rewarding them as if they won every mission and searched all crates. It went so far that I knew they can't win this after I read the secret information of the missions and the hero favoring finale was over in 3 rounds. winrate was 10-1 (The Rebels won the first mission). In Descent it always felt like the heroes can win, yet I always won the campaigns as OL in the end. Seeing how little the upgrade would be to a 3rd edition (from an aesthetical point of view) compared to 1ed->2ed and the fact FFG is updating all their Terrinoth products to the aesthetics of Descent 2ed, I don't see a 3rd edition coming anytime soon. Also there are no real structural problems in Desecent 2ed that would justify an update such as the Road to Legend campaign frankenstein's monster that Descent 1ed was.
  8. I second that. Plz bring back the old colors, switching between "default" and "FFG" does nearly nothing (it only darkens the blue of the header).
  9. Great to hear... I'm still wondering if I should give this a shot solo, or if it would spoil subsequent playthroughs with a gaming group.
  10. I still don't quite get why you don't just play on hard mode then... You want to see how far you get and want stages that are harder than the last stages on easy(normal)? then just play hard mode. I don't really see how this mode profits from being even longer (more stages) . To achieve a tougher challange, the difficulty shouldn't ramp up longer, but start at a higher pace in the first place, so just play it on hard.
  11. This looks REALLY good, the maps look like a clear step-up from everything I've seen in RtL thus far. It's so tempting to play this solo, yet it's so much more enjoyable with friends... maybe it has enough replay-value to play it more than once with all the decisions to be made? Also we haven't even finished the first campaign and we won't continue for a month... so what do you guys think, should I start this solo or fully enjoy this with friends in a few months? I think that's quite the strong party. Grey Ker is extremely strong in RtL and I feel like he kind of made what we played of the first campaign too easy (even on hard) for us, just keep this in mind and play a little faster to offset his power a bit, if you like being challenged.
  12. The 3 Heroes that he used was Grisbon, Roganna and Ashrian, cant remember the class that he used for each. I do remember however that although he liked Grisbon he found it hard to get him into the fight on a regular basis due to his speed. Even as the OL I don't like the 'blocking' tactic which I seem to use quite regular. For me, the 'double movement' cost of Imperial works better and makes for a more competitive game. I do like the idea of giving him more time at the start of the game to properly formulate a plan, we do that when we play games such as Axis & Allies etc so cant see why not for Descent. We are due to start a new campaign on Monday, I have Trollfens, Lair of the Wrym and Labyrinth of Ruin, any suggestions as to which one to play first? I read that the Liar of Wyrm campaign isn't that good. I would start with Trollfens or LoR wether you want a small or regular campaign.
  13. I really like your variant, especially for coop. For 1vsmany I feel that my playing group would feel to have a disadvantage if the OL can pick his choices completely freely and this would kind of suck out the fun of the game. Yet we naturally try to play every class and don't repeat heroes before we've seen them all except when we feel that we need another top tier hero/hero-class to make the party competitive. We haven't played Descent that much that there is nothing new to find out and expirience both gameplay and strategy-wise this way yet and I don't own everything Descent, so I guess having more control and agency in party composition without the downside of "seeing this kind of party for the xth time" makes us stick to the standard method without the feeling that it's getting stale. But who knows how long we are playing this and maybe sometime down the road we will try out your variant. ty for posting it in great detail!
  14. easily Nerekhall. The city-tiles provide a truly different setting and atmosphere to the more generic grasslands/dungeons (LoR, LotW, Trollfens), the hero-classes are extremely fun, the monsters are very unique and fun to play and the 1vsmany campaign is really good (introduces kind of hidden information mechanic) and now FFG is going to release a free RtL campaign for it. I also like Manor of Ravens' setting, mini-campaign monsters and the bounty hunter class as well as the new OL class. Apart from these it really depends on what you are looking for (new campaign, strong heroes & classes, specific campaign-mechanics, specific monsters, OL decks) The MoB&CtR expansions also look really good, but they lack new heroes, so it's probably not the best starting point for expansions.
  15. I'm very stoked, seeing how Nerekhall is my favorite expansion, as it introduces city-tiles and opens up the possibillity for city and sewer settings. It also helps that I really like all the monsters and hero-classes both theme- and gameplay-wise. The cherry on the cake for me is that this campaign is free, something I really didn't thought would happen again. All I can say is that I'm REALLY impressed with FFG this time, making two bold moves at a time (releasing a campaign for an expansion and making it free). Although I didn't enjoy the Delve that much (imo it kind of lacked the really thematic settings that feel like a part of a world, which is one of my favorite things about Descent), I'm really glad right now that I managed to give FFG money for their tromendous app-efforts for this game. I also really like the more RPG like vibe, with all the decisions and possibilities to influence the storyline FFG introduces with this campaign. This should manage to make the story-quests feel more connected and puts you more into the story. Way to go FFG! All this free content makes me feel less bad in having accumulated a Descent-collection that feels a little bit excessive to me.
