$10.00
Recommend
5 
 Thumb up
 Hide
47 Posts
Prev «  1 , 2  | 

Descent: Journeys in the Dark (Second Edition)» Forums » Variants

Subject: Bleached Lizard's Revised Descent 2nd Edition rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Triu Greykith
United States
Illinois
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
capnkrunsh wrote:
Even though i would not implement the changes you made to the game into our campaign, i like the fact a lot that someone tries to develop houserules that squeeze Descent 2 in a shape where the game feels as awesome for both players and the overlord like Descent 1 did (even if it was not balanced at all).

As for I don't like your rule changes in general, i just hope as many people as possible give it a shot and try them for their campaign and come up with how your rule changes could be improved so that in the end we will get the rules that Descent 2 deserves.

So even though i don't like the rule changes i appreciate your work and i think that's what we need - someone had to start it somewhere. thumbsup

I don't disagree with you, but I think it's premature. As someone said in another thread, I think everyone should give the RAW a fair chance -- dozens of plays, multiple campaigns -- before writing them off. I don't think each quest is perfectly balanced for every combination of heroes & monsters -- I don't think it can be in this type of game. It's not chess -- with a fixed board, pieces, and objectives, all completely symmetrical. Fixating on short term "won vs. lost" is a mistake, IMO. For me at least, it's more about the journey than the destination / winner. Of course, that's also the problem I have with many online RPG , too many people focused on the end game & min/maxing their toons.

Yes, I've house ruled some things, but I also play RAW (or as close as I can figure them out) with others. The beauty of a game like this, in my mind, is that you have the parts for a very versatile game -- if you don't min/max it to death. I think FFG was trying for a fresh start, with a reasonable starting price. Some clarification of the rules is needed -- the game could have benefitted from more playtesting, but resources are always limited. [I've been working in the computer field for 35 years, and one thing that hasn't changed is that there are never enough resources.]

Gaming has changed a bit since I first played Dogfight & Broadside in the 60's, but for me it's still more fun than a Barrel of Monkeys(tm).
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris J Davis
United Kingdom
London
flag msg tools
designer
Overtext pending moderation...
mbmbmbmbmb
Triu wrote:
capnkrunsh wrote:
Even though i would not implement the changes you made to the game into our campaign, i like the fact a lot that someone tries to develop houserules that squeeze Descent 2 in a shape where the game feels as awesome for both players and the overlord like Descent 1 did (even if it was not balanced at all).

As for I don't like your rule changes in general, i just hope as many people as possible give it a shot and try them for their campaign and come up with how your rule changes could be improved so that in the end we will get the rules that Descent 2 deserves.

So even though i don't like the rule changes i appreciate your work and i think that's what we need - someone had to start it somewhere. thumbsup

I don't disagree with you, but I think it's premature. As someone said in another thread, I think everyone should give the RAW a fair chance -- dozens of plays, multiple campaigns -- before writing them off.


And in sixty years, when you're on your deathbed, let me know your opinions!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Triu Greykith
United States
Illinois
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
bleached_lizard wrote:
And in sixty years, when you're on your deathbed, let me know your opinions!
I didn't say I was going to play that much myself, I said "everyone". I have no idea how many quests / campaigns you have played, but many of the posts I've seen were along the lines of "I've played half a campaign [or less] and here's everything that's broken." I suspect I will be on my deathbed much sooner than 60 years, assuming I die in bed.

I have no problem with you playing by your rules, I just think it's premature for everyone to dump the RAW.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bob Holmstrom
United States
Illinois
flag msg tools
bleached_lizard wrote:
Strategery21 wrote:
If those rules work for your group that's great.

I wonder why you wouldn't just play 1st edition Descent instead though as your house rules remove the main positive aspects of 2nd ed. which are: simple rules and quick playtime.


I think we have different opinions of what the main positive aspects of the 2nd Edition are.


I guess so.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sean Monroe
United States
Valparaiso
Indiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I know that I personally have not played D2.0 enough to change many rules. My group and I played D1.0 for quite a while and only started making small changes after perhaps half a dozen campaigns.

