Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Suhawk75

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

970 profile views
  1. It was Zatu that got me asking. It was £26.90 on there when I posted and is back to that price now! Shame I missed the £15 particular price point (I would have bought it at that price but £27 is a price I can wait out tbh).
  2. Maybe the 60 cards have gold trim in this one 😁
  3. Hi all, quick question about the last Mythos pack in the Carcosa cycle. Is it substantially bigger than the other five or should I expect the price to be roughly in line with the other packs? In the UK, the main online retailers have it in stock at nearly twice the price of the other packs! Guess I’ll have to wait for a proper restock?
  4. That’s the most polite disagreement I’ve ever had on the internet 👍🏻😁🤯
  5. I was going to discuss Gloomhaven compared to Descent but there are so many differences between the two (despite some very obvious comparisons) I wasn’t convinced the comparison was valid. Comparing GH, strictly to Descent RTL, I think the former is a much better co-op experience. The difficulty level is more granular (and adaptable) and the core mechanics (hand management and exhaustion) are more engaging to me compared to the “Ameritrash” gameplay of D2E (I don’t mean that in an offensive way btw - D2E RTL just doesn’t have the heavy puzzle element that GH does) RTL is a beer and chill game which I really enjoyed playing with my gf but GH has us both addicted
  6. Which peers are we talking about? I love Descent but the core mechanics have been outclassed by IA (even if the SW theme isn’t to your taste) in several notable aspects (particularly knock downs, overlord reinforcements, LOS and missed shot rules) Thats before you even widen your appraisal beyond FFG. Descent 2E will always have a special place for me (and remain on my shelf) but some of the core rules do creak a bit.
  7. Great news. So happy EXCEPT my gf and I just started to play Gloomhaven. Descent RTL... Gloomhaven.... Descent RTL.... Gloomhaven.... ahhhhhh
  8. Yeah I meant to add that figure upgrades are, probably, a good thing to have as it teaches people about assigning damage and accuracy. Probably want to keep them simple ones, preferably with a specific teaching purpose in mind (Maybe Lance Corporal would be good for Daqan? It adds an exception to matching the modifier dial colour with your action colour and, thus, re-emphasises the rule itself)
  9. Liking the demo lists. I’ve been thinking about demo/ learning lists myself. My feeling is that you might get more mileage out of Hero free lists. Many heroes can be difficult to use well (pretty much all the undead heroes for example) and many add additional layers or effects (ie rule interactions) to the game. Without the costly heroes you can fit more basic troops onto the field while keeping the points cost around 120. This means you’re more likely to have a good variety of unit sizes for learning both about threat and re-roll and how different size units move. Generally I think one upgrade per unit is enough too.
  10. More dice, more templates, more reference cards, more manuals... All great things to have duplicates of
  11. Fair point well made. The Jumpmaster is exactly the scenario we wish to avoid. Fortunately because RWMG is so much smaller than XWMG I expect we should avoid the worst excesse of XWMG 1st ed bloat.
  12. Alas there is no perfect solution but I see more benefits to points rebalancing than to extensive Errata. I’m sure people on the internet will always be salty over something though! Even with points rebalancing there would always be cards that are simply too weak or too uninteresting to play. I think this is ok as long as there is reasonable competition for every slot / upgrade. The strong cards are difficult to do right but, taking your example of Scuttle, the scenario you outline is actually not a bad result in my eyes. If the card cost is increased such that it goes from auto-include to “I’ve had to think long and hard about this and looked for synergies in my list/ terrain deck” surely that’s a great place for the meta to be in? Ideally I’d prefer something like 25-30% of players taking any upgrade as this would (hopefully) mean 3-4 viable options per slot. I think structurally bad cards can safely be left to bulk up those card binders. There will always be weaker cards. It’s reducing the clear water between amazing and good that we want.
  13. Admittedly there are issues with this too but I think they are less than the bloat of new upgrades
  14. I genuinely don’t know why points adjustments appear so hard for FFG to do? These are all positive and interesting balancing ideas but we already have a potentially built in balancing option that doesn’t encourage bloat. Just change the points values FFG! Do that and you don’t need to test ever increasingly complex or arcane interactions (how does new upgrade X interact with Y from the core box?) and we don’t need a degree in Rules interpretation. Rather than trying to mangle language to make things “balanced” (such as it is) you can finesse upgrades up or down by a small degree. It (theoretically) increases viable builds and the number of viable units types (the 2x1 X-bows should either have similar points efficiency as the 3x1 OR fill a different purpose in an army)
  • Create New...