  16. Imo the problem lies in that there aren't enough ways to get gold in the beginning of the game. Only a few chars can fght from the get go and thus even non-fighting quests beecome quite risky and/or maybe don't entail an efficient way to get your first gold at that point in the game. Yet without gold, you don't get more tokens and the fights won't become easier or manageable. A really good way against this would be some sort of machanism (maybe followers) you buy with trophies, gold and lore (1 trophy, 0 gold, or 2 trophy 1 gold, 1 lore) that also get you combat tokens and maybe other abilities corresponding to their cost. The combat tokens you gain by followers could count towards the token total (so that you can't get more tokens that way hence unbalancing the game).
  17. I wouldn't be concerned about Doom though (except for taking over D2 game-design resources as did IA). The big 2nd editions from FFG have always corresponded with a problem of the 1st edition that was in the way of their vision for expanding the game, as well as progress in gaming components quality. As much as I know of Descent 1ed, campaign play was introduced by an expansion and while it worked, it wasn't the cleanest implementation and also not part of the base game (thus problematic to base future expansions on this mechanic). Also the miniatures of Descent 1ed were much lower quality and thus problematic to mix with better looking miniatures. The same can be said of the maptiles and overall artwork. So FFG released a 2ed with campaign play at its core from the start, modern artwork and miniatures, more streamlined gameplay and more varied quests. The same thing occured with Runebound 3rd edition. Runebound 2ed was too long, had out of date artwork and expansions were kind of messy. So they revamped the artwork, built a system that had the idea of expansion built in and also introduced mechanisms that allowed for more decisions and options. Mansions of Madness 2ed, revamped the game to overcome the following detriments of the game: Set-up time, Set-up mistakes can ruin entire games, fiddly and time consuming systems and the need for a GM (as the balance didn't work quite out). Take Runewars 2ed in contrast: Nothing has changed, except they made it cheaper to sell and store and put in an optional rule that allowed for shorter games (yes they also added 4 mini-cards although they are not needed for this rule imo) So why is a 3rd Edition for Descent unlikely at this point in time? FFG is slowly updating their Runebound product family to the new style introduced by Descent 2ed. App-play (OL less cooperative play) works perfectly fine with the 2ed core game and existing and new expansions can easily add to this mode without alteration. Their new Runewars Miniature game (which is produced with their cutting edge mini-production quality) uses the excact miniatures and artwork of Descent 2ed (although they are a bit bigger) and these miniatures don't look out of place mixed with D2ed core minis (except for a few excpetions that got reworked though). FFG switched the Core-game Campaign one year ago, without going to 3rd edition (yet Runewars did go to 2ed with no game-play changes), which imo says something about them wanting to go along with 2ed for quite some time.
  18. From the rule-book Familiars treated as figures are not affected by quest rules or perils. When a monster is instructed to target a hero, tokens that can be targeted by attacks and figures treated as heroes are included as possible targets. For the purpose of targeting, if a familiar or attackable token does not have the statistic the monster is targeting, that familiar or token is considered to have a value of 0 for the corresponding statistic. I overread this as well, but basically the app should say "target" instead of "hero" imo.
  19. There is nothing new announced, but imo there is no reason to think that this is the end of D2ed support. FFG is wrapping up another big Imperial Assault Expansion, Doom 2ed and RuneWars miniatures, so I guess their whole miniature department is at top output at the moment and since a new Descent product would involve new miniatures, I'm quite sure it's not a top priority at this point in time to finish the needed art-assets to bring you a news article concerning D2ed. Also I think FFG is kind of evaluating where their business-model for D2ed is going and what their next expansion looks like. Maybe their "80$ Bigbox" expansion with less content than their 60$ Bigbox expansions isn't doing so well, while the app is hugely popular. Yet again, since they practically took 2 years to release this 80$ Bigbox hence split it up into 2 40$ Smallbox expansions (with the hero classes in the second expansion, which is just not very smart) one for each year, I really hope they do something different. Since imo they split the expansions to keep Descent in the Talks, I would really like to see them changing their strategy into something like this: Keep Descent in the Talks and News by producing and releasing app content that also make the 80$ Bigbox more vaiable (I think it now at least adds more to the Delve than a big box or 2 regular small box expansions) and release a normal Bigbox expansion in 2 years, while maybe releasing a H&M pack and/or a campaign book the year before. Also the Shadow-Rune campaign book was pretty much confirmed before they released the app by the german partners of FFG. While I still can't see how they want to release this (Shadow Rune campaign is really bad compared to every other campaign and in need for a HUGE overhaul to even compare to the newer campaigns), I really hope they release a campaign book for Nerekhall. Of course they could release an entirly new campaign for the base game and put the ~3-4 good encounters of the Shadow Rune campaign in it, which would imo make most sense.
  20. In the Delve at least half of the search tokens don't mention that you can draw a search card, but you have to succeed a test to not suffer more bad consequences. Is this intended? Do you really don't draw search cards for them?, because I can't see how you run out of search cards when you get only 1 search card per stage.
