Jump to content

Kyarn

Members
  • Content Count

    51
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Kyarn

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday 06/13/1991

Profile Information

  • Location
    Nantes, France
  1. We also understood it in the same way Zaltyre did : each magistrate with a monster adjacent can move 2 space. There is nothing spelling "only one" or "one" magistrate. That being said, we played it with a shadow walker in our team and got the key on our 2nd turn thanks to : Soul Bound on a shadow dragon + Dark Servant. This was one of the easiest quest we did in all our campaigns, and really annoying for our OL since he didn't have a chance to win at all. But I suppose that without this combo, it would have been really hard...
  2. If tomble as Thief is kicking your butt, I don't wanna imagine what a Logan as Treasure Hunter would do to your poor ass
  3. I like Master Thorn, but I'm not really fond of the trolls.... I mean : they look great (nice skin), but are almost a copy of the giants in term of skills... (a little less hp/defense pool but a bit more damage and easier way to stun).
  4. As you said : he's not a poor hero, only a poor scout. Which mean he's useless as a Treasure Hunter, Stalker, Bounty Hunter and even Thief (dunno why guys keep wanting to play him as a thief, his ability is clearly not suited for it). But he makes an AWESOME Wildlander ! Put him near any "Tank" (like a Knight, a Marshall or whatever) and he will be unstoppable. He can do a pretty decent Shadow Walker as beiing said before. His main interest is in team oriented gameplay. Put him near Ravaella with a Rune Plate and Laugh....Hello black-black-grey defense dices in Act 1 (even more if you put him an armor too). As far as I saw, he can be incredible if well played, and a pain in the ass for the OL. They're many many weaker heroes than him.
  5. Honestly, the French translation is good and don't have any real huge mistake (except one with the lava). And for the rule's question, even the english rulebook isn't enough to provide you all the answer anyway so you will have to look at the differents FAQ, and Q&A from the editor. I've got some game in english, but to me for a game as complicated as Descent, I would recommend you to buy it in the language most of your players will understand the most. They will appreciate it more, especially the story parts. Otherwise you will have to read it in english for them, or translate them when you're reading it. Which is really less enjoyable for the players. As for me, I only have Forgotten souls and Nature's Ire in english because they don't exist yet in French
  6. hum...if all you want is the image, maybe you can find some here on the french blog : http://descentv2.septentrion-game.com/category/heros/ Or on this english blog : http://www.descentinthedark.com/2nd/
  7. Yeah when I re-read it I thought about the same thing For the heroes, you can find some here : http://descent2e.wikia.com/wiki/Descent:_Journeys_in_the_Dark_%28Second_Edition%29_Wiki
  8. As far as I know you can only obtain a threat token by killing a hero once per quest, and not per encounter. Look : https://images-cdn.fantasyflightgames.com/ffg_content/descent-second-ed/news/lieutenants/DJ09-rules-web.pdf " Each time a hero is defeated during an encounter, instead of drawing one Overlord card, the overlord may choose to gain one threat token. The overlord can only gain threat tokens in this way once per hero per quest. " So only 4 threat tokens that way bro', sorry
  9. You didn't look very well for the skill I pointed. In my example, this group can recover stamina in a blink of an eye ! Trenloe and Augur nearly always move with stamina (not to mention trenloe as a charge). Trenloe as a knight is the best solo combination (we already did it), but that's not the point of this group, and it wouldn't be as good as it is with valor token on everyone. For Augur, once he has understudy, he's already op with this team (sure Cacophony + aria of war tend to make him even greater ). Now, let's say you focus on leoric : -1 damage with leoric base skill, + 1 defense with valor token + 1 defense with aria of war. Without any dice rolled, he already has like 3 defense. And could have even more with some late skills of the champion, or with forewarning of the prophet. And I don't even speak about the fact that Leoric could buy Dark Pact. Now let's say he dies anyway : the bard can resurrect him without action with his base bard's skill. Or he could use Augur heroic ability to ressurect him even from a long distance. So you didn't achieve really anything against the heroes. The point of this team is that they're not "only" tanky, they can do a lot of damage because every attack they make have nearly always base +2 damage (Valor + aria of ward). And with the stamina regen, they can almost all always run with only stamina and keep their action to attack only. The only thing which can work well agaisnt them is, as you said, trap and spell like web trap. But this spell work on any group anyway, so I don't see why it would be more powerfull against them. Especially when bard could buy rehearsal or the team could buy the anti condition's