That being said, the one rule that I find a bit wonky for 2.0 is the corner-to-corner LOS rule. With this new rule, the attacker in my opinion has the ability to "manipulate" the shot too drastically and attacks can get less-than-commonsensical at times. So, I wondered if something that I experimented with in 1.0 with would work for 2.0. Instead of tracing corner-to-corner:

Trace LOS from any corner of attacker's square to center of the target's square.

This allows the attacker, whether hero or beast, to take a tactical position around corners and obstacles simulating the effect of firing from cover while allowing for less manipulation of the target space. IE...The target is where the target is and the attacker can not change that. With this small tweak ranged combat, during a limited number of plays, seemed to be a bit more strategic and allowed a smart ranged player to deal out damage without opening him/herself to return fire or connecting corners to make strange shots.

Anyways... I was curious if anyone has tried or heard of anything like this before and would like some feedback.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
demonhanz demonhanz
msg tools
mb
Velos wrote:

Trace LOS from any corner of attacker's square to center of the target's square.


I like this variant. I am used to playing with Wizwar's Center to Center LOS. Quite frankly, I've always found that game's LOS rules to work exceptionally well (in fact, almost the entirety of its physics works well, and I've rarely run into problems - when they do come up, our group just uses logic and realism to solve any issues, and we usually resolve them quickly).

I am going to stick with the game's intended LOS for now. So far, we haven't come across any weird issues with it. Perhaps we'll finish the campaign and then try this variant afterwards to compare the two.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stephen Williams
Canada
flag msg tools
bleached_lizard wrote:

Attribute Tests
Use a standard D6 for all attribute tests.


First of all, let me just say that I like your house rules overall. I may even cherry pick some of them for our own games (though I want a bit more experience with RAW 2E before I start tweaking it.)

This one has a bit of a problem, though. Perhaps you haven't run into it yet or perhaps you don't have the Conversion Kit and therefore don't care. Karnon (one of the heroes from 1E Tomb of Ice) has a Might attribute value of 6, which means using this house rule he literally cannot fail Might checks unless the Overlord has a "Wicked Laughter" card ready. Even then, the odds of it helping the OL aren't great.

The RAW system of one grey and one black is capable of generating values between 0 and 7 on an attribute test, so perhaps a better house rule would be to roll a D8-1.

That way the 50/50 line stays at an attribute value of 3 and you're covered for all the same values that the RAW system can generate, so it's unlikely that FFG will crank out a hero that breaks the house rule.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris J Davis
United Kingdom
London
flag msg tools
designer
Overtext pending moderation...
mbmbmbmbmb
Stewi wrote:
bleached_lizard wrote:

Attribute Tests
Use a standard D6 for all attribute tests.


First of all, let me just say that I like your house rules overall. I may even cherry pick some of them for our own games (though I want a bit more experience with RAW 2E before I start tweaking it.)

This one has a bit of a problem, though. Perhaps you haven't run into it yet or perhaps you don't have the Conversion Kit and therefore don't care.


No - I have the Conversion Kit, but I still don't care. I just don't see it as a problem.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
guinch Nudrevil
France
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
About your heroes rules change, I think you made 2 mistakes :

By RAW, you can't spend fatigue to move without a move action. Fatigue are made to add extra move POINTS to a current move action.

By RAW, you can't target an unconscious hero with an attack or any Other ability.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
guinch Nudrevil
France
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
After checking the book, My bad about mouvement... I Just play like you and it isn't raw
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
New Zealand
Dunedin
flag msg tools
atraangelis wrote:
.
Descent is not a balanced game, its asymmetric from the get go...


You don't seem to understand the terms you are using. A game be asymmetrically unbalanced or asymmetrically balanced; the former term explains in what way balance or imbalance is achieved, not whether it is possible or not.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
guinch Nudrevil
France
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
My bad too about targeting an unconscious foe to heal him. It is allowed by RAW p. 15

Your Houserules seems to fit my style pretty well
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris J Davis
United Kingdom
London
flag msg tools
designer
Overtext pending moderation...
mbmbmbmbmb
We're coming to the end of our campaign now, with just the finale to play tomorrow (The Man Who Would Be King). I'm pleased to report that so far it has been an exact 50/50 win ratio for the heroes and overlord.

