Jump to content

Bucho

Members
  • Content count

    134
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Bucho

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday

Recent Profile Visitors

518 profile views
  1. How much of that do you suppose is the line of sight rules along with smaller maps?
  2. 1e and Imperial Assault have already solved this issue. It's just a 2e over simplification problem. I have mixed feelings. Certainly the 1e system adds a lot more game for a lot fewer tiles but I think the custom tiles can add a lot too. For instance these two tiles are functionally equivalent but I don't think you can argue that using them is the same. I think what I'd like too see is a highbred tile system where there are some unique and interesting rooms (especially in expansions) but where every tile isn't so overflowing with artwork that new players can't figure out where it's ok to stand.
  3. Yeah, a bigger base set would help a lot but I doubt that would ever happen on account of price point. But what I'd hope for are more mainstream monsters, ettins for example are fairly obscure.
  4. I don't know...on the one hand I could see how increasing monster bloat could be problematic. But it also doesn't need to be all or nothing. For instance converting the expansions but not the H&M collections would make the game more manageable and let them recycle a lot of the more mainstream monsters. What's your issue with the current system? Personally my expansion content (other than tiles) gets frequent use. As for the tiles, I wouldn't actually want them to change the mechanics to try and mix expansion tiles into other quests. I WOULD like them to plan ahead a little better. Putting extra tiles in the core game in basic shapes to use down the road could potentially cut down on the tile bloat that 2e suffered from. I'd also like enough hearts and fatigue in the core to avoid wasting a bunch of cardboard on that in numerous expansions.
  5. Well, I don't think you really needed to be limited that way. They could have put anything in that kit they wanted, certainly condition cards would have been no big deal. What I found more problematic was the decision to move away from the threat system (which they immediately went back to) meant that every monster group needed to be equivalent.
  6. I get that FFG abandoning the vault has doomed it but frankly it doesn't look like it's ever gotten much use...
  7. Well the vault isn't getting a lot of use as far as I can tell. I wish it was otherwise but given how it is I can't really blame then for not bothering. Not just existing games, they've been releasing content for Mansions of Madness at a snails pace and I was quite underwhelmed by their support for Runewars and Dragonholt last gencon.
  8. Bucho

    Ogres and trolls

    I feel like you ought to include giants in that list... Heavens no, the ogres have never gotten table time.
  9. Is it? I'm not familiar with the warhammer card game but after having bought into larger names in this niche such as Pathfinder ACG, Dragonfire, LotRLCG I wonder what about this is different and interesting enough to buy into yet another big coop card game, especially given how unhappy I've been with how FFG's been about supporting my other recent purchases?
  10. I like it when a card game is consistent. When dragonlance back in the day recycled their best art and then added to it with subpar work that really bugged me. I don't mind at all if they use art more than once, so long as it matches. That said I'm not the biggest fan of the 2e art, it's a big step down compared to 1e or some of the art showing up in realms.
  11. Yes, they have been questioned at an event since frostgate. They promised new stuff. I guess this is how we have to get news about descent from now on....
  12. So after doom and gloom handwavium on the Imperial Assault forum turns out they're getting another expansion for their traditional style of play. What does this mean for Descent?
  13. I'm using the terms same and balanced as synonymous. My point being that this time the groups are supposed to be balanced, last time the "groups" were not supposed to be balanced. There was no rolling for defense last time. Both games use the exact same number of dice. The previous system didn't balance based on random chance. The OL had to use more of his resources to get stronger groups on the board and the strongest monsters originally could not be placed via cards. Expansion rules created a sort of pre-game buy system that allowed the OL to bring a limited amount of OP stuff into each quest. It's worse in a sense as reinforce one member of an open group heavily favors the smallest groups.
  14. I think there's a more profound problem with their system. Ask yourself if monsters in 1e had this tendency to feel the same? Once you've noticed that they didn't take another look at the 1e dice: they're even more fixed than 2e and yet the monsters were less prone to feeling identical. Perhaps some of that has to do with there being fewer monsters but I think a lot of it has to do with the monsters actually not being identical. Once they made the design decision in 2e that monster groups should be equivalent instead of purposely making some groups way more powerful than others I think the game's doomed to run into this problem. Monsters end up feeling the same because they were purposely balanced to be the same.
  15. Meh, there are already vampire lieutenants and as for werewolves what makes them more than just another blue+red? As for the rest, I don't think we're talking about Terrinoth anymore...even werewolves are pretty obscure. What I like about their last appearance are the consequences which means it would best shine as a hero or at least a condition.
×