belt. I just wanna clear a thing : my group and I nearly always prefer to play a 4 heroes game because we prefer doing the best heroes team combinations and fight with the more monsters. As an OL I feel the same. That being said, it nearly always end the same way : victory of the heroes cause in the campaign's end the OL can't stop the heroes anymore unless they do huge mistakes or unless there is a huge luck gap. And honestly our OL is really, really good (and I think I'm not bad as well ). Where in 3 heroes game, we always had more close campaign's end. Aow, and I forgot : we never, ever, ever play the treasure hunter who tend to completly destroy the game by favoring way too much the heroes. So it's not the problem. Anyway, I'm thankful for all of thoses who answered and gave their point of view. It cleared some interrogation I had at least, even if I'm not totally convinced
  10. Yeah but that's a houserule. If you let them choose like the original rule say, the more heroes they have, the stronger they are. As far as I saw since my beginning in this game. (Obviously with a random pick, you're more than right) And I didn't even speak about multi target spells which can annihile many monsters in one or two attack, transforming the boost of monter's number in nothing... A good OL can deal with playing with less monsters. But to me he can't deal with overpowered combo that are available for the heroes, at least not easily.
  11. First thing first : I'm not going easy on my heroes, and neither did the OL I faced (I play as much hero as OL). They are many many ways to make medium/littlle monsters far more dangerous (or at least as much) as large monsters with lieutnant packs and OL cards. That being said, I know I'm in minority with my point of view, but that's exactly why I posted : I never ever found any answer that was satisfying to me about this topic. Now let's speak about the difference in number and others thing : as you pointed, at 4 heroes, there will be many monsters added. But to me, the one more hero is the one who make any good hero team into an unbelievable one. Example : Let's say you play a 3 heroes game with a classical group : Trenloe - Champion Leoric - Necromancer (or any other mage class) Mok - Prophet They have good interaction, defense boost(champion, prophet, Leoric, Trenloe), attack boost (champion), not so bad heal (prophet, Mok). Now add a new hero.... --> Let's say another healer for example : Augur - Bard And here you have an insane group combo : Trenloe - Champion : Glory for battle, Motivating Charge, Stoic Resolve, For the Cause (A Living Legend can work too) Leoric - Necromancer : whatever spell, but Army of death with one valor token is still cool. Like I said, any other mage class work here. Mok - Prophet : Battle Vision, Forewarning, All-Seing, Focused Insight Augur - Bard : Understudy, Aria of War, Cacophony, and Rehearsal or Concentration as you prefer. Now what do you have ? From a classic group you have an unbeatable one : The bard Can have Understudy and Aria of War always active because of Cacophony active each turn. Boosting every defense, attack, heal and stamina regen. Mok can heal a ridiculous amount of hp each turn with his base skill, All seing and Focused insight, all boosted by the bard Undestudy. And each time he can heal or regen himself with mok skill. Trenloe the champion boost defense a lot and stamina regen, also boosted by bard unbderstudy. And leoric nerf the damage of monsters. All of that, with Augur skill healing each time an attack do no damage (boosted by understudy). This kind of combo is nearly impossible to break with an OL, even a good one (not impossible, but uber hard). But you can't afford to do the same in a 3 player game because 2 healer who nerf too much your team damage. Where here even the healer do a good amount of damage with Aria of Ward and valor token. You could easily change some class/heroes and keep the same combo btw. And that's not even the most powerfull combo ! So here is my point : yeah the OL have many more monsters, but in the other hand, heroes can do combo they couldn't do with only 3 heroes most of the time (or they are weaker version...). That's why every group I play with or against find the 4 heroes game far more favoring the heroes than the 3 heroes game. What's the problem according to me is that the OL "only" obtain more monsters, but none of his other spells or lieutnant pack cards are up. Where every hero and class can be up a lot only by adding one more hero becuase every hero and every class interact with all the others (assuming you use a little bit of brain ). That's why I'm looking for any other explanation than "more monsters" to explain the general point of view shared here.
  12. Any2card : Yeah my previous comment was a little hard, I apologies. But if you look closely, I asked on purpose in my original post what argument, EXCEPT the only one Kage13 pointed me, make you think that. And he only pointed me this one. You can understand that I was a little pissed (even if this don't excuse the way I spoke, again my apologies). That being said, the only argument you point is that you've got many, many hours of game and it worked like that for you.....so what ? I may not have as much hours of game as you, but honestly I can say I have nearly 400-450+ hours of game, with 5 differents group of people (around 16-20person). And all theses people think like me that the 4 heroes game is favoring more the heroes than the 3 heroes game. Despite some of them often playing without me and with other people too. That's why I'm always surprised when I see those who say like you : again I'm not saying I'm right. But the only argument I've seen is irrelevant to me, that's why I asked if there is more than that (like somethng I wouldn't have think about). So far, the only argument I saw are theses : - In 3 heroes game the OL only obtains a master minion instead of a minor for large monster group when he obtains one more monster in 4 heroes game, for one more hero each time. -->Like I said before, this argument is really really restrictive and don't count many many strategic sides of the game. - Guys who have play a lot know it works that way. --> This tend to make me smile : usually it's an argument for thoses who don't have one. I'm pretty sure that's not the way you wanted to sound and that I've got this answer because of my "bad-mouthing" before. But again, this is not a real argument. - NEW : The developpers think that way too. --> First time I see that argument. Seems a little bit more relevant. I say a little bit because I don't think they are absolute in terms of testing when we know/can see they don't always test a lot the stuff they sell (some things are pretty imbalanced in this game, despite a general "balance" which make the game still pretty good and fun to play). So....where did they say that ? I never saw them saying thaht the 3 players game was favoring the heroes and the 4 heroes game the most balanced. Have you got any link maybe ? Would be great. Don't misunderstand me : I REALLY want to know what I missed to explain it to my players, this in order to understand why it worked otherwise for us.
  13. 3 definitely favors the heroes. I've not had a hope against 3 heroes. With 4 heroes the OL is getting at minimum 1 extra figure per hero group. Dragons is a perfect example. At 2 heroes you get 1 minion dragon, at 3 heroes you get, 1 master dragon. Still just 1 dragon, albeit an upgraded one. But still only 1 attack. But now at 4 heroes the OL gets 2 dragons. That is a big jump. I'm doubling my attacks with just dragons. How can that possibly go from being balanced at 3 to being favored towards the heroes at 4? Lets just say for simplicity I as the OL can take 3 open groups and I pick Dragons, Giants, and Golems. Adding 1 hero adds; 1 dragon 1 giant 1 golem You are telling me that your heroes would find it pretty evenly matched with 3, but then dominate with 4? That math doesn't even add up. especially with the bigger monsters the OL is doubling his actions. Even if 3 players were balanced, then they would get destroyed with 4. At least if I were the OL I know this is a bit simplistic and baring any special rules with these same groups 2 heroes = 4 attacks Monsters = 3 attacks 3 Heroes = 6 attacks Monsters = 3 attacks 4 heroes = 8 attacks Monsters = 6 attacks Basically this is why 2 heroes is very difficult. You are taking on about the same amount of monsters as 3 heroes and they usually roll the same attack and defense dice. Man, your logic is mostly ****** up...I have to say it... 1) You take only large monster group as an example : like I said, this argument doesn't work with medium and small monster group. They only obtain one minor monster. So With one more hero, the OL would get one goblin, rat, spider, etc.... Unless you only use large monster group it's irrelevant. And assuming there is always some small/medium monster in (nearly ?) all encounters.. And I don't even speak about OL who prefer using medium/large monster group... 2) You don't even count the master ability : taking your example, you simply ignore the fire breath of the master dragon. Which is FAR more powerful than one more attack. I've seen many fire breath go rampage and kill 3-4 heroes. Same idea : you don't count the boost of hp/defense/damage which can be obtain. 3) You don't even speak about the synergy between heroes, class, skills....The more heroes you get, the more powerful combo you have. I could say many many more things about all the problems your argument doesn't speak about, but my english is a little poor, and just theses are enough (at least to me...) to prove that this argument isn't "the" answer. So where everyone can say that 2 heroes is the hardest way to play. I can't agree with you on the 3 and 4 heroes game with only one argument, and a poor one : only counting the difference of action about a game like descent which has soooooooo many strategic sides....really ? Don't take it bad, but clearly even assuming you may be right, you didn't prove anything right with this comment. So, I'm asking again : why do you guys think that the 3 heroes game is favoring the heroes and the 4 heroes game the most balanced ? (everyone who would think that way can answer) (And please this time, don't answer with the only argument I just pointed being irrelevant in my original post...)
×
×
  • Create New...