We'll be playing the finale with changes suggested by The_Immortal in this thread:

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/868086/individual-scenar...

Will report back on who wins.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christian Na
United States
California
flag msg tools
mb
I don't think any of my friends would ever agree to any of your proposed changes. A big draw for the game for my entire group is that it is streamlined and the game plays quick etc your proposed rules changes seem to undo all that.

What inspired you to make these changes in the first place? We are loving the hell out of the game as-is.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris J Davis
United Kingdom
London
flag msg tools
designer
Overtext pending moderation...
mbmbmbmbmb
dcjoker wrote:
I don't think any of my friends would ever agree to any of your proposed changes. A big draw for the game for my entire group is that it is streamlined and the game plays quick etc your proposed rules changes seem to undo all that.

What inspired you to make these changes in the first place?


I stated the reasons in my original post. But mainly:

- Encounters were taking almost as long to set up as they did to play.
- Encounters were over too quickly, with no real feeling of strategising or any tactics being employed - just a mad dash, and it was done, with most of it coming down to luck (by drawing out the length of the game, you provide more opportunity for back-and-forth between the heroes and OL).
- No feeling of movement/placement being important due to the overly-open line of sight rules.
- Some mechanics being overly-strong/weak (such as the OL hand of cards between encounters), spoiling gameplay.

For my campaign, two of the four heroes had played the game previously with the rules-as-written, and both stated that the game felt too "quick" that way, and both said that the variant rules improved it immensely.

Quote:
We are loving the hell out of the game as-is.


Okay. Good for you.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christian Na
United States
California
flag msg tools
mb
That makes sense. I really do appreciate what you're trying to do but some of your changes just really rub me the wrong way. In particular the large figure movement rules seem insanely restrictive.

Coming from a heroclix and warmachine background, I can understand your reasoning for the line of sight changes. I also understand your diagonal movement change. I even kind of like the idea for using a d6 for the attribute tests.

After a few more campaigns I'd probably be willing to test out a few of your changes but just at first glance I don't see anyone agreeing to your large figure movement changes it's both clunky and too restrictive.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rafal Areinu
Poland
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Giving large monsters 1 movement point cost for rotating and letting monsters move only once? So you're letting the monsters move 2-3 spaces per turn. Those are dragons, not oversized turtles.

Please, explain to me how fat goblin ecounter 1 is balanced with your rules. Goblins moving 5 spaces, heroes average of 8, dead monsters from open group taking years to get back to the battle, revived goblins taking few turns to get back... I don't see it ending in any other way than heroes saving all 4 crops.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris J Davis
United Kingdom
London
flag msg tools
designer
Overtext pending moderation...
mbmbmbmbmb
dcjoker wrote:
That makes sense. I really do appreciate what you're trying to do but some of your changes just really rub me the wrong way. In particular the large figure movement rules seem insanely restrictive.

Coming from a heroclix and warmachine background, I can understand your reasoning for the line of sight changes. I also understand your diagonal movement change. I even kind of like the idea for using a d6 for the attribute tests.

After a few more campaigns I'd probably be willing to test out a few of your changes but just at first glance I don't see anyone agreeing to your large figure movement changes it's both clunky and too restrictive.


The change to large monster movement was made deliberately to make it a *lot* more restrictive, so as to not make large monsters the automatic choice in any encounter. Large monsters are currently the best at blocking hallways *and* the most mobile *and* they are the most efficient when it comes to reinforcements (and usually with decent attack power too). They needed knocking down quite a bit, so if they're going to be the monsters that are hardest to knock down and easiest to reinforce then they can, at least, not move for shit.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris J Davis
United Kingdom
London
flag msg tools
designer
Overtext pending moderation...
mbmbmbmbmb
Areinu wrote:
Giving large monsters 1 movement point cost for rotating and letting monsters move only once? So you're letting the monsters move 2-3 spaces per turn. Those are dragons, not oversized turtles.