  21. Yeah that's so true. I started playing Warhammer, because I found painting minis to be great fun, after painting a lot of Orcs and spending pretty much money on all the minis, I played my first game... and didn't enjoy it at all. This was more than 10 years ago. When I saw Descent I thought I finally found a type of game where I don't just enjoy painting the minis, but also using them in a game, which turned out to be true. I was even more pleased by the much better looking miniatures (because Descent miniatures have natural proportions unlike the awful GW miniatures), the extremely streamlined gameplay and the fact that you can play Descent with more than one other person. It's imo sad to see that FFG is seemingly going the ugly GW aesthetic rute with their Runewars miniature game (unnatural and comical proportions of the miniatures), so naturally I'm sadly completely uninterested in this game and I think adding these minis to Descent won't enhance its aesthetics, quite the contrary as their comical proportions will be even more evident next to minis with normal proportions. I really hope this doesn't creep in into Descent, because the last batch of minis was troubling for me. If the shaman type of mini from chains that rust features this crappy aesthetics, I'm really thinking about skipping this campaign. So far it's the most expensive campaign and I really don't feel like paying premium price for subpar aesthetics.
  22. I can feel you. The difference in artwork and sculps is pretty big in SoN, especially on the heroes. Only Orkhell and the Ynferneal Hulks (or however you write them) are really accurate. The heroes seem to be sculpted more after their box-art depiction and less after their artwork on the hero-cards, so maybe this helps you a little bit (it certainly helped me).
  23. Still I imagine this to work really well. Keep in mind you can always discard your images und resummon them, so you can basically place 2 images in good positions each turn for one fatigue. You can also spend your surges to recover fatigue, making this strategy really efficient.
  24. If I had to guess, I'd say these questions come from people who only recently started playing Descent with RtL and bought SoN as their first expansion to get more classes, monsters, heroes, because it has the best content/dollar ratio if you consider stronger classes as better content.
  25. I have read many of your posts since you joined this forum, and for the most part, I have found what you have posted to have added value to the conversation, even if I didn't agree with the points you were making. As for the above quote, I find this very difficult to believe, especially if you are actually playing by all of the correct rules. My group and I have been gaming together for more than 50 years. We all have very strong gaming, math, strategic thinking, tactical decision making backgrounds, etc. Despite this, I can state that we have most definitely lost multiple quests, we have had to willingly surrender quests to avoid a loss, etc. We have played more than 2 dozen RTL Kindred Fire campaigns, with 2, 3, and 4 heroes in the mix. I can state without a doubt that the game and many of its quests can be very difficult to win with 2 heroes. In fact, for the most part, we have found the side quests to often be far more difficult than the main story quests. I should point out several things. First, I have everything that has been released for D2e to date, so there is obviously a huge diversity to what the app can choose to play. In addition, we do not cherry pick our hero/class combinations. We always deal out three random heroes to each player, with each selecting 1 of the 3. Most often, we allow each of the players to look at each group of 3 heroes dealt, so that we can determine the best mix among the entire group, but sometimes we play blind, forcing each player to pick their hero in secret. This randomness and chaos if you will, adds additional complexity to the game, and forces us to come up with good strategies for heroes we may never have played before. Again, I am not trying to doubt you, but I struggle to believe that you have never lost a quest, and have only had 2 heroes ever die. It makes me think that perhaps you are not utilizing the rules in the correct manner. I would be most interested if you could take the time to elaborate how you pick your heroes and their classes, the number of heroes you typically play, the number of Kindred Fire campaigns you have run, the number of expansions you have, etc. Fair enough. (I own SoN, LoR, MoR, LotW, Treaty of Champions and Crusade of the Forgotten) Since the app suggests you might want to pick heroes with synergy, I did this. Randomly choosing heroes and classes is however a very good idea to up the difficulty without limiting character development, I like it and maybe try it the next time I start an RtL campaign/delve. So far I've played the king of all goblins campaign (2 sidequests, but not the final quest yet) solo, with Reinhart as Beastmaster, Andira Runehand as Apothecary, Jain as Wildlander and Ravella as Hexer. and Kindred of Fire (2 story quests and 3 side-quests) with Reinhart as Beastmaster, Andira as Bard, Grey Ker as Bounty Hunter and Astarra as Geomancer. Since the first side-quest where 2 heroes died (it was an 8dmg firebreath of the shadow dragon that had only 2HP left), no one got even near dying in the subsequent games. We even wasted a week going into the city and looking at the items without buying, turned off the app and when we restarted we were out of the city and one week has passed, yet we weren't really feeling underpowered in the next quest. I've got to admit these are very strong parties especially for RtL, where dmg output and HP imo are the most important values, but I was hoping that on hard I don't have to hold back and still have a close game like in 1vsmany mode with adversaries that understand the game. We even played with smart AI decisions, yet the order of activation often screwed the AI, activating weakened monstergroups at suboptimal positions, which left us enough time to decimate the healthy ones, before they were activating. Also, as you can see, I haven't even finished the campaigns yet, that's why I tried to stress that my expiriences don't cover the whole content by adding "so far" to my judgements.
  • Create New...