Please, explain to me how fat goblin ecounter 1 is balanced with your rules. Goblins moving 5 spaces, heroes average of 8, dead monsters from open group taking years to get back to the battle, revived goblins taking few turns to get back... I don't see it ending in any other way than heroes saving all 4 crops.


We didn't play A Fat Goblin as part of our campaign using the variant rules, but I can tell you how the two games we played of it using the original rules played out: five goblins each move 10 spaces on first turn and are practically right next to the crops while the heroes are still fighting the merriods who are blocking their way and immobilizing them near the entrance. Second OL turn, four goblins are half-way back to their exit carrying a crop each (or doing even better with the help of Dash). Third OL turn, OL wins with 3-4 crops.

(By the way, if anyone is planning on picking the above description apart, that is just a fast-and-loose re-telling of the encounter, not a blow-by-blow account. The important part is that the heroes never saved more than 1 crop, and in both cases - each with a different group of heroes - they all said that it went way too quickly, and that the goblins being able to move 10 spaces each turn was insane).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rafal Areinu
Poland
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I will tell you how it went with us - we had 2 big monsters(giants if I recall) blocking the way. 2 heroes were needed to kill minion(they used 3 actions altogether). Next 3rd hero moved ahead and Runemaster Runewitch Astarra using her teleportation ability managed to get in really far.

On subsequent turn overlord managed to block 2 characters who killed 1st minion giant with freshly spawned minion and boss giant. He also was using stun as much as possible. Goblins moved 10 spaces.

It was first time Astarra had blast and she managed to get rid of 4 goblins with it(2 with first blast, 2 with second). After that heroes managed to safe 3 crops even though giants managed to block other 2 characters for most of the game(stuns). One of master goblins managed to steal one crop, but only barely got out alive(unlucky miss on Astarra's ranged shot).

Sure, Astarra gave us some additional range on 1st turn, but in retrospect we would move even further and wouldn't let OL divide the group if we used Syndrael's heroic ability on 1st turn.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris J Davis
United Kingdom
London
flag msg tools
designer
Overtext pending moderation...
mbmbmbmbmb
Okay - so we have different experiences of it. All I can say is that we played through a whole campaign with these rules and the result was a perfect 50/50 split win ratio for heroes and OL (if you don't include the finale quest, which the heroes won). There was only one situation where the rule changes resulted in something that seemed like a hopeless situation for one side (in that case, for me, the overlord) which was fixed by extending the "lieutenants may perform double actions" rule to named monsters. Apart from that, most quests resulted in very tense battles between each side, with a much more satisfying feeling of actually having accomplished something, rather than the quests being decided by the swinginess of just a few moves.

It was also much more satisfying for me as the OL feeling that I could now go all-out and pound on the heroes as much as possible in my effort to win. If I had done that under RAW, I would have just had some very pissed off heroes who felt like everything was hopeless.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christian Na
United States
California
flag msg tools
mb
Descent: Journeys in the Dark (Second Edition) » Forums » Variants
Re: Bleached Lizard's Revised Descent 2nd Edition
I think some 1st encounters feeling overly difficult is okay. Especially with Fat Goblin because the bonus for the OL stealing crops is not all that terrible. If the OL manages to steal little to no crops it becomes probably too easy for the heroes. I think it's important to keep in mind that the scenarios are not and should not be balanced exactly 50/50 for every hero makeup. In some scenarios a damage heavy group will do better whereas some scenarios a very mobile group will do better.

I am just trying to give you some constructive criticism man don't be so defensive. I already told you I appreciate what you're trying to do.

I still think you way overnerfed large monsters. Also the 50/50 split while it sounds nice may be due to several factors which scenarios exactly did the heroes win and which ones did they lose? What was the hero and class combinations and what was their gear like in each scenario? Moreover, one campaign probably isn't a good sample size as compared to the playtesting that probably already went into this game by FFG.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Prev «  1 , 